Sitting of 18 May 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  9.34 am
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: I beg to move,
  That this House urges British Rail to give full and thorough consideration to proposals for a Channel Tunnel Rail Link based on a junction at Stratford, and to enter into professional discussions with those proposing the Stratford alternative before presenting their Private Bill to Parliament for a decision.
  I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on his appointment as Minister for Public Transport. I am pleased to see him in the Chamber in what I think is his first parliamentary role in his new office. He enjoys a high reputation in the House for his calm courtesy on all occasions, his ability to listen and his capacity to take action. I know that those three qualities will stand him in good stead in dealing with the issues that are before us.
  I shall explain how the motion came up for debate today. Some months ago I proposed, together with leading Members from all political parties in the House and all regions of the United Kingdom, an early-day motion urging British Rail to consider the alternatives before presenting to Parliament its proposals for a channel tunnel rail link. That all-party early-day motion attracted more than 100 signatures and, as is the custom when an early-day motion gains such widespread support in the House, I raised the matter at business questions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and asked him when time might be provided to debate that motion. He gave his customary answer of never. He wrapped it up a little more gently than that and said that the matter would he debated when British Rail came forward with its own proposals.
  Good fortune favours a good cause and a few days later I entered my name in the ballot for private Members' motions. Good fortune shone and I was drawn first in that ballot. I was given by fate the opportunity that the Leader of the House was not able to provide to have a debate on the motion.
  It is a matter of minuscule parliamentary precedent that this is the first early-day motion which, in its original form on the Order Paper, is being subjected to a full-scale debate. The Table Office tells me that its records for living memory do not show another such instance. Perhaps that is a precedent which might be reflected in other precedents that I shall seek to bring before the House later in my speech. I read on the front page of The Times this morning that the Cabinet will make a decision on this matter next week. I have no way of knowing whether that is true, but it means that this is an opportune moment to air the issues and ventilate the concerns.
  Perhaps I should explain how I first became involved in this matter and how my attention was drawn to the
  1126
  channel tunnel rail link problem. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that it was first a constituency concern. It was felt that there was the threat to my constituency that the British Rail proposals would do a great deal of damage. I make no apology for my concern having been attracted by the parochial principle. However, having looked at the detail of British Rail's proposals, and having seen the effect that they would have not only on my constituency but on south-east England and on the other regions of the United Kingdom, I began to realise the inadequacy of those proposals.
  Let us go back to basics. What is the purpose of a channel tunnel link? It should be to offer all parts of the United Kingdom—all the major cities, all the industrial conurbations and all the regions—the opportunity for a fast and direct link to continental mainland Europe. Furthermore, that link should not have a bottleneck or a buffer stop in London but should shift freight or convey passengers from any part of the United Kingdom to any part of continental Europe and link up with the continental rail system. British Rail's proposals singularly fail to do any of those things.
  In looking at any route that should fulfil the objective of being part of a strategic European rail network, one has to apply three criteria—operational, financial and environmental. First, any such route must be operationally effective. Secondly, by statutory provision it has to be financially self-supporting. Thirdly, and more important, it must be environmentally acceptable. It must cause the minimum environmental damage for the vast majority of people. The King's Cross rail route, the channel tunnel rail route and the King's Cross rail terminal must be measured against these criteria.
  Let us first see whether the channel tunnel plan is operationally effective. We are slightly in the dark because British Rail's proposals are not firmly on the table, but we have seen its first and second compromises and we have an idea of what it is proposing, so we can work on certain assumptions. For passengers, it proposes to run a line that will go through rural Kent from Ashford. It will touch on south-east London, going over bridges, viaducts and embankments above communities, close to schools and into King's Cross or Waterloo stations. This route is called a high-speed or fast-rail link. However, the optimum speed or more than 120 mph cannot be achieved if it is to take that route. The experience of rail disasters and tragedies that we have regrettably seen over the past few years shows that it would not be possible to run passenger trains on such a route. British Rail has said—I think that I am right, but no doubt I shall be corrected if I am not—that the time saved by this construction will be between a quarter of an hour and half an hour. I ask the House, as I would ask all who are affected by this and all who wish to see such a route constructed, whether the environmental damage is not too high a price to pay for such a minimal operational benefit.
  The only destination will be London. Passengers who want to go to Edinburgh, Liverpool, the west, Bristol, the south-west or south Wales will arrive at King's Cross station and will have to make their own arrangements, by other transport means, to cross London to, for example, Paddington or Heathrow.
  We are uncertain about exactly what the interchange arrangements for trains going north will be, but in most cases people will have to change trains to go beyond

  1127
  London. Those who feel, psychologically, temperamentally or nostalgically drawn to King's Cross as the gateway to the north will find that British Rail's proposals for a terminal at King's Cross do not meet the needs of a direct route through or around London for passengers who do not wish to stop at London.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bowden: I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to develop my argument a little further.
  British Rail's plans make the assumption that all passengers will be going to London. As I find this slightly strange, I wrote to the Secretary of State expressing my misgivings on 25 August 1989. I received a reply from the then Minister of State on 14 December, in which he said that 70 per cent. of passengers travelling on the route would have London as their destination. I wonder where that figure comes from. If that is the figure on which British Rail and the Department of Transport are working, there is a clear need to examine more closely the assumptions and presumptions on which the route is being built.
  One further operational point is worth raising now, although it can be developed later. It is that the track gauge used on the route will not harmonise with the gauge used on mainland Europe. Therefore, far from having a train that goes straight through from Brussels, Paris or Milan, passengers will have to change on to a British gauge train when they arrive here. The idea of a through train for passengers' convenience is lost. I wonder what benefit such a journey will offer over and above the existing travel arrangements by ferry boat and train or by plane.
  The provision for freight in British Rail's plans is basically nil. It proposes to run freight over existing lines, and there is to be no dedicated freight route. I find it extraordinary that it should not have looked on this as an opportunity. We convey far less of our freight by rail than any other nation in Europe. We complain about the congestion on our roads and we see great refrigerated vehicles trundling down from the north or Scotland and crossing on the ferries to deliver their merchandise to the capitals of Europe. It is absurd that there should be no provision for putting fish in refrigerated goods trains in Aberdeen and conveying it to the capitals of Europe in less than eight hours. British Rail has not even thought about this and has made no provision for dealing with freight either in London or through London and beyond.
  I have raised the matter with British Rail on several occasions and the answer given to me by a board member was that British Rail freight is not "time sensitive". What a wonderful phrase that is. It means that British Rail has no intention of making provision for fast-travelling freight or of competing with road transport to get freight that has to be delivered on time. That stands as an indictment of British Rail's development of its commercial aspects.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I fully support my hon. Friend's point about British Rail's apparent lack of any positive interest in achieving a proper slice of the freight market. It has given details of how little money there is in moving freight in Britain, but that is not a good enough excuse if we are to solve the environmental problem of pressure on the roads.
  Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing that point, with which many hon. Members agree.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: We all agree about British Rail's apparent lack of interest in freight. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have had conversations with British Rail officials? It is clear that their wish to concentrate as much traffic in London as they can get away with is related to the need for maximum return on capital invested in the route. Use of stock and lines predicates what they are suggesting, which is not to the convenience of the passengers. Is not that a result of Government financial policy, first, in requiring minimum capital and, secondly, maximum return on stock and route?
  Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is one step ahead of me. He anticipated what I shall say in a moment. If I do not answer his point directly, I shall do so in due course. We are in agreement.
  If freight and the so-called high-speed rail links are run over existing commuter lines, what consequences will it have for commuters who use those lines and who are suffering and complaining about the inadequacy of service? Operationally, many questions need to be asked. Many defects are immediately apparent, and BR has singularly failed to explain many aspects. Before a decision is made, there should be a searching inquiry into the operational benefits and defects of BR's proposals.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of freight, is not it extraordinary that British Rail has not fully explored the possibility of developing the links between Tonbridge, Redhill and Reading and the midlands and the north?
  Mr. Bowden: I find extraordinary not only that but the fact that BR has not explored any of the other alternatives in detail or depth.
  Someone said to me the other day, "From the way that you are speaking, it seems you have a vision of a rail network. Is that really a Tory characteristic?" I said, "Yes, I have a vision of a rail network in Britain linking with the transport network in Europe". I find regrettable the lack of vision of BR's board—indeed, its tunnel vision. The only vision that members of the BR board have is that which they see from their boardroom window during their coffee break, when they look out of the Euston road boardroom and see the King's Cross development. I wonder how many members of the board have been on the alternative routes, have even considered the alternative proposals or have visited Stratford. It calls into question the role of the BR board, which is appointed to serve the public interest, and it shows that BR probably relied on so-called experts within its organisation to feed it what it thinks it should be fed.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Does my hon. Friend recall that his point was almost fantastically reinforced by the admission that BR made about its original proposals to drive a route through a brand-new housing estate in my constituency? It admitted that nobody had been down the chosen route. What on earth would possibly induce it to consider any alternative?
  Mr. Bowden: It is a pity that BR did not travel by train along the proposed route because it would have found that there are some defects in it.

  1129
  I turn to the second criterion—finance. Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 makes it clear that the route should be self-financing. The route chosen by BR goes through mid-Kent and some of not only the most beautiful but the most expensive land in the country. It is also some of the most difficult terrain on which to engineer and construct. That causes additional expense. The route goes through housing estates which BR had not realised were there. How could it cost the compensation claims without knowing where the line of the route went? That leaves one with grave misgivings about its professionalism in costing the route.
  Undeterred, British Rail sought the public sector partner that it had been encouraged to seek for finance. Although I was not party to the discussions, it was clear that the public sector partners with which it flirted were unable to see how the route into King's Cross could possibly be self-financing. One way or another, all partners failed, except Trafalgar House. For the convenience of hon. Members I shall not refer to the corporate names that consortiums have used because we are all confused about Eurorail and Kentrail. Eurorail was formed with Trafalgar House, which agreed with BR to construct the route and that it would be self-financing. It was not surprising to the other groups that had made a hid that, having opened the books, Trafalgar House found that there was no way in which the BR-preferred route could be self-supporting or self-financing and that it would be necessary to seek public money.
  I shall deal briefly with the environmental criteria and how BR's preferred route measures up to them. The route drives through some of the most beautiful landscape in the south-east of England and some of the most beautiful farm land, which we see as our heritage as well as protective of rural life and fostering rural communities. It drives through small communities, small villages and densely populated south-east London urban areas. It does so not underground but, in many places, above ground, with all the environmental damage and danger that that implies. It will cause not only long-term nuisance and environmental damage, but during the construction period it will cause considerable short-term nuisance.
  I know that only too well in my constituency. Warwick gardens—I see my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) in her place—is temperamentally Peckham but technically Dulwich. I speak for Warwick gardens, which people believe is in the Peckham area. Some years ago, it was run down, but it has regenerated itself by the commitment of those who live there and those who have moved in. The human tragedy of the threat of blight caused by these insensitive proposals shows that there is something gravely wrong with planning a route without consulting in advance the communities that it deeply affects.
  I know that many other hon. Members are aware of similar anguish being expressed by communities affected by the threat of blight. Those who participated last year in the marches through London and saw the banners from all parts of the community and all parts of the south-east realised that there was a great force of opposition to such a wasteful threat to the environment.
  As I have said, there is no real benefit to the commuter, to the continental passenger or to the freight shipper in the King's Cross terminal and route proposals. Who does benefit from the route? I am indebted to my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for
  1130
  Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for prompting consideration of that point. I discovered that an amendment to my early-day motion 692 used the phrase "developer-led". I was amazed by the use of that phrase and decided to delve a little more into what that might mean.
  A letter was sent to hon. Members who had signed the early-day motion, with the exception of the six leading signatories, by Mr. J. Palmer, the managing director of European Rail Link, which is a part venture with Trafalgar House and BICC. He used that same phrase in attempting to disparage the alternatives. He said:
  "Alternative proposals for direct links from Stratford to the city, King's Cross, Heathrow and the Midlands, North and Scotland, appear to have been grafted on to developer led plans."
  It appears that that piece of jargon is used not only in our Order Paper but in the wider world. That prompted me to trawl through the evidence given to the Committee considering the King's Cross Bill, which began its work last June but which has not yet reported. The report of its proceedings is interesting to read, not so much because of the questions that were answered, as because of those that were not even asked. On Tuesday 12 December Mr. Godfrey Bradman, one of the developers, was asked in some detail about the terms on which British Rail would develop the King's Cross site and how Trafalgar House was linked with that development. The Chairman said:
  "Those are assurances that we have been given by BR in this Committee; we want to know whether they are convincing to you."
  Mr. Bradman replied:
  "I think what you need to have if I may say so is Mr. John Fletcher of Eurorail to whom I spoke as recently as yesterday; he has said that he would be very happy to come and give evidence".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), a member of the Committee, took up that point. It draws to the attention of the House the unsatisfactory way in which fact and truth emerge from such questioning. He said:
  "No, every time we come up against a brick wall it is suggested we call somebody else for evidence."
  That shows that we should more closely investigate the terms under which King's Cross is to be developed and the implications for the channel tunnel rail link—or, the other way around, the implications of the channel tunnel rail link going into King's Cross and the proposed development of that site.
  I believe that such tactics are called the salami strategy. It is tactically useful for British Rail to produce a Bill that covers only the tunnel aspect. It makes no mention of what happens after the tunnel or any further along the line, British Rail having obtained the tunnel, the next slice of the salami is the terminal, which is to be at King's Cross —yet still no mention is made of how one gets between one and the other. When those who might be on the route between one and the other attempt to make representations, the narrow interpretation of the locus standi rule, imposed by the Court of Referees, denies hon. Members whose constituencies will be affected the opportunity to give evidence, to petition or even to ask questions of that Committee. For that reason it would be useful today to pose the questions that the Committee should have asked the developers.
  What is the relationship between the developers of the King's Cross site and British Rail and its venture partner Trafalgar House? Is Trafalgar House a developer connected with the King's Cross development as well as

  1131
  being part of the joint venture arrangement? What is the value of the development at King's Cross? The rental value per square foot in the location of King's Cross may be £x. If, however it is developed as a terminal for the channel tunnel rail link, tenants and their clients could simply go downstairs, get on the train and be in Paris or Brussels in two and a half hours. The rental value would then be not £x but £3x, £4x or £5x per square foot. The value of the King's Cross development depends very much upon the likelihood of its becoming the channel tunnel rail link terminal. I wonder whether there is a sine qua non in the arrangements, whereby if there is no rail link the development might not even take place, or if it did, not on the same terms.
  Mr. Graham Allen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on drawing first place in the ballot. As he knows, I came second. I have already told him that had I been first, I would have given him half the time available. Whether he will reciprocate is another matter.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to salami tactics. There is a problem for potential supporters of the Stratford interchange. If the line runs from the channel tunnel to Stratford, is there a danger that the next slice of salami from Stratford to King's Cross might not be constructed? The hon. Gentleman appears to be considerably downgrading the King's Cross terminal. The stretch from Stratford to King's Cross would be very expensive. I represent constituents in the east midlands whose line is not electrified, so they are already at a disadvantage. We are worried that the line might go only to Stratford, and not on to King's Cross. If that happens, it would not then continue to the east midlands and most of the traffic would go up the east coast. A number of people who are potential supporters of the hon. Gentleman's arguments wish him to clarify that point.
  Mr. Bowden: I do not know how long the debate will take, but obviously it needs to run long enough to allow all who wish to speak to do so. I hope that I have as much generosity of spirit as the hon. Gentleman and, if it were within my power, I would give half of my time to him as he said he would give to me. However, that is the world of hypothesis.
  We must question the relationship of the developers not only with British Rail but with the Government. They want to develop a line and a terminal. They have international tenants waiting who would love to have an international office block with fast links to continental Europe. However, they have found public opposition on a scale which I, for one, have never previously encountered. People who are inexperienced in protest have turned out on Sundays and marched through the south-east in lines of tens of thousands to tell the Government that the plans are unacceptable. That public opposition is no mean feature.
  There is also the question of delay. Every time that occurs in the making of a decision, then, to use a developer's phrase, the window of opportunity is closed in respect of making a letting to the right tenant. There is also the cost factor. It is clear that the link cannot be constructed in the way that British Rail proposes without money from other public funds. I suggest that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put yourself in the developers' shoes.
  1132
  What should they do? Perhaps I should not put you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to that inconvenience. Instead, I shall put myself in their shoes.
  Perhaps I should declare a past interest. Twenty years ago, I was involved in the property development industry and know it to be an honourable profession, and one which makes a great contribution to the nation's well-being. Having served an apprenticeship in that profession, I subsequently taught young people who were destined to enter it, and was able to pass on some of my own experience.
  I place myself in the shoes of developers facing the problem of public opposition, delay and cost, and wonder how I would tackle them. I shall paint a scenario. First, I would circulate rumours among the press and other media to the effect that, "The Minister must give the go-ahead at once." Secondly, I would spread the rumours that, "The Minister must fund the project with some public money." Having let those two rumours mature for a little time, I would beat a path to the Minister's door and deliver my ultimatum, saying, "Pay up now, or we pull out—and then where will your Government be?" Having allowed him to digest that, I would try the soft touch, saying, "I know that you must avoid section 42 of the Channel Tunnel act 1987. I know that financing is statute-barred and that you cannot be seen to devote public money to the project. But let us dress it up in some way. Let us call it an environmental grant. Let us say the money is being used to minimise the impact of the rail link on the environment. If you don't like that, let us call it a commuter services upgrading allowance. Let us say that the money will be used to improve Network SouthEast to the benefit of all, so that it will not be seen as a subsidy for the channel tunnel link. Wrap it up in pink paper, tie a ribbon around it, and the public will feel that they are giving a present to a good cause."
  That is how one might try to sell such a proposal to any Minister. One would put the wind up him and then show him the way out. But decisions made in those circumstances would be bad decisions, reached without considering the defects of the proposals or the benefits of the alternatives. No amount of public money can make a bad scheme good. In those circumstances, it would be a financial insult to devote public money to an existing environmental injury.
  Mr. David Shaw: Has my hon. Friend taken into account that the channel tunnel project itself has grotesquely overrun its original financial projections? It is extremely unlikely that shareholders will ever see a return on their initial investment, and they may be required to put up another £1 billion or £2 billion later this year. As a consequence, when considering the rail link, one inevitably asks why the Government should become involved in putting up taxpayers' money for what will be a high-risk project.
  Mr. Bowden: And an inefficient high-risk project, at that.
  I turn to the proposed procedure and timing. Right hon. and hon. Members are more than familiar with the timing requirements of private Bills. They must be deposited by 27 November, and then lie on the Table until the end of January, to allow objections to be raised and petitions to be presented.
  Mr. John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but I am not sure that his facts are right. I raised that aspect with the appropriate authorities of the House, and established that there are a number of precedents for depositing important Bills after November, particularly with a Bill that is likely to span two parliamentary Sessions. That allows proper consideration to be given to alternatives.
  Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. No doubt those who take decisions about when the Bill is deposited and how it is to be dealt with will take them into account. However, they do not detract from the point I was about to make.
  When the Channel Tunnel Bill came before the House, there were 5,000 petitions against it, which took a considerable time to screen and hear. If there were 5,000 petitions against the tunnel itself, how many more petitions will there be against a Bill to provide a rail link with it through Kent and south-east London into King's Cross? One could probably multiply those 5,000 petitions by five. The likelihood of there being 25,000 petitions against such a proposal is no more than a conservative estimate. It would take us from, say, January 1991 until June of that year to hear all those petitions and to have them screened by the Court of Referees.
  The Bill might receive its Second Reading in June 1991 and then go into Committee. The King's Cross terminal Bill went into Committee last June, and technically it is still in Committee one year on. The proposed new Bill might emerge from Committee in 1992 and be reported to the House—but June 1992 is also the buffer stop for a general election. If we believe that we can solve the problem, we must solve it in a way that allows us to persuade the electorate that we have the right answer. It would not just be an election issue in the south-east—it would be the election issue.
  The alternative might be a hybrid Bill. Wearing my property developer's hat, I might say to the Minister, "Come on. Join in on this one. Make it a hybrid Bill. Get your commitment behind it. Make your payroll vote support it, and we will get it through." That might work in certain circumstances, but I am told by more experienced people with wiser heads than mine that success in politics is often, if not always, a matter of timing.
  The timing of a hybrid Bill would present exactly the same problems as those that I described in relation to a private Bill. It might have a certain amount of Government commitment and would technically be a Government Bill. However, that would not lessen the number of objections and petitions, which I believe would still number around 25,000—so its Committee stage would not be shortened. Even a hybrid Bill would still be a major issue in the next general election.
  There is an alternative strategy and alternative routes that command support from the majority of people involved either in the route alignment or at the destinations. The alternatives should be examined, because there is no way that British Rail's Bill can be put through before the next general election, or even in time to straddle that election.
  Why not consider the alternatives, which might command support, might not generate public opposition, might meet the self-financing cost requirement and might obviate some of the delay?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman turns to specific alternatives, does he agree that the timing of the debate is all-important? If British Rail made an announcement within the next few weeks without taking into account what he and all hon. Members anticipate will be universal disapproval for the likely proposals, and if it ignores voices from all parts of the country asking for a total rethink, which will benefit all the regions—Scotland, Wales, London and the south-east—it will cause British Rail, the Government and any other supporters of BR immense difficulty.
  I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to think that he is trying to get a solution that will be acceptable throughout the House and the country. Before any specific alternatives are canvassed I hope that the key point in his remarks will be taken up—that British Rail must not ignore the strongest possible pleas for it to stop going down a second wrong route and must listen to the unanimous call for it to consider all the alternatives suggested in the House today.
  Mr. Bowden: I think that the hon. Member is saying that timing is all-important, as I suggested a moment ago, and that there is no point in foisting the wrong route upon the country because BR needs to make a decision now. That would only generate further delay because of opposition along the route. If the right route is found, one which fulfils the three criteria, it will obviate the need for delay and will have widespread acceptance. Therefore it could go through the parliamentary procedures with far fewer obstacles and with a fair wind from both sides of the House behind it.
  Four main alternatives have been suggested in detail. They are known by the acronyms TALIS and RACHEL. Those two routes are the work of groups which are not professionally sponsored but comprise professionals with experience of civil engineering and railroad building. Indeed, I believe that some had experience of building railways in other parts of the world and could therefore claim to have more professional expertise than many people in British Rail.
  In addition to those two route alignments, two other sponsors made proposals—Ove Arup, a prominent civil engineering consortium and Manufacturers Hanover Trust, which has experience of bringing together groups for this type of development. There are two professional consortia and two professional proposals. It is not the point of my speech to single out which proposal is better. That needs to be done at a more professional level within British Rail and the Department of Transport. However all the proposals have one thing in common—they recognise the concept of a Euro-rail link and the need for a strategic integrated transport plan for the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, and they all recognise the need to avoid every piece of freight and passenger going through central London whatever its destination in the United Kingdom.
  All the proposals start with a route alignment through north-east Kent rather than mid-Kent and through south-east Essex rather than into King's Cross and one knows not where from there. Benefits flow from that route. The consortia should capitalise on any agreement among themselves. Taking the route through north-east Kent is the idea that they all seem to have in common. Thereby, they will take the route through one of the most deprived

  1135
  parts of the south-east where there is a fair amount of derelict industrial land and the local communities could benefit from an economic uplift. Any such route, with its freight and passenger transport potential, would introduce new jobs and give a boost to the industrial economy. We should consider the issue not only from the benefit to be gained from operation of the route, but from the intrinsic value it will have for the community through which it passes.
  Something someone said a moment ago reminded me of an early meeting I attended with the protest group in which I take an interest, Pearl, which is concerned mainly with the Warwick gardens area. We went to a meeting at British Rail headquarters and met a group of middle managers—not the top brass. Someone said that the TALIS and RACHEL routes ought to be considered. British Rail said that it had considered one—TALIS, I think—and was now considering the other. We asked who was looking at it. Was it an independent consultant? BR said, "Yes, Transmark is looking at it."
  I found out that Transmark is a subsidiary of British Rail and its affairs are mentioned in the BR balance sheet. Surprise, surprise—in the first instance Transmark came up with a report on TALIS, I think, saying that that proposal was rubbish. We then discussed the RACHEL route and asked what would happen if Transmark, British Rail's subsidiary, found in favour of RACHEL or found good points in that proposal. The phrase, "fell about" describes the way that British Rail's middle management reacted. They laughed and slapped their sides at the idea that Transmark would find in favour of an alternative. Someone pressed the point and asked the question again. I remember the substance of what was said—although the person with whom I checked takes a different view. I think that one of them said, "We would lose our jobs," and another said, "We should all resign." Whichever way one looks at it, they were saying that their employment with British Rail would somehow terminate. I cite that as an example of the fact that one cannot rely on British Rail having an independent assessment of the alternatives unless it is forced to do so.
  A biblical quotation describes the situation but it escapes me. I do not remember the exact words, but I suspect that part of Transmark's job was to point out the speck of dust in the eye of the other proposal, to distract attention from the lump of concrete in its own. I think that that is the modern translation rather than the original authorised version, but the sense is there.
  Are the alternatives operationally effective? Let us consider the proposals on an operational basis. They would allow freight and passengers to be conveyed at speed to and beyond London along routes which are easy to engineer. They would provide a direct bypass to the city for passengers and freight not destined to remain in London. Although there is no point or purpose in trying to suggest costings today, it is obvious, even to those not experienced in property values, that acquiring industrial derelict land in north-east Kent will be cheaper, in terms of the amount of compensation that will have to be paid, than acquiring highly expensive farming and residential land in mid-Kent and south-east London.
  If Stratford were a passenger terminal, people would be able to park and ride—to go by car to Stratford, as they
  1136
  might to an airport. They would not be able to do that at King's Cross. What is even more important, Stratford is not regarded as a terminal. Manufacturers Hanover Trust and Ove Arup, the promoters of the two main schemes, have said that repeatedly. In all their communications with hon. Members and at all their meetings they have made it clear that they do not believe that Stratford should be a terminal but that it should be a bypass junction for those who wish to go beyond London.
  An essential feature is that there should be a connection between Stratford and the west country. Passenger and freight trains destined for the west country would go from the channel tunnel port to Stratford, turn left by means of a constructed tunnel or existing route, to the City—perhaps via Fenchurch street to King's Cross, touching the King's Cross development—and then carry on to Paddington, Heathrow, Bristol and the west. An essential feature of the strategy is that the route from Stratford to the west would take in mid-town London, west London and the City. It is that essential feature, put forward in the alternatives, which British Rail has consistently denied is there. By means of misinformation and disinformation it has insisted that that is the greatest inadequacy and deficiency of the alternative proposals.
  There would also be a not too difficult method of taking passengers and freight to the north-east and the north-west. Stratford could be linked with the routes to the north, either by a route north of King's Cross or by going through King's Cross. That would make Stratford a junction point in a national network; it would not be just a terminal. That is the most important aspect of the alternative proposals.
  A passenger and freight alignment along the lines that I have suggested could be designed to the continental gauge. The United Kingdom route would then harmonise with the European gauge and there would be no need to change trains when passengers and freight arrived in this country. That is the main benefit of the alternatives. Routes along those alignments and the development of Stratford would generate their own financial support.
  Mr. Richard Holt: For the benefit of my constituents in the north-east, can my hon. Friend confirm that his plan would not be to the detriment of my constituency and that it would not slow down the opportunities for development in the north-east, bearing in mind in particular the Government's mule-headed attitude towards a proper motorway to the north-east of England?
  Mr. Bowden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to elaborate on that point. British Rail's preferred route with a terminal at King's Cross, would be of little benefit to those in the north-east, certainly to industrialists who want to shift freight. They would have to find a way to get it to London and then to a terminal, be it at Willesden or Stratford, so that their freight could reach the fast link network. If, however, a freight line went through Stratford, freight could be sent to the rest of the country on the continental gauge. It would be a progressive development. The Stratford option offers more to those in the north and west of England than British Rail's proposals. British Rail has sold its proposals as being the only way in which the north-east, the north-west, Scotland and the south-west can be accommodated. The reverse is the case.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman referred to the progressive development of his preferred option. Hon. Members with constituencies in the north believe that the planning by both the Department of Transport and the Government has failed to take account of the need to integrate transport systems as quickly as possible with the channel tunnel link. We need access to the tunnel at the greatest possible speed so that the north of England and Scotland can take advantage of all the benefits. We must not be marginalised, simply because we cannot gain access to the tunnel.
  Mr. Bowden: I am grateful for the opportunity to try to dispel any misapprehension that there may be in the north about my proposal. Many of us came to the issue because of the need to protect our constituencies from the threat, but the more that we looked at the proposals the more we realised their inadequacy and how little, if anything, they offered to regions other than London and the south-east. The movement of freight and passengers to the north, the north-east and the north-west, bypassing London, could be based on Stratford without the delays, bottlenecks and the interchange of trains that would be necessary at King's Cross. It would allow for the development of lines northwards on a gauge that harmonised with the rest of Europe. Passengers and freight from the north would be able to stay on one train and not have to get out of it until they reached their destination in Europe. That objective is enshrined in the alternative proposals. If the hon. Gentleman has not received the details that make that clear in black and white, I shall ensure that he receives them. The proposal based on Stratford offers infinitely more to the United Kingdom than British Rail's King's Cross proposal.
  I do not propose to deal in detail with the Ove Arup or the Manufacturers Hanover Trust proposals. They have been sent to hon. Members and I know that many of them want to speak in the debate. However, I end on a note that is often struck in the press: the French do it differently and the French do it better. They have adopted a strategic approach to the transport link—a grand design that links up the whole of France. They have decided that if there is to be a link between Lille, Bordeaux, Lyon and the channel tunnel, the people who live in those towns will not want to go through central Paris. They have bypassed Paris by means of a line to the east. Interestingly enough, our alternative proposals bypass London with a line to the east. The French avoided taking the line through the centre of their capital—in contrast to what British Rail proposes to do at King's Cross.
  The French have also optimised the opportunity to bring prosperity and industry and therefore to improve the economy of depressed areas. Certain towns in northern France have begged the authorities to allow the rail line to go through their region because it would lead to spin off developments. The Stratford alternative would offer similar opportunities. It would go through land that does not enjoy the benefit of the prosperity that is found elsewhere. Moreover, the French have decided to link the line to the Disney theme park to be built in France. Proposals are afoot for developing Rainham marshes in Essex as an international theme park. The alternative link would take passengers from continental Europe directly to the theme park without passengers having to go to King's Cross and change trains to get to the Rainham area.
  1138
  The alternative proposals ought to be considered seriously by British Rail instead of being rubbished by it in a programme of disinformation and misinformation to hon. Members suggesting that the only solution is the one that British Rail prefers.
  The more one considers the proposals, the more one realises that they are wrong. I have not approached the matter negatively. There is a way forward. British Rail should talk seriously to the promoters of the alternative proposals and use a clean slate, without its existing commitments and loyalties pre-determining its approach. We need to find an alignment that serves those who wish to come to London, keeps away the threat of blight from the areas that many of us represent and provides a system that not only is part of an integrated road and rail transport infrastructure in this country but is linked to an integrated transport system for Europe. This is not an idealistic grand vision but a realistic way of looking at the problem. If we miss this opportunity, the effects will last for many years, at great expense and resulting in great tragedy.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Many of us would echo the sentiments expressed in the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and would congratulate him on his choice of subject. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), in whose constituency the possible Stratford terminal will lie, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his motion. In the past hour and 10 minutes, he has ranged over the problems and shown us its many facets. My only quarrel with an otherwise excellent round-up concerns the gauge—the loading gauge in the United Kingdom is more restricted than that on the continent, but the track gauge is not; it is the same—Stephenson. British Rail has said that it will run British Rail size coaches to the continent but the reverse will not be possible. There will be some restriction on freight but, happily, I do not think that it will be necessary to change trains or bogies as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  We welcome the Minister of State to what I believe is his first main debate on these matters. He will listen, as his predecessor did, but, ironically, his predecessor's political beliefs have put him and the Government on the hook. The hook on which the Government and British Rail are impaled is their refusal to provide the capital infrastructure for a new, 21st century railway line, coupled with—a poisonous combination—the requirement or preference for some developer-led finance. Those two matters form the basis for the hook on which not only the Minister and the Government but the hapless officials of British Rail are constantly twisting to every turn either of St. Bartholomew's hospital or of the various developers who come along.
  I do not have all that much sympathy for British Rail officials, who do not seem to run our railways as well as they might, but the Government are breathing down their necks and telling them to make all the economies that they can. By chance, I have just returned from Victoria station, having travelled overnight by train from Brussels.
  Mr. Tony Banks: You old tripper!
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend says that I am a tripper. I was listening to the golden, honeyed words of Mr. Giscard d'Estaing and Mr. Jacques Delors—but that is another topic.
  Had I travelled overnight to or from Brussels 55 years ago, I should have had a much better deal, as I did a few years' ago when I could go to Victoria station on foot, climb aboard a sleeper and wake somewhere past Lille. Alas, the night ferry has disappeared and its substitute is poor. The overnight train advertised as travelling to places such as Cologne and Brussels stops at every station between Bromley and Faversham. Returning this morning, we had a two-hour wait at Dover and joined the first commuter train at 4.45 from Dover Priory, which was naturally liable to be overcrowded as it neared Victoria. That is the standard to which British Rail treats us.
  I commend the fact that British Rail is to have a spanking new vessel on which to put a few coaches. You may have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in a few years' time one would be able to stroll over Westminster bridge, climb aboard the new super-train at Waterloo and perhaps settle down to a nice dinner, just as you do on your way to Bristol and as my hon. Friends do on their way to places such as Manchester, but no such luck! Having spotted the design of the new super-trains, I wrote to British Rail about this. British Rail replied that it could not afford the lavish restaurant facilities that it has on its domestic services, so there will be meals at one's seat only rather like the service on the otherwise excellent TGVs and on aeroplanes, which people wish to avoid.
  Mr. Rowe: The vision that the hon. Gentleman conjured up was enchanting, but he left it unpeopled. The congestion that will be caused by using Waterloo as the central terminal for the cross-channel traffic will mean that the hon. Gentleman will be dodging his way across Waterloo bridge among a horde of pedestrians.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman may be right. That is yet another limitation to the plan.
  I suggest that there are four desiderata with which we all agree. First, we must have a 21st century railway which fits in with the continental system and our own and must be built to have minimal environmental impact. Secondly, that railway will serve the whole of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the arrangements for stations in London—I emphasise the plural "stations" and not "terminal"—must meet the strategic planning needs of London and Londoners. Fourthly, there should be sufficient through-running of passengers and freight across or around London.
  As I understand it, most of those criteria are not permitted by the infrastructure costs laid down by the Government.
  Ms. Harriet Harman: None of them is.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend says that none of them is permitted. That shows the inadequacy of the present plans. The King's Cross solution is impaled on the developers' hook, off which they may have been pushed by the intervention of St. Bartholomew's hospital.
  There is also the disadvantage of the south London problem. One either uses the route south from King's Cross on the existing overcrowded lines of Thameslink and Network SouthEast, which would add difficulties and use scarce tracks, or one has to build expensive tunnels
  1140
  through the water-laden gravels of the area. British Rail seems to have tried to get round the problem by what is known as the Swanley solution, which makes one's mind boggle. The idea of having a "terminal" somewhere near the M25, not coming through London on dedicated tracks to link up with the rest of the national system, seems rather strange. There would be a link, of course, but nothing more than that provided by the South East Chatham Railway nearly a century ago.
  The south London problem is, in a sense, the bottleneck and the strategic geographical problem on which most of these matters turn. The hon. Member for Dulwich listed the names which have become familiar—TALIS, RACHEL and Ove Arup. As he rightly said, the south London problem is avoided by having a north Thames crossing, somewhere between south-east Essex and Barking. I think that strategically that is probably right, although I dissent from the idea of its being developer-led, whether in Rainham—a controversial development—the Maidstone parkway or nationally.
  If we are to get it right, I suggest that bringing greater development in and around the railway to fund it would denude other parts of Britain of opportunities, and is thus not something that either the House or the country would wish to see. Therefore, while TALIS, RACHEL and Ove Arup are on the right lines, I still believe that any contribution made to them by developers, or any dependence which is placed on their developments, is almost certainly wrong.
  What we might describe as the north Thames solution has other implications, especially for London's strategic planning. The hon. Member for Dulwich touched on that when he referred to Stratford, an area in Newham which is not necessarily opposed to having an intercontinental or a continental station. Stratford's links are already pretty good. The House has passed a Bill for a direct extension of the Jubilee line from central London to Stratford.
  Of course, the Government may choose CrossRail, which is part of the London scheme. If they did, not only would there be three direct links from Stratford into central London, by the Central line, the Jubilee line and CrossRail—I assure Conservative Members that CrossRail would take only 10 minutes to reach the west end or the City—but the line could go out to Heathrow, up to Stansted or through to King's Cross secondary station with all the links to the north and the west. What better solution could there be? If CrossRail was used initially as that link, the costs might be less than for a dedicated track, although I agree that ultimately London should have dedicated tunnels, preferably to the Union Internationale de Chemins de Fer B-plus loading gauge.
  Mr. Allen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I apologise for having missed the first few minutes of his speech.
  What worries me and other people in the east midlands is the concept of a secondary station at King's Cross. We are worried that virtually all rail traffic will be filtered out at Stratford and that there will be very little incentive to complete an effective link from Stratford to King's Cross and St. Pancras, which is one of the main routes to the east midlands, including Leicester, Derby and Nottingham. As I said when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), we already labour under the

  1141
  problem of not having an electrified line to the east midlands main line. Would not these proposals present a further problem?
  Both the hon. Member for Dulwich and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) need to reassure people in the east midlands that the channel link will be completed through to King's Cross and St. Pancras, that it will be a first-class link and that not only will traffic go through the channel tunnel, but much of it will be enabled to come up to the east midlands. If my hon. Friend fails to do that, we would be as well to stick to the present option.
  Mr.. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention because it allows me to describe what I believe is the geographical and operational position, which is not entirely clear to some of my hon. Friends representing the midlands and the north. The fears about through-running could apply to King's Cross and to the existing ThamesLink routes, as currently planned. The problem that I dealt with earlier when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Dulwich is that British Rail wants to get the maximum return from "high quality" coaches zipping to and fro, rather than from through-running. So, we have that problem in any case.
  Personally, I do not want to see any disadvantage in the Stratford case—and I do not think that there is any. As I have said, even without CrossRail, there are already physical links from Stratford to most of the lines to the north-west, the midlands and the great north. With a few little additions, that line could do as well as a dedicated track. The guts of the problem lie in persuading British Rail and the operators to through-run.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) may like to know that I have always backed a rolling plan for electrification, but British Rail and the Government seem to have got it wrong. The east midlands main line is a four-track main line and would, I understand, provide one of the best options for the modification to the UIC B-plus gauge for the whole country. My hon. Friend can be assured that, whatever the problems, the Stratford option would not add to them and would, I believe, be the correct strategy.
  One problem which has not so far been divulged about TALIS, RACHEL, Ove Arup and the north Thames solution—other than the unsatisfactory nature of British Rail's "Swanley Solution"—is that British Rail has signed a contract with Eurotunnel with regard to train paths to the tunnel. We know that the tunnel is to be shared between the so-called "ferry traffic" and the so-called "railway traffic". I understand that British Rail has purchased or has an agreement about the proportion that it will run, and no doubt has also made a commercial agreement, which is doubtless highly secret, about how much it will pay. It has been suggested that any other route suggested by any other promoter could not have access through the tunnel section because British Rail has already written the contract.
  We seem to be back in the 19th century with railway Bills, tracks and all the rest of it. That is one reason why the Government must come clean. If they have a hidden card in their hand—which may be revealed in the House today if the Minister confirms it or otherwise in his reply —however good all the alternatives that have been suggested, they will not wash because the agreements have already been made.
  1142
  I conclude by assessing the present position as I see it. British Rail and others are planning routes that we do not want. A number of other routes might be better, but at the moment it looks as though we shall not get them. We do not have any strategic planning for our railways for the 21st century. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has some sound ideas about that, but we have not even reached the stage that the French and the Germans reached, not now but a century ago, when they planned their railways properly. Those who know railway history may recall that even the great Mr. Gladstone was inclined to say that, like the telephone and postal services, railways were so important that they should be publicly planned and even publicly funded. If that were the view now, we should not be discussing the Government's inadequate and feeble planning with which we are confronted at the moment.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It is evident that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I hope that Members will help each other by making short speeches.
  10.57 am
  Sir Peter Blaker: As the Member for a north-west constituency, I want to make the point that the siting of the second London terminal has major implications for all regions north of London and for Scotland. The House knows the important part that industry and business in the north play in the economy of the country. My own region, the north-west, makes the second highest regional contribution to the gross domestic product.
  Like other regions north of London, the north-west wants to play its full part in exploiting the opportunities that the single market will provide, but it cannot do so unless first-class communications are available, both from the region to London and the south, and from the region directly through to the continent via the channel tunnel.
  The transport infrastructure will be a key to capitalising on the economic opportunities of 1992 and later. The north-west has the most to gain and the most to lose from the channel tunnel. It is the largest single market area for international rail freight and passenger services outside the south-east and stands to gain from both the increased export opportunities and the increased opportunities for tourism. Many more visitors are already coming to the region.
  There is real concern in the north-west and, I am sure, in many other regions, about the delay in reaching decisions on both the siting of the tracks to and from the tunnel, and the location of the new rail terminal in London itself.
  Decisions must be taken or confirmed now, with national rather than purely London and south-east interests in mind. For that reason I must express my anxiety that we are debating a motion which raises fresh doubts about the location of the new international rail terminal for London. It opens up again the controversy about the siting of the international terminal. King's Cross has enormous advantages over Stratford and the location of the terminal there is important to the national interest. That is the overwhelming opinion in the north-west.

  1143
  It seems ridiculous to suggest, as I understand is being suggested, that there should be three London terminals —Waterloo, King's Cross and Stratford. Surely, King's Cross, with its central location and with the nearby stations of Euston and St. Pancras, is the hub of London communications. Some 60 per cent. of all London underground stations, through five main underground networks, are connected directly with King's Cross, and the proposed travelator, linking it with Euston, would certainly enhance its role. Another advantage of King's Cross is that by a minor upgrading of the existing route through west Hampstead, it could, and with little additional expenditure would, have a direct rail link with the west coast main line.
  I welcome British Rail's plan to use King's Cross as the London international terminal and I hope that we can give our backing to it so that it can proceed as quickly as possible. However, my enthusiasm for British Rail in this connection is tempered by the lack of planned investment in effective, high-speed, rail tracks coupled with suitable terminal facilities in the north-west. My parliamentary colleagues and I will make the case for progress with increasing vigour over the coming months. I, and no doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), will continue to press the case for electrification of the line from Manchester to our constituencies.
  I again stress the need to make real progress quickly with the development of our communications from the north and the midlands to the channel tunnel.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Blaker: I should prefer not to give way as many hon. Members wish to speak.
  A decision on the siting of the London terminal needs to be taken without more delay. My belief and that of the vast majority of those involved in commerce and industry in the north-west is that King's Cross is the natural and sensible choice for the new London terminal. I hope that today's debate will show the strength of that view and the anxieties of hon. Members that this motion, calling for yet another alternative to be considered, will only delay mattersfurther.
  11.1 am
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I welcome the speech of the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and echo his remarks. Like him, I represent the north-west—I am a Cheshire Member of Parliament—and we are extremely worried at the delay which could result from today's debate.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in a clever intervention said that if the House today makes it clear that it is dissatisfied with King's Cross and British Rail, and is, therefore, by implication in favour of Stratford or some other alternative, British Rail will have to listen to that opinion. That may be true. The danger is that few northern Members attend the House on a Friday. It is a London day, for logistical reasons. It is not because northern Members are idle, but they must return to their constituencies, whereas London Members can attend to constituency duties at the weekend. It has always
  1144
  been so. I and, no doubt, the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South, the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), have stayed because we fear that delay or worse could result from this motion.
  No matter what has been said about British Rail, and I endorse a great deal of what was said about its management, King's Cross is a natural point for the north of England—not only the north-west, but the northern consortium which includes Yorkshire, Lancashire, Merseyside and Cheshire. Those regions are in favour of King's Cross because of its obvious geographical location and its obvious advantages for passengers from the north.
  It is deplorable that British Rail will not provide more through trains in the early years of the tunnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I both want to be able to get on a train in Manchester or Crewe and get off in Paris or Brussels. We do not want to have to change, but British Rail is not providing that initially. Therefore, if I must make a connection in London, probably at Waterloo because it will be the No. 1 terminal, I must get from Euston to Waterloo which is not an easy journey. The route is the same as that I use to come to the House and involves the Northern line. On the other hand, King's Cross is only the next station on the underground from Euston. At a pinch I could walk there and I could certainly get a taxi within a few hundred yards of Euston station.
  Many hon. Members' views about Stratford make it sound desirable, but is the finance there for it? If there was a link and one could take a train from the north to the continent which would bypass London completely, that would be ideal, but I see no proposals before the House which lead me to believe that that is likely. What, then, is left? We have the proposals for King's Cross.
  King's Cross is a major station serving London. Its communications by underground with the rest of London are excellent. It has communications with the north-west, Cambridgeshire, East Anglia, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is the terminus for those trains. To lay doubt on the proposals, as today's debate may well do, could delay matters considerably. We shall be talking of a second London terminal not in the closing years of the 1990s, but in the next century. That is our fear because we need the service now.
  The channel tunnel is a national project, not a London link. It will link the whole of the United Kingdom to the whole continent. Would that we had had the sense to behave like the French in looking at it from a national point of view or, indeed, from an international or European view. That is far more logical than our scrappy proposals.
  I am about to sit down as many hon. Gentleman——
  Ms. Harman: And Ladies.
  Mr. Oakes: —and Ladies wish to speak. Hon. Members, especially those who represent the north, Scotland and Northern Ireland, think that the proposal for King's Cross is the best that we have now. We talk at our peril about scrapping it. The probable cost will be delay far into the next century before we get a proper second London terminal.
  11.7 am
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on coming top of the ballot and on presenting his case so forcefully this morning. However, he slightly misled the House by suggesting that the gauge was not the same. He was right to say that the wagon gauge was not the same, but certainly the rail gauge is the same. Just as bridges and roads are being upgraded to cater for road traffic, so the gauges will be upgraded for wagons. In time we shall have complete similarity throughout the country. It is not the intention that people will have to change trains to go through the tunnel. The only changes likely to take place would involve the crew, but, as I understand it, the passengers will go right through, certainly from London to Paris, on the same train. I hope that eventually they will be able to go through from Manchester to Paris, and other locations. I fully accept the point so eloquently made by the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) about the need to get on with the job.
  I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich may have got the wrong end of the stick about freight. British Rail is expecting a considerable income from freight. Whether it should be transported at the same speed as passengers is a matter of debate and cost. There are provisions at present for freight to be transported round this country at considerable speed, but it is a matter of how much the customer is prepared to pay, as in anything else.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich was slightly unfair to the members of the British Railways Board. It is easy to fire at and criticise people from the House. We all need criticism to keep us on our toes, but we must not go too far over the top. I know that British Rail has provided facilities for me to see various other alternative routes. I am sure that the same facilities have been made available to members of the British Railways Board, who travel on trains just as we do. One should not believe that they use a different form of transport and do not have any experience of trains.
  Since the autumn of 1987, no fewer than 42 locations have been considered for the terminal. King's Cross was eventually chosen. Ten of the 42 were considered in detail. Some 70 routes were studied to get passengers from the channel tunnel, through London, to other parts of the United Kingdom. Some 300 options were considered.
  We must accept that British Rail has gone to some trouble to explore the matter thoroughly, and the route through Stratford was one option considered. It would be wrong to suggest that the matter has not been thoroughly considered. It certainly has, but there is a time factor. One cannot go on considering issues for ever. If we were to consider all the 300 options in the greatest detail, we would still be discussing the matter in the year 2020. By that time, the French and German railways would be carrying passengers and freight at enormous speed round the country, and hon. Members would be complaining that our unemployment figures were rising and we were not getting a fair crack of the whip in Europe. They would be asking what we were doing about it. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have already expressed concern about whether the decision should be delayed, and whether we have already spent too long considering the issue.
  1146
  I know that parts of Kent and Essex, and many other parts of the country, are particularly beautiful, and should be treated with proper respect and care. However, we must acknowledge that the other proposals put forward by a number of consortia that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich mentioned have not gone into great detail. Therefore, colleagues have not been inundated by protests from local groups in their area because we do not know where those lines are proposed and exactly what the problems would be.
  Certainly, any alternative has to include provision for trains to go through, and right into the centre of, London. It would be wrong to say that because a scheme had been put forward that got passengers to Stratford more cheaply than it could get them to King's Cross, it should automatically be considered on a par. It cannot he, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have explained why. We must take account of that.
  There is great concern at present that various parts of this country will miss out unless we get on and achieve our objective. There are certainly problems enough without prolonging and delaying the matter unduly. The French and German railways have made massive strides forward. I think that it was the hon. Member for Newham. South (Mr. Spearing) who seemed to think that French and German railways were so much in advance of ours, and had been for 100 years. I do not agree. German railways snake round the rivers and take a long time to get from A to B. A system has been introduced in the past few years, and we must admire what has been achieved in that time, but 20 years ago Germany's railways were no better than the British Rail network.
  Mr. Spearing: I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand what I was saying. The standard of service may not have been as good, but about a century ago there was a national plan for railways in Germany, which we did not then have.
  Mr. Thorne: That may be true. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also agree that we introduced railways into the world in the first place. One of the disadvantages of inventing something is that one does not get the same distanced planning as if one is considering it from the outside. Other countries, such as France and Germany, had those advantages, and certainly took advantage of our experience. That was how they could achieve their planning objectives.
  Various points have been made about independent assessments and theme parks. Visitors to theme parks are welcome, but they will not form a major part of the traffic that is likely to come from the continent. In addition, I am sure that such people would want to stay in hotels overnight and would be likely to go to the main centres for that purpose.
  Compensation is an important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich hit on an important point when he mentioned the comparison between the income that one might expect from the development of King's Cross, and that which one might expect from a development at Stratford, and whether the income was an attractive proposition and should form part of a programme. Yes, certainly those factors should be considered, and I am sure that many hon. Members would wish to attract some of that business and prosperity to different districts for their own reasons.

  1147
  However, we must consider the matter as a whole. We must consider not only the connections of the railways to central London but the road networks. Many people feel that the road networks are lacking and are already far too congested. Many people will want to go to the terminus by taxi and we should have to make provision for them to get by taxi to and from Stratford, if that were the alternative. Therefore, in our costings, we must allow for an improved road network, whether to King's Cross or Stratford. That factor must be taken into account.
  It is important to compare like with like, and if we are to consider the alternatives—we would have to do so quickly—we need more detail than has been supplied. It is easy to put up nebulous cases and say that they would definitely he better. Unless they are detailed, we cannot compare or cost them properly. We must take those important issues into account.
  Mr. Rowe: British Rail persistently makes that point, which is substantially disingenuous. It has consistently blocked any alternative proposal by saying that it will not consider it. It is therefore putting on any alternative contractor the obligation to spend tens of millions of pounds to carry out the detailed work required to achieve what my hon. Friend wants. It then argues that it has always said that it will not consider that alternative.
  Mr. Thorne: We have to accept that British Rail has considered 300 alternative routes from the channel tunnel into and serving London. British Rail has done a great deal of work already, and some routes have been examined in considerable detail. Any proposals that are put forward have to be more positive than they have been so far. Any detailed proposals of which British Rail is not aware would certainly be considered. However, we have to examine the reasons why people are promoting certain alternatives. It is not fair to expect British Rail to spend unlimited money on considering every proposal that has been put forward, as there are often special reasons why various individuals and companies are promoting certain alternatives. Those reasons are not necessarily in the best interests of British Rail or the country. We have to be fair in our assessment. I accept that it is an expensive operation, but one has to be fairly definite and positive in one's criticism of people with a fair degree of expertise and about the grounds for refusal.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall not detain the House any longer except to say that it is important that the facility should not be unduly delayed. The vast majority of hon. Members seek a solution sooner rather than later. Every additional delay is likely to increase construction costs and the cost to the British economy unless we are able and and ready to face the challenges of being part of Europe in the 1990s and beyond.
  11.21 am
  Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): I too, congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on initiating the debate. It is a timely opportunity. In the past, I have shared many platforms with the hon. Gentleman in fighting British Rail's proposals. As he said, initially we approached the discussion with constituency concerns in mind. I represent the views of many people in my
  1148
  constituency, particularly around Clapham and Waterloo. In addition to examining British Rail's proposals from the point of view of our constituents, we must also consider what is best for the country generally. It is clear that operationally, financially and environmentally, British Rail's proposals will not benefit all parts of Britain through increasing our links with Europe.
  I shall say a few words about my constituency concerns, particularly those involving Waterloo. We are discussing alternative proposals for King's Cross and Stratford. Let me remind the House that some years ago it was decided that Waterloo should be the first main terminus for the channel tunnel. Many of us are doubtful about the proposals and mistrust British Rail because we were told then that there was a need for only one terminus which had to be at Waterloo. The people of Waterloo and Lambeth said that Waterloo was not the right place for the terminus.
  There is now a still greater need to consider what has already been decided for Waterloo. The current design for the Waterloo terminus would cater for 10·5 million people. That was confirmed to Lambeth's planning committee as recently as last autumn when Lambeth was considering the detailed planning application for the terminus. I was pleased that the borough has resisted the temptation to support any moves to get that terminus built. A public inquiry starts in a few weeks' time.
  However, British Rail's own transport forecasts now show the original estimates to be wrong. We now know that there will probably be up to 40 million passengers using Waterloo when the channel tunnel opens in 1993. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) travelled through Victoria this morning; anyone who travels through Waterloo knows how chaotic it is there. In addition, the Jubilee line extension to Stratford through Waterloo and the long-awaited improvements to the Northern line will undoubtedly produce a significant increase in the number of passengers using the station. Given the likely increases in the number of passengers due to the channel tunnel, increased numbers of tube and rail passengers and, we hope, more people using public transport, it is clear that Waterloo is not the right place for international travellers to arrive.
  Lambeth is refusing to be bulldozed into granting planning permission because the design of the terminus does not in any way come up to the standards that would be needed for the numbers of passengers using it. The taxi and car drop-off and pick-up points are woefully inadequate, there is insufficient allocation of time for passengers with luggage who may have a problem with language and may not be able to ask the way, the coach drop-off point is a long way from the terminal, making it difficult for elderly or infirm people, and the plan provides for only one additional escalator on the underground system. British Rail has stated that it expects 50 per cent. of passengers to arrive and depart by tube. Anyone who travels in and out of Waterloo by tube knows just how congested it is.
  The plan does not take into account the effect of the community around Waterloo which has fought off increasing developments in the area. Even at this stage, if we need a terminus at Waterloo, let us at least get it right and not push through proposals for an inadequate terminus. However, I believe that there is a no need for a terminus at Waterloo. If we were to have a public inquiry and consider the overall benefits of moving to the

  1149
  Stratford initiative, it would not be necessary to spend that money at Waterloo. The Government have recognised that the position has changed. In their planning guidance, Waterloo is almost the only part of London where the Secretary of State has been quite specific in his directions.
  One of the dangers of British Rail's proposal is that it has not really examined the movement of freight. It has been very much a plan for passengers. The present plan is to run all the freight along the two existing south London commuter routes in and out of London. British Rail has admitted that it will be able to use those routes only at night as they are already operated to capacity during peak hours because of London commuter and passenger traffic. All the channel tunnel freight would converge on Clapham Junction station before crossing the Thames to a depot at Willesden. Given the number of recent rail disasters, I share the anxieties of the hon. Member for Dulwich about safety when that railway line operates at full capacity. Eurotunnel has said unofficially that it is in its interests for British Rail to develop a freight plan that will maximise the project potential.
  The people in Lambeth, Waterloo and Clapham believe that the route via Stratford must be examined by British Rail and that we must have a public inquiry into the matter. I understand the worries of hon. Members from the north and midlands about benefiting from the tunnel. The only reason for the channel tunnel is that it will benefit all the people. Because we are worried about the delay we might push through something that is not the best way forward. I hope that the debate will give the Minister something to think about. I hope that he will listen more attentively than his predecessor and will perhaps move slightly towards the feelings that I understand the Secretary of State may have about the Stratford route.
  11.31 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I welcome the debate and the attention called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) whose constituency is also affected by British Rail's current proposals. However, I view with dismay my hon. Friend's proposals for full and, no doubt, lengthy consideration. My constituents and I are fed up with continuing delay during which numerous rumours of alternative routes have been bandied about. There is hardly a square kilometre of my constituency that has not been the subject of splendidly disruptive proposals. It seems that every civil engineer in the country has made a bid not only for a railway line but to gain the reputation of an up and coming expert on the prospect for a grand renaissance of our railways. Locally, we resent being the guinea pigs for these no doubt stimulating exercises.
  The villages of Istead Rise and New Barn have been in the firing line for the longest period. They may be suffering from war weariness, but they remain vigilant in the battle for their environment. Ever since the first announcement burst on us in October 1988, those villages have had to contend with the professional approach of British Rail to these matters—and we all know how professional that is.
  The original proposals provided for a towering viaduct overlooking the village of Istead Rise, with the railway slicing on through various houses, having previously carved out the Meopham cricket ground at Nurstead. I am glad to tell the House that, following detailed representations by Gravesham borough council and the
  1150
  Istead Rise rail action group, with which I have been closely involved, some major modifications have been made.
  The Nurstead cricket ground will now remain unmolested. The North downs tunnel would be extended westward to Thirty Acre Shaw between the villages of Istead Rise and New Barn. The south side of Istead Rise would be saved in the long-term by a cut-and-cover tunnel, although likely to be disrupted in the medium term by a major construction site in the Cobham valleys. during which time the Wrotham road would be heavily loaded by construction traffic, particularly removing tunnel spoil.
  Both the west side of Istead Rise and New Barn would be exposed to noise from the cutting westward from the mouth of the tunnel, and the permanent disfigurement of the current rural landscape which separates the two villages. This is the major bone of contention with British Rail for my constituents both in Istead Rise and that part of the village of New Barn in my constituency. Were this deep cutting to be covered, I think that much of the local opposition would evaporate.
  We do not even know if British Rail intends to stick to its current proposals. Rumours abound that it might move its route southwards, bringing relief to Istead Rise and New Barn, but transferring the anxiety to the parish of Meopham. Proposals have been made which involve tunnels under Luddesdown and Meopham near the parish church, and yet another running under southern Luddesdown and Meopham near Culverstone. Any of these proposals involving tunnelling the entire distance beneath Gravesham would be preferable, provided the tunnel is bored from the Medway and any ventilation shafts and construction sites are sensibly located. That site is well to the west. I know that Meopham parish council and its dedicated sub-committee remain vigilant on those aspects of the matter. I hope that British Rail's preferred route can rapidly be announced to relieve the anxieties of most of my constituents, and to concentrate the minds of those who are directly in its path.
  Various other interests have formulated plans. The most serious of those are the plans of the Ove Arup partnership. In respect of Gravesham they propose to cross the borough from east to west along a line slightly to the south of the A2. They would emerge from a tunnel at Scalers Hill, Cobham, having tunnelled under Cobham golf course. They would then travel westward in a cutting past Singlewell, Marling Cross, and Watling street, Gravesend, cross the Wrotham road by viaduct, and then progress on an embankment past the Gough Cooper, Henley Deane and Pepper hill housing estates in Northfleet.
  This scheme would have a serious impact on the local environment, and its four tracks would add to the considerable amount of noise arising from the A2 motor road. The partnership's proposals for an urban fringe woodland between railway and highway are imaginative, but we will need much analysis about the effects on the environments of the urban areas that I have just mentioned, as well as of the village of Istead Rise lying to the south-east of the embankment.
  There are yet other schemes, notably that of Rail-Europe, the principal of whose routes ploughs through the parish of Higham. It even outlines a route carving through the urban areas of both Gravesend and Northfleet. It has not done us the courtesy of drawing that

  1151
  route to our attention or saying whether it is on stilts or buried or merely ploughs straight through the houses and gardens of thousands of my constituents.
  Many hon. Members were eloquent about the economic and employment advantages of massive railway projects, particularly for the midlands, the north and Scotland. They have to bear in mind the heavy environmental cost for the people living in the transport corridors. A prerequisite has to be the protection of the environment. The House will have to ensure that this prevails. Any developer of a railway project, British Rail or any other, will have to come to the House to obtain a private Bill for any such project.
  The private Bill procedure is an extremely onerous one, and any promoter would be well advised to do his environmental homework well in advance. I am encouraged by the Government's statements on the need for an environmental assessment of any project, and for high environmental standards. Unless these needs are met, my hon. Friends from Kent and I will give any Bill a very rough ride. I am also encouraged by the announcement by the Minister's predecessor about the establishment of a committee to recommend a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines. We look forward to its report.
  Kent is under threat. We are being assailed by development in a multitude of forms, which is putting terrible pressures on our green belt. Our constituents fear erosion and blows from gandiose projects such as this one. It is high time that the project was finally crystallised, so that we know the precise detail of the challenge that faces us.
  11.38 am
  Mr. Richard Livsey: I shall not detain the House long, but as a Member from Wales I feel that our problems in relation to the channel tunnel link have not been considered. Someone from further afield can perhaps look at such problems objectively, although it is difficult when faced with the multiplicity of plans outlined by hon. Members who feel that their constituencies and constituents are under threat.
  The basic question to be addressed is why we are concentrating entirely on the situation in London. Surely the whole of the United Kingdom should be considered in terms of the link to the tunnel. It is salutary to realise that those of us who live in Wales, in the west of England and in parts of the south-west midlands, have no prospect whatever of a direct link to the tunnel. Because of the Government's investment criteria for British Rail, our railway lines are not to be electrified, so we cannot have through services.
  Why should trains go through London at all? Why not bypass London with high speed trains and link the rest of Britain with an orbital rail bypass and, with an integrated transport system, and include Heathrow and Gatwick? The existing track could be used for trains to go into the London terminals at a lower speed. There would be much less disruption with such a system.
  The French are in the middle of constructing a Paris bypass for TGV which will cut two hours off the journey time between Lille and Lyon, and will link with Charles de Gaulle airport. That is an integrated transport system. I do
  1152
  not know why we have such a lack of vision about a 21st century rail transport system. Most of us want through trains to the continent and are not interested in stopping off in London, which has its own problems—it is full of people and traffic, with all the resulting pollution. We want to get past all that and on to Paris, Milan or even Moscow on the rail system.
  British Rail is constricted by the Government's policy and, in particular, investment criteria. The insistence on the 8 per cent. return on capital investment is distorting all British Rail's decisions. One has only to look at King's Cross to see that, because it depends on the 125 acres of land to finance the investment programme. That is crazy. The correct procedure would be to use a cost-benefit analysis, which is the criterion used on the continent.
  The channel tunnel rail link is dependent on section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which precludes public investment in the line. That ought to be repealed—private developers cannot finance the project properly and some are already screaming for public money to bail them out —if it is desirable to bring a direct route to London.
  Confronted with the facts and the options, Waterloo is clearly the answer. I understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), but she must understand that putting a block on Waterloo would cut out a direct route to the channel tunnel for Wales and the west country. Nevertheless, I understand the effects that a terminal at Waterloo will have on her constituency and how sensitive the matter is.
  The King's Cross option will prove difficult for the west because we shall need a link in London Paddington to get there. The same applies to the Stratford option, because we do not know whether there will be the money to invest in a link between Stratford and Paddington and, for those in the north, between King's Cross and Stratford. If the terminal is to be built, we need guarantees about such links. Otherwise, we shall be left out on a limb and passengers will have to use the underground system, lugging baggage around, which would be unacceptable.
  I was a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs which considered the channel tunnel links with Wales a few months ago. The Committee opposed construction of the Stratford terminal because it believed that a link from Stratford to Paddington would not be built. However, the Ove Arup proposals may offer some hope.
  Another possibility is the existing rail link from Tonbridge to Reading, which has been used from the channel ports for a long time. In the first world war, soldiers were carted from Dover to the north on it. If it could he done then, it can surely be done now. I understand that the problem with that link is that a bridge in the Redhill area needs to be rebuilt and redirected.
  Miss Hoey: I do not understand the hon. Member's point about Waterloo because whenever I have gone to the west, I have gone from Paddington.
  Mr. Livsey: British Rail has assured us that there will be through trains from Wales to Waterloo and only a single platform transfer. The hon. Lady should be aware of that proposal, which British Rail has even put in writing.
  Environmental considerations are also extremely important. In Wales, the opencast mining executive of British Coal is proposing to demolish houses, chapels, farms and other buildings to dig coal out of the ground.

  1153
  Those who live in the south-east should be aware of the environmental rape with which we continually have to put up. One hears little about that. The south-east has a number of choices, and it needs to consider them. The main choice is between rail and road. If there is not to be a Berne-gauge system of UIC for freight, much of the freight will be decanted on to lorries at the channel ports. There will be even more lorries than there are now in Kent —and even more motorways, each of which takes up 25 acres of land per mile. The south-east has to think seriously about whether a rail system would not be preferable, as it would take up much less land, lay much less concrete and overcome many problems. The road lobby is railroading the rail system out of existence and priorities must be sorted out. We need greater vision in relation to the environment because it is well proven that railways do not affect the environment as much as roads. There is far less pollution.
  The Ove Arup proposals are a move forward towards an integrated plan for a rail strategy. They are based on Stratford east, and a terminal at Stratford east will be useless without links with the rest of the rail system. The Ove Arup proposals have such links and will avoid tunnelling in south London. There will be less environmental disturbance. Although a London rail bypass would be the better of the two options, some of the other proposals on the table are not worthy of consideration.
  11.49 am
  Mr. Michael Alison: In seeking to strike a note that I fear my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) will find a little discordant, I want to stress that I am not insensitive to the environmental and other pertinent considerations that press on them and their constituents and on other colleagues, who represent constituencies in the south-east of England. My advocacy of King's Cross against Stratford as the inter-connecting rail link does not prejudge any consequential environmental considerations that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham mentioned as being an essential and proper prerequisite of a private Bill that may have to be introduced.
  I want to stress the relevant and pertinent considerations that press on those who represent constituencies in the north, particularly Yorkshire and Humberside. In a nutshell, Stratford will represent a set back, a profound disadvantage and a sharp detriment to the economic life, prospects for jobs, prosperity and economic growth in areas of the north such as Yorkshire and Humberside, which already lag behind the south in those respects.
  The railway industry is undergoing something of a rebirth. Huge capital sums are being invested throughout Europe, even in the United States of America, revitalising and refurbishing the attractions of rail travel. The unique relevant feature that the railway offers compared with other modes of transport is a city centre departure and arrival point. The logic of urban industrial growth has produced an uncovenanted bonus for railways: railway termini find themselves at the centre of the urban web and not on the periphery. King's Cross, Euston, St. Pancras, Paddington and Waterloo are at the centre of the urban web by the mere logic of industrial and urban development.
  1154
  No colleague who has faced the prospect of a two-hour air journey and has had to spend an hour struggling on the periphery of the city to get to the airport can underestimate the value of the centre-of-the-web feature of a modern railway terminal.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I respect the right hon. Gentleman's views because he normally speaks for God in this place. How can he dismiss Stratford in a couple of sentences with the sweeping assertion that the development there would lead to jobs and opportunities being lost in the north? Where did he get that information from, and will he give some substance to the point he made?
  Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is being hazardous in imputing to me some divine access or inspiration. His facetious remarks may expose him to considerable risk. I disclaim any inspiration for the modest analysis that I am giving. I shall try to elaborate, for the purpose of the hon. Gentleman, why I believe that Stratford is unsuitable.
  British Rail can offer only two trains a day to the continent of Europe via the channel tunnel on the east coast main line from the north. Northern business men travelling to Europe and European business men travelling to the north must take the ordinary InterCity train and change in London to complete a journey from Rome or Milan to the north.
  Can anyone imagine the psychological and physical disincentive effect of having to change trains at Stratford rather than King's Cross to link with the InterCity service? Having entered a modern, air-conditioned, high-speed train from Paris, Milan or Stuttgart, anticipating the excitement and novel experience of travelling through the glorious countryside of the south-east of England or northern France and the unique railway experience of racing through the new channel tunnel at up to 300 km per hour, imagine the psychological effect on the now thoroughly enchanted and delighted railway passenger of being deposited among the dreaming spires of Stratford.
  Can anyone imagine a more delirious anti-climax than arriving at the dreaming spires of Stratford, after all the excitement of travelling through the channel tunnel and north-east France or—starting from York—across the glorious scenery of northern England? As a loading of delight upon delight, on arriving at Stratford the passenger has the unique enchantment of a high-speed tube. Could anything be more calculated to delight the European passenger than the prospect of catching a high-speed tube, which has an average speed of 15 mph, with stops, to link with high-speed trains on the ordinary InterCity services?
  Diverting passengers from Europe who cannot use the through-train services, of which there will be so few, to Stratford and forcing them from channel tunnel trains on to the London underground system, stopping at every stop to get to King's Cross and catch the InterCity service, is a nightmare and a total disincentive. No serious passengers travelling from Rome or Milan will bother to do so. They will miss out the north of England. Why should they expose themselves to those primitive forms of urban inter-communication?
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend is living in the past. The modern business man from the north who wishes to travel to Milan will fly. Why should he bother about a long and tiring railway journey?
  Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend, as a southern Member, does not appreciate the extent to which we in the north are still subject to a thrombosis in economic travel and development. There are no great airports anywhere near Yorkshire and Humberside. Yorkshire folk must travel to Manchester, 40 or 50 miles down the rather less-developed road system, to reach a decent international airport. There is a positive attraction in train travel because of the inner-city location of termini. That gives it a great advantage over air travel. The throwing away of the centre-of-the-web feature of railway termini is a profound disadvantage to the idea of locating the system at Stratford.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has become carried away with the prejudice of his argument. People will want to go direct to the continent without stopping in London. It matters not whether they travel through Stratford or any other station. They want to get under the channel and away. Other people may want to do business in London on the way. They can go to King's Cross, do their business and continue on to the continent. It is not the simple, only one desired form of travel option that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. That is a false analysis of the travel needs of people from his part of the world, who travel to Europe and sometimes stop in London. Stratford would not prejudice that, because they could travel to the centre of London.
  Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman's analysis is wrong. There are two options: first, the through connection, ignoring London—there will be only too few such trains —and, secondly, the non-through connection—the ordinary InterCity train service. A business man travelling from Milan to the north of England or from the north to Milan must stop in London to change trains. No business man from Milan will expose himself to the necessity of travelling from Milan through the channel tunnel to Stratford, where he will have to catch an underground train to get to the inter-connecting InterCity train service because there will be no ordinary InterCity train service based at Stratford. Investment in an InterCity network link would be too expensive. The business man will have to take the underground to get to King's Cross to catch an InterCity train to the north. It is a profound throttling of the prospects of business men in the north getting into Europe and of the European business man getting into the north. I urge my hon. Friends to major on the King's Cross link, not Stratford, at all costs.
  12 noon
  Mr. Tony Banks: I had not realised that the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) was so much of a detached snob. Perhaps he has for too long answered questions on behalf of the Church Commissioners. I should like him to come to Stratford some time. I admit that it is not the most beautiful place on earth, even though I represent it, but his remarks were unworthy of him and unfair on the people who live in Stratford and in the east end in general. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was right to say that the right hon. Gentleman is living in the past. He might have the time to gaze out of the window when travelling through the rolling countryside, but those who want to
  1156
  come to this country to do business want to get here as quickly as possible—and, given the right hon. Gentleman's views, probably want to get away as quickly as they can.
  I welcome the Minister to his new office. I understand that in the past he was an accountant. That makes two accountants running the Department of Transport, as accountancy is also the Secretary of State's background. I look forward to the day when an engine driver or a bus driver is running the Department. Then, perhaps, we might have someone who is more acquainted with the needs of the travelling public. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who will be the next Secretary of State for Transport, will bring to the post some of the qualifications that he has acquired.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on choosing this subject for debate. It gives the Minister an opportunity to acquaint himself with a significant issue. It is opportune that this important debate should be the first in his new post. As a number of hon. Members have said, it is a most unsatisfactory way to construct an enormously significant transport infrastructure. It is piecemeal, shoddy and inefficient. The Government are to blame for the mess in which we all now find ourselves. It is the most significant transport investment decision this century, but the manner in which the Government have approached it, right from the beginning, is grossly inadequate.
  We are often lectured by Conservative Members on the efficiency of the private sector. They could hardly use the fiasco of the British contribution to the tunnel and the rail links as a sign of its efficiency. Original costs have escalated wildly from £4·8 billion to £7 billion and rising. The developers are now saying to the Government "Bail us out or it goes down." It is one of the flagship developments. The Prime Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box and made speeches throughout the country extolling such a wonderful example of the private sector. Now the Government have to bail it out.
  I hope that the Minister will say whether a report in The Times today is true. It states:
  "The Cabinet will decide next week whether to back proposals for the 68-mile Channel tunnel rail link with the injection of a £400 million subsidy, informed sources say."
  Mr. Spearing: Bernard Ingham.
  Mr. Banks: It was not Bernard Ingham; the article said "informed sources".
  I want to know whether the article was true. The Government made clear statements that there would be no public money—our money, taxpayers' money—for the project. We have always argued that that was not the way to do it. If taxpayers' money is now to be used to bail out the developers, who obviously had their calculations wrong, what will be the return for the British taxpayer? I am not in favour of bailing out private developers. Let them go bust and then we can pick it up for nothing. The Government must remember that their main fiduciary duty is not to private developers, but to the British taxpayers.
  If we contrast the attitude of the British with that of the French, we come out rather poorly. There is close co-operation between the French Government and SNCF, the French nationalised railway system. Speaking as a citizen of this country, I feel almost ashamed that the SNCF has volunteered to put up the money for the British side of the infrastructure investment. What on earth are we

  1157
  doing? Must we rely on the French to put up the money for the British side of the development? The Government are reducing Britain to a lesser development status. That is atrocious and the Government should be ashamed of themselves.
  The French work in close co-operation, but British Rail is narrow minded and the Government are bigoted. It is a decision of national and international significance. It is far too important to be left to British Rail and a bunch of bureaucrats with their limited and unimaginiative approach. Why should we take anything that British Rail says as right? It said that there would be only one London terminal and gave us estimates for the number of passengers. That has changed. Before it has even constructed the first terminal, it wants a second. It says that it must be at King's Cross. How can anyone trust British Rail's planning process? There should be an objective assessment of what is needed—not necessarily for London or even the south-east, but for the country as a whole, and, indeed, for the whole of Europe. That is something that only the Government can do. They cannot leave it to British Rail.
  British Rail says—and for once I have some sympathy with it—that it is not the strategic planning authority for the country, or even for London and the south-east. It is a transport undertaker which must get a return on capital. It wants to get people into the middle of London because it says that that is the best that it can do. There are other options, but it is neither authorised to consider them nor does it have the resources to finance them. The Government must take responsibility.
  Although I criticise British Rail for its blinkered approach and the way that it deliberately shut off the other options, in the end the Government must take responsibility. The decision is so vast and so important that it cannot be left to British Rail. Indeed, the Government cannot leave it to British Rail and the developers because they now have to put in money. That will be humiliating, although they will probably try to dress it up. They might say, "Actually, we are not contravening section 42 of the Act; it is a subsidy to pay for additional environmental works that we have asked the developers to undertake." Perhaps the Government will be honest for once and say that they have to repeal section 42. If they do, they will run into a great deal of trouble, not only from Opposition Members but from many Conservative Members.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) made a good speech in which he expressed the fears of many people in the north. They want to know that, whatever option is preferred, it will not be to their disadvantage. The various proposals surrounding Stratford, especially that from Ove Arup, would not disadvantage the north, whether it be the north-east or the north-west. Indeed it would be positively advantageous. When I went to see the previous Minister for Public Transport—before he was given the black spot by Blind Pugh and told to convince the nation why the poll tax is such a wonderful thing; I think that he should have stuck to transport—I told him, as I want to tell the new Minister, that there must be a proper assessment of all the options. We want the Government to take the lead in making an objective appraisal and in saying, "This project affects the whole country, so we must take an overview and not leave it entirely to British Rail."
  1158
  If that were done, the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton could be properly addressed. He expressed concern that our debate could influence British Rail in reaching its decision. British Rail has not been influenced by good sense and reasonable argument up till now, so it is unlikely to be swayed by anything that is said in this Chamber. My hon. Friend can be assured of that. We must hope instead that the debate will influence the Government, because it is they who sit at the centre of the web and who can determine whether the project will be a success or a lamentable failure that will have to be carried over into the next century.
  The proposals made by Ove Arup are worthy of close scrutiny. They answer all the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton and would involve both King's Cross and Stratford, which would be in the interests of us all.
  The London borough of Newham has worked closely with Colin Buchanan and Partners in making an assessment of Stratford as a prospective site. Newham and the surrounding borough councils—including Redbridge, within the constituency of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who criticises the Stratford proposal —support the Stratford option. Even then, it is not a London but a national issue. Newham has been in the forefront in trying to persuade British Rail to choose Stratford. A development there, linked with additional necessary investment—particularly in cross-rail—would be advantageous to the whole country and to the whole of Europe. It would also be a cheaper option not requiring demolition of property on a large scale. Two hundred acres of British Rail development land is already available at Stratford.
  For all those reasons—because the Government should be involved, because of the international nature of the project, and because Stratford is ready and willing and able to accommodate a terminal—I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich on his proposal. Even if today's debate does not in any way influence British Rail, we must hope that the new Minister will take a fresh look and seize the opportunity to make a great name for himself.
  12.12 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on achieving today's debate, which is extremely valuable and could benefit the whole country. It is also a pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, in his new role. We had close dealings when he was Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health, and we are likely to do so again in respect of the vitally important issue that is the subject of today's debate, and which also affects my constituency.
  I bring to the House the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who wanted to be here today but has urgent other business with British Rail in his constituency this morning.
  I want to focus on the strategic issues involved. History tells us—and so does experience today—that railway development, like road development, can give the lead to economic development. Other hon. Members made the point that alternatives to British Rail's present proposals could benefit parts of south-east England which need further stimulation of economic development and would

  1159
  in no way be detrimental, though others have argued otherwise, to the development of the midlands, north, and Scotland.
  I am no advocate of the north Thames alternative or of the Stratford alternative, unless at the same time there can be a sensible cross-London link enabling passengers to alight either at King's Cross or at Stratford. A development at Stratford would affect the eastward move of London. We must remember the strategic point that London is moving east. In 50 years' time there may be a very different perception of what constitutes the centre of London compared with today, bearing in mind developments at Canary wharf and docklands. Because at this stage British Rail is viewing the development entirely in terms of its existing network, and because of British Rail's background and raison d'être, it tends to perceive everything in terms of rail transport. I call on the Minister, as I have done frequently in the past, to take a strategic view instead.
  Historically, railways have led economic development. It is interesting that in France the Government grant for TGV trains was based on making them take the lead in developing those regions of France which needed it most. I refer not only to the north of France but to the Brittany peninsula, where the TGV Atlantique has been constructed with regional development very much in mind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich spelt out the three criteria against which he measured British Rail's present proposals—operational benefits, costs, and environmental factors. I will not repeat the concerns that he expressed, and which I share, but I greatly fear that British Rail's proposals—which we do not know in detail, but of which we have a pretty clear picture—bear all the hallmarks of a British bodger's job on a herculean scale simply because strategic issues were not addressed before decisions were taken on the exact route and what it should achieve.
  I wish to highlight one anxiety affecting my constituency before addressing wider points. The expected route is likely to run through my constituency, where there could be an international station, which I am led to believe might be located within a five-mile radius of Swanley. Any such plan will run counter to all existing green belt policies and to the Kent structure plan. It is bound to bring major building development to the vicinity in future years, and the prospect of such growth will rightly arouse much controversy. Here we have the prospect of growth being centred on an area where it is neither needed nor planned for. If anything, there is over-employment in that area, which for many years has been designated green belt for controlled development only. If British Rail's development was allowed, it would open a Pandora's box and act like the magnet that large airports have become. Such magnets are needed, but not in that location.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give careful consideration to the argument that whatever type of Bill is brought before the House, he it private or hybrid, to enable the rail link to be constructed any development apart from the line itself should be subject to the usual planning requirements and therefore a matter ultimately to be decided through the public inquiry procedure. We had that assurance on the previous proposals for British
  1160
  Rail and the Parkway station further east in Kent, and I look to the present Minister to give us that assurance again.
  As regards the Stratford or north Thames alternatives, I have already said that a terminal at Stratford could bring benefits because of the eastwards growth of London and the fact that the centre of London is moving in that direction.
  No other scheme has focused on the national issues. Speeches today from hon. Members representing constituencies in the north have concentrated on passenger traffic. The Stratford alternative—Ove Arup's alternative, in particular—will also deal with freight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich said in his introduction that none of us can be satisfied with British Rail's approach to the freight market. It is missing an enormous opportunity here. British industry, and especially the CBI, are extremely worried about that approach, and anyone who is concerned about the environment and the pressure on our roads should also be worried. Surely the main reason for the channel link was to enable British industry and people to flow through to the continental system. British Rail's proposals would tie us, from the beginning, to the same problem that Brunel battled with—the problem of gauges in Britain being different from those in other parts of Europe. I do not mean the gauge of the track, but the loading gauge and the size of truck and carriage that will be able to run on the British system.
  As this stage, with all the effort being put into 1992, we should ensure that Britain's infrastructure and railways are compatible with the entire continental system and not merely the European Community. Opportunities are opening up throughout Europe, and eastern European countries now have the chance to link in. Lord Young said, off the cuff, that he foresaw Europeans travelling by train in the next century rather than by plane, but that will not happen unless our links can be as effective as those in Europe.
  To deal with the proper concerns voiced so eloquently by hon. Members representing northern constituencies, the Stratford alternative only makes sense if we also have a cross-London rail link so that Stratford is one of a number of possible boarding and alighting points within the capital. As does the freight system, Ove Arup's alternative provides us with the opportunity progressively to upgrade the rail network north and west of London to handle the continental loading gauge. The swap-body system, in which the body of a freight wagon is moved on and off a lorry allows for huge growth. It occurs all over Europe and cuts transport time and costs. It is recommended by the European Commission, which emphasised its view that the system should be extended to Scotland, but that will not happen unless British Rail produces a scheme which can automatically cope with that system everywhere. Ove Arup's scheme is a start, and if we do not do something similar we shall be at a disadvantage when competing in Europe.
  In contrast, what have we got? British Rail has ordered new rolling stock on the existing British gauge and has apparently ruled out upgrading lines designated for freight however far into the future one looks. British Rail has tunnel vision. It must look further ahead and must not merely upgrade within the existing British loading gauge, but upgrade to take continental wagons. Otherwise, we shall again be at a considerable disadvantage.

  1161
  Some people may argue that these proposals are visionary, but there is a necessity for some vision in such a matter. We have the opportunity for the regeneration of Liverpool as a port. Ships could call there once more and load freight on to a European network at Europe's most westerly point. Freight could run straight through from Liverpool into Europe.
  Other hon. Members have compared the situation here with that in France, which is way ahead in developing its passenger network and in planning for freight. The French scheme makes rail travel fit in strategically. One will be able to board fast passenger trains at Charles de Gaulle airport and people who do not want to pass through Paris will not need to do so. We should offer similar opportunities here.
  One of the reasons why infrastructure in France, both road and rail, is generally more advanced than in Britain is that compensation arrangements there have been so much better. Our arrangements put a block on development. People feel aggrieved from the beginning when they know that compulsory purchase is to take place against their will and that they will get the lowest possible market value. In France, people are over-compensated by up to 25 per cent. That is surely a good incentive and it can be a saving. So often in Britain the fight against compulsory purchase takes so long that by the time the infrastructure is built, having bought the land, all the costs have escalated hugely. Better compensation would be a sensible way around that.
  We argued about compensation in the debates on the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. We did not win the argument, but since then the Government have produced a discussion document on compensation and I encourage hon. Members involved in this issue to keep up the pressure for such a change. There should be improved compensation not just for farmers but also for householders, and for anyone who is bought out as a result of a scheme, whichever scheme is chosen.
  Another factor in compulsory purchase orders for land is that if private sector partners are now to be brought in— and I welcome that—to infrastructure projects such as the channel tunnel link, they will want to make a profit out of the land that they purchase. The land is not purely pro bono publico but is required to be profitable for private sector organisations who enter the scheme. It is therefore equitable that the original purchase should not be at a knock-down price. The person who is forced to sell should get some benefit as the scene is changing. That adds force to my argument for the need for better compensation.
  I support the motion, which asks the House to urge British Rail properly to evaluate the sensible north Thames alternatives. If British Rail does not do so, our debates on the high-speed rail link will continue to be dogged by complaints from many hon. Members, and from large numbers of people all over Britain, who are not satisfied that this huge national and international project has been approached from the beginning with the proper strategic issues in mind.
  12.37 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on his excellent speech. I also congratulate the Minister for Public Transport on his appointment to his new post. I hope that he will pay careful heed to everything that the hon.
  1162
  Member for Dulwich has said. The hon. Member for Dulwich dealt very well with the point that I intend to make—that it is not a question of London and the south-east versus Wales, the north and Scotland, but a question of whether we are to have a national strategy in the national interest or whether there is to be anarchy, chaos and shambles.
  We have heard about business men and women in Stuttgart, Milan and Lille, and where they will be. I am glad that they are not in the Strangers Gallery listening to the debate. It is a national scandal that we should be deciding national strategic issues on this basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that he hoped that the Minister would pay heed to the facts, but none of us is very clear about the facts. The intention seems to have been to obscure the facts. Banks, property developers, British Rail and Members of Parliament with constituency interests have been fighting like rats in a sack while the national interest wanders lonely and afraid with no one to look after it. The Minister must take the national interest under his wing and look after it—otherwise, not only London and the south will suffer but also the north, Wales and Scotland.
  Those who live in south-east London have no interest in seeing the failure of the manufacturing base of this country, nor are we interested in the ruination of the beautiful environment of Kent, the garden of south-east London. We want a sensible strategy to be developed. The Government must therefore take a grip on the problem. Discussion of the terminal issue has been no more than a parliamentary pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey exercise. We have to do better than that.
  One of the most disturbing aspects of the shambles over the channel tunnel rail link is the Government's failure to take any responsibility for this major strategic transport decision. I well remember that in another debate the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Portillo), sat there with a studied, neutral expression on his face. He listened to one side; he listened to the other; then he got up and said, "Of course, it's nothing to do with me." That is not good enough.
  The Government must take a view on a decision that will have important consequences for the development of the British economy and our place in Europe both now and into the next century. However, instead of recognising the importance of the rail link, the Government act as though it were of no more importance than a minor extension of the Central line to West Ruislip. The Secretary of State for Transport said that the plan for the route was a private matter for British Rail and its partners. That is no way to treat the issue.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich on tabling his motion. His constituency borders mine. The motion reflects the anger and despair of hon. Members on both sides of the House and in all parts of the country at the way in which the dispute is being handled. It is not yet too late. The debate has provided us with an opportunity to demand that the Government wake up to their responsibilities and look again at where the rail link is to go.
  The Secretary of State and the Minister must also recognise that British Rail's plans will cause devastation in south London. There is no strong evidence that they will be of economic benefit to the region or that they will equip us with the means to face the challenge of integrating the British transport system with the European transport

  1163
  system. I am glad that hon. Members have not erred on the side of castigating British Rail and saying that it is all BR's fault. It is not without fault, but the villains of the piece are the Government who set us all off on the wrong footing.
  Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act, which prevents any public investment in the scheme, has forced BR to try to find the cheapest route possible under the shortest-term objectives. That is the reason for the mess that we are in. We can get out of it only if the Government's central role in developing the rail link is accepted. British Rail has still to announce its final plan, but it has announced loads of "final" plans. It is difficult to remember the number of "final" plans over the past two years. I wonder whether we shall still be waiting in 1992 for the "final" plan to emerge out of the shambolic Opposed Private Bill Committee procedure.
  The last British Rail plan was a route through south-east London, which would have involved a massive junction at Warwick gardens in Southwark and the rest of the link in a tunnel under the Thames to King's Cross. That scheme had to be abandoned on 3 November 1989 because the costs were unacceptable to BR's partner, Eurorail. We have since been promised many times a formal announcement of the route, but we are still waiting. I fear that British Rail may now be forced, because of financial pressures, to rever to part of the route that it proposed in March 1988. That would be totally unacceptable to my constituents because it would mean that substantial parts of the rail link would run overground through Peckham, chopping communities in half.
  The Government are spending money on inner-city projects, but they can forget inner-city regeneration if, sliced through the middle of Southwark there is a rail link which will divide the shops from where people live and cause a construction blight over the whole of this fragile inner-city area. All the North Peckham task forces and business men's breakfasts in the world will mean nothing. The area will be blighted and become dreadful if British Rail goes ahead with the March 1988 plan of slicing through the middle of Walworth and constructing what has been described as the Walworth wall.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), the hon. Lady and I have similar views. We have never argued that there should be any environment-ally unacceptable plan for the shire counties or other parts of Britain. Does the hon. Lady agree, however, that running rail services overground in what is already an environmentally harmed and polluted area would be just another form of discrimination for the haves against the have-nots? The Government must not try to divide parts of Britain against other parts. We will not, and the country should not, allow inner-city areas to be environmentally damaged any more than they are already.
  Ms. Harman: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
  The commercial pressures imposed on British Rail have led it into misrepresenting the devastation that would result from its cheapest option. British Rail implied that there would be a minor bit of returfing in Warwick gardens and that it would all be all right, resulting in only minor disruption. The equipment that British Rail admits will be used to carry out that work includes two bulldozers, two
  1164
  or three excavators, two bored pile rigs or two diaphragm wall excavators, one concrete-batching plant, two or three front and back-end loaders, one bentonite slump production plant, one large soil compactor, one reinforcing bar bending shed, four mobile cranes, four dumper trucks and numerous site huts—all on Warwick gardens, one of the few patches of green in an area that is struggling to regenerate itself. Warwick gardens would, in effect, be turned into a giant construction slum for up to 10 years. That would be the effect of trying to do the job on a cheapskate basis.
  It is not in the national interest to strangle the manufacturing base of the north-west, north-east and Wales. It is not in the national interest to let our inner-city areas degenerate and turn into slums. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) mentioned compensation. I have taken up many hardship cases. British Rail's criteria have been utterly inadequate. Many people want to sell their homes but cannot either because they are just outside the compulsory purchase zone or because they cannot prove severe hardship. They have been left completely stranded because the "compulsory purchase zone" description is completely inadequate. The blight has spread far wider than the compulsory purchase zone and people have been unable to take up new jobs or to move for family reasons. They have seen the value of their homes collapse. They cannot sell their homes—they are stuck.
  The difficulties of my constituents have been made much worse by the continuing uncertainty surrounding the route of the link. No doubt businesses in the north and east feel that uncertainty and cannot look forward to developing for 1992 because they do not know how they will knit in with Europe, but people in my constituency feel that they cannot plan from one day to the next because we do not know what is happening. One of the commonest complaints that I receive is that people do not know where they stand because the route has not yet been decided.
  British Rail has purchased 117 homes in the Warwick gardens area, but I am concerned because it is not maintaining them adequately. The homes have been purchased under the compulsory purchase scheme, but British Rail is not ensuring that they are used. Whole streets around the Warwick gardens area in my constituency have been bought up by British Rail only to be left to fall into disrepair. The properties are empty. Given the housing shortage in London, I hope that British Rail will ensure that those properties are filled straight away with, for example, the teachers that we need in our primary schools, or with social workers or nurses. The properties that have been purchased in this awful situation should at least be used to house what are described as key workers. I understand that British Rail has already spent more than £12 million buying those properties.
  British Rail has made things worse. It has managed to unite opposing interests against it. Because British Rail is frightened of the public view, it has tried to ride roughshod over it. I invited British Rail to come with me to the meeting of the Lettsom estate tenants association. Those tenants will be affected by the rail link—The letter I received from British Rail stated:
  "Thank you for your letter of 9 May.
  Experience has told us that large public meetings are not effective in dealing with the perfectly genuine worries of people on the route of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
  In the circumstances, I am sure you will appreciate why we shall not be sending a representative to the meeting at the Lettsom Estate Tenants' Association".

  1165
  British Rail has given up coming to meetings because it does not have any answers. Whenever it has attended a meeting, people have been left more angry, more bewildered and more uncertain than when they arrived.
  I want to examine the way in which British Rail has handled the private Bill procedure relating to the terminal. With the terminal at King's Cross and the channel tunnel ending at the coast in Kent, my constituency is clearly in the middle. If one takes a map and puts a dot on King's Cross and another dot at the mouth of the channel tunnel, one can see that there is a real question mark over whether the route will come through my constituency.
  Of course, my constituents have an interest in the route of the tunnel. That is why I petitioned the Committee that studied the King's Cross Railways Bill and said that, through my representations, my constituents, wanted to be heard and to know the location of the terminal because it will affect them. However, I was told "No, you cannot speak to the Committee about your constituents' concerns. You have no locus standi. This Bill deals only with the terminal. You can talk to us about the route." But we all know what will happen when we get to the route. British Rail will say, "The terminal is already fixed. Thanks for coming to the Opposed Private Bill Committee, but we are sorry, our hands are tied. Look where the terminal is and look where the channel tunnel mouth is—you just happen to be in the middle. Sorry, you are too late. The terminal is there and the numbers are settled." By opposing my locus standi, it is British Rail, not the Court of Referees, that must take responsibility.
  Of course, although British Rail is one of the key players, it is not here. These discussions always take place without the right information and without the right people being involved. However, I advise British Rail that when the Bill has been considered by this House, it will go to the Lords where there will be an Opposed Private Bill Committee and where I shall petition on behalf of my constituents. I hope that British Rail will see the error of its ways and allow my petitioners a voice in the Opposed Private Bill Committee in the Lords, despite the fact that BR outrageously blocked that voice here in the Commons.
  The Government must establish a proper committee of inquiry to look at all the alternative routes to the rail link so that even those who may lose out in the end feel that consideration has been fair and in the national interest rather than a shambolic back-of-an-envelope job. The Minister will recognise from this debate that although people have held different and even opposing views about whether the terminal should be at Stratford or King's Cross, we are all united in our unhappiness about the handling of the matter. We are fed up.
  There is no alternative to the Government repealing section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1988. We cannot continue with the present mess and uncertainty. The Government must face up to their responsibilities now and act to prevent the current shambles from worsening. I know from my past dealings with the Minister on health matters that he does not lack the intelligence to deal with the issue. He will quickly understand what is going on. I hope that, as a new Minister, he will have a new opportunity to understand the issues and that he will be a new broom. We should all welcome that.
  The Government will not sort out the problem by blaming British Rail or by trying to persuade more of their friends in the private sector to come up with the cash. The Government can do so only by meeting the two demands
  1166
  that I and many other hon. Members are making today, which are that they set up a proper committee of inquiry to consider the best route and that they allow public investment in the project in the national interest.
  I will support the motion for Stratford, but until the Government take those two steps, the present crisis will continue and my constituents and others throughout the country will continue to suffer.
  12.46 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) will take as read the polite remarks that I would make if there were more time, but many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Commuter traffic on British Rail has dipped to a level which, if it were to persist, would make the additional capacity of a high-speed rail link unnecessary. We must remember in this numbers game that we cannot necessarily assume that the growth in use of Network SouthEast will continue; working at home, network working and all sorts of other developments may well diminish that use.
  This is a particularly useful debate for clearing up some misapprehensions and I hope to do so. It is disappointing that many hon. Members who have spoken are backward looking. They have fallen into the same trap as British Rail in assuming that the world will stay much the same as it is now. Nobody could assume from listening to our debate that we are talking about a development which will not come on stream until virtually the next century. I shall make my remarks in that context.
  The high-speed rail link is not indispensable to get passengers or freight from the channel tunnel portal to other destinations in the United Kingdom. We know that British Rail is spending more than £1 billion to bring international passengers from Cheriton to Waterloo in 1993. We are told that it can cope as it is until the year 2000. British Rail's joint venture partners, Trafalgar House, tells us that there are no plans beyond the year 2000. We also know that British Rail is developing plans to take freight round London on underused passenger lines either via Maidstone or Tonbridge-Redhill. With its sights set at a maximum of 6·1 million tonnes, it reckons that it can cope with that for the foreseeable future.
  The high-speed rail link is not indispensable to the channel tunnel. On Thursday, Alastair Morton came to the Select Committee on Transport and said that his scheme was not dependent on the rail link. He said that Eurotunnel would make more money from carrying freight on lorries through the tunnel by shuttle, than on through-trains.
  British Rail's proposed high-speed rail link is not a freight line. There are still those in the north of the United Kingdom who believe that King's Cross is vital to ensure that their goods reach mainland Europe quicker than they do now. Those who believe that are completely confused, because King's Cross has nothing to do with freight.
  What is the British Rail-Trafalgar House proposal, and why should it not be accepted as it stands? My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who has had to leave, is asking a great deal of those of us who have dealt with British Rail during the past few yers to believe that it is so expert that it should not be questioned nearly as much as some of us try to question it. He made an impassioned plea for its expertise. Having watched it flounder its way through the negotiations and turn, in the end, with great

  1167
  reluctance to its private enterprise partner, not merely to carry out the contract it wanted, but to tell it how to design the line, I am entitled to feel some scepticism about British Rail's specialist expertise.
  We do not know what the British Rail-Trafalgar House proposal actually is. We have been assured that a twin-track line following the M20 from an international station in Ashford to an international station somewhere near Swanley will stick pretty closely to the maps already published. After Swanley, it will follow a line that has not yet been disclosed, until it reaches a newly developed interchange at King's Cross. We could make some pretty good guesses about where it would go, but it would be silly to try to second guess British Rail at present.
  I found it a bit thick for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South to contend that it is impossible to evaluate any alternative because it is necessary to know in detail where a line will go in order to evaluate it. None of us has the faintest idea where British Rail's line is to go.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the information that the hon. Gentleman has, and which I have not seen, state whether that link from the Swanley area to the King's Cross area will be entirely a new route in tunnel, an enlargement of existing routes or a mixture of both?
  Mr. Rowe: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman anything other than some informed guesses to which I have been made privy that suggest that it will be a combination of both, and is likely to go underground for the last five or six miles, perhaps further.
  We know that Trafalgar House and British Rail cannot build their line without subsidies, despite the fact that Trafalgar House defeated its five competitors for the contract partly on the basis that it would build it without a subsidy. That is the sort of constantly shifting sand with which the previous Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, whom I am delighted to see here today, have had to grapple. Every time they think they have got something firm, it slips away from them.
  I understand that the funding gap is closer to £1 billion than the £400 million suggested in The Times, but, again, we have no knowledge of the figures because such things are confidential. That is despite the fact that the arbiter, the sole proponent of this great scheme, is a nationalised industry. I find it difficult to see why information held by a nationalised industry should not more easily be put into the public domain.
  I understand that British Rail would prefer to receive a lump sum for any subsidies it needs. Therefore, any deal based on commuters paying to use the line, either directly or indirectly, through Network SouthEast, would not meet that requirement. One is bound to ask in this year of hard Treasury decisions whether British Rail's proposed high-speed rail link is the most worthy recipient of £1 billion, even if that proved to be all that was required.
  One cannot rely on British Rail. Let me give just one example out of dozens. King's Cross station has additional parking capacity of 150 places. Mr. Welsby who is now chief executive of British Rail—his handling of the project in its early stages was so exemplary that he was promoted —made me look extremely foolish in front of about 350 angry constituents at a public meeting by telling me that it was stupid of me to imagine that people would want to
  1168
  bring their cars to the railway station, as people who wanted to travel by train would travel by train. So it came as something of a surprise when his successor in charge of the transport project came to see me the other day, and when I asked why British Rail wanted Swanley, he said, as if I were a complete moron, "Because international passengers travelling to a railway station come by car." So British Rail cannot be trusted, and the entire process stands as a monument to its incompetence.
  The costs of the proposal are dubious, even within the parameters of British Rail and Trafalgar House, but those parameters are drawn far too narrowly. I received from the managing director of Trafalgar House a categorical assurance that British Rail will make no contribution whatsoever to the infrastructure costs of a parkway station at its preferred site near Aylesford on the edge of my constituency, yet the costs of the necessary roads to that green field site will be enormous. If Eurorail were a grocery company, it would be required to contribute, with obvious consequences for its costings. Is not it similarly appropriate to include in those costings the costs of upgrading the passenger lines that British Rail propose should be used for freight, including the sound insulations that the many thousands of people who live along those routes have good reason to expect? I believe that the true costs of the British Rail proposal are substantially in excess of £3 billion.
  Finally, Kent county council is increasingly unhappy about the proposal. No sooner had Mr. Welsby been translated to his new post as chief executive than he confirmed that Swanley is now indispensable to the project. Kent county council views that change with great alarm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich said in his most eloquent speech, it affects the green belt. The proposal is also an enormous threat to the prosperity of Ashford. For many years Kent has tried to make Ashford the development centre for the county. A major interchange at Swanley and a Maidstone parkway station would make it almost inconceivable that Ashford would grow in competition with those two centres. It is significant that the consultants who have been appointed to carry out the work on Ashford international station have so far received no further instructions.
  I might say in passing that British Rail's own study for Maidstone parkway station shows that more than half its likely passengers would come from the Sittingbourne, Swale and Gillingham areas. No one who has seen the A229 over Bluebell hill in the morning can seriously believe that the Maidstone parkway site is a sensible place for a parkway station, even if it did not drive a coach and horses through Maidstone borough council's and Kent county council's green belt policy. The county council has understandable anxiety that a careful count of houses has shown that more than 7,000 houses in Kent alone will be affected by the three routes in British Rail's present proposals, so for all those reasons we have to be extremely careful.
  What about some of the other possibilities? I shall speak of one only, the Bechtel—Manufacturers Hanover Trust proposal, which addresses many of the questions that I have raised. The whole of its proposal is in the public domain, but for the reason that I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South it is not in detail.
  One of the few skilful things that British Rail has done in all the negotiations is successfully to destroy the Government's original intention to get it to work with a

  1169
  private contractor. British Rail did that by shutting out design considerations from the private contractors who were invited by British Rail merely to contract to do the work that British Rail had already specified. I understood that the whole idea of bringing in the private sector was to bring its greater imagination and experience to bear on the design. It was only when British Rail got nearer to London than Swanley that it allowed Trafalgar House to take part in the design.
  The Bechtel—Manufacturers Hanover Trust proposal will not be a pig in a poke, and it is important for the Minister to remember that. That company has a record of properly pricing its products and if the price is accepted it completes them at that price or carries the overspend. I am worried that we have a budding Concorde on our hands and that once British Rail has the Government behind it on the project we shall find, amazingly, the cost constantly escalating. There may be other desirable elements in the Bechtel plan. For example, it proposes to continue its line to St. Pancras and that would be a great help to the east midlands. There is also a far greater chance of Bechtel finishing the project without Government subsidy.
  In all the debates about the channel links, freight has dominated, especially for those who live in the north or west. The northern fear is that if the continental UIC gauge, which is indispensable for a 21st century freight system in this country, is taken to Temple Mills it will cripple the north. I do not think that that is the case.
  British Rail is developing ingenious small-wheeled bogies that will allow UIC gauge containers to travel on United Kingdom lines. The problem, as British Rail admits, is that the number of such wagons would be very small as a percentage of all European wagons. Are we seriously to believe that European manufactures will hang about waiting for a small-wheeled bogie to turn up when they have a container to put on the railway? Of course not. They will put their containers on the nearest available wagons.
  I understand that the French are already building a transfer depot which will allow such containers on large-wheeled bogies to be transferred to lorries in France. I remind the House that Eurotunnel will make more money taking lorries on shuttles than it will make on through trains. As a result the roads of Kent, indeed the roads of the United Kingdom, will be filled with all the lorries that the channel tunnel was supposed to take off our roads. However, if the small wheeled bogies were based at Temple Mills they would form a high percentage of the total United Kingdom wagons and the rest of the United Kingdom could be more easily served by UIC gauge containers.
  It is extraordinary for British Rail to take such a pessimistic view of freight. Its estimates of what it can capture are lower than those of SNCF, lower than Eurotunnel's and lower than the estimates of the independent consultants who have considered the matter. At 6·1 million tonnes, the estimate is such a small proportion of the United Kingdom's total freight that the anxieties of the rest of the United Kingdom about being linked to the system are barely worth the trouble. Is British Rail right to be pessimistic? I emphatically believe that it is not. Let us look at two measures. International freight growth has been running at 12 or 13 per cent. on the railways in recent years and that growth will accelerate in 1992. Unitised freight movements in 1989 exceeded the forecast that had originaly been made for 1993.
  1170
  Next we must look at pollution. For how long will the heavy goods vehicle continue to enjoy its privileged position? I remind the House that we are looking into the 21st century. In the light of the announcement yesterday of the new anti-pollution agreement into which the Department of the Environment has entered, we can confidently forecast that pressure will mount every year to get the freight off the roads and on to rail. The tragedy is that, under British Rail's proposals, there will be no international rail network of any sensible proportions to take freight. Any proposal that puts forward a purpose-built freight line, as does the Bechtell-Manufacturers Hanover Trust proposal, on UIC gauge deserves much more analysis than it has so far received.
  British Rail is pessimistic because, at the very beginning, when, no doubt, Mr. Welsby was in charge, it took the view that freight would be on a small scale, so it entered an agreement with SNCF, with a tariff that it now discovers gives it no profit. Trafalgar House has admitted that it see no profit in freight.
  Mr. Wolfson: My hon. Friend has made my point. Unfortunately, Trafalgar House appears to be taking the same view. That is both depressing and wrong.
  Mr. Rowe: As I understand it, the reason is that it has gone along with the traditional railway freight allocation income of so many pence a mile. That puts the United Kingdom at a huge disadvantage. People who enter such contracts at the beginning of a project of this size should be sacked.
  The cost to the infrastructure of the Bechtel-Manufacturers Hanover Trust line are much lower than the costs of the British Rail-Trafalgar House proposal and deserve serious consideration. For example the new Isle of Grain container port, the proposed MCA development at Rainham and the contribution that it will make to the lower Thames road crossing make it clear that the opportunity for getting input into the costs of building the line and the stations attached to it are greater than under the British Rail plan. When I tell the House that only eight houses in Kent will be affected by the Bechtel-Manufacturers Hanover Trust line, whereas 7,500 houses are affected by British Rail's proposals, it will understand that it would be irresponsible for a Kent Member of Parliament not to press for the line to be looked at.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) is right. The centre of London is moving east. In 15 years' time it will be nonsense for my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) to pretend that King's Cross, that Victorian station, is in the centre of London. It will be on the periphery by then. Most international business travellers will want to come to docklands and to the City, so the eastern approach will be much better.
  For all these reasons, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not to rush into accepting a proposal that will cost more than we are told that it will cost, will be less effective than we are led to believe, takes no account of the future European freight and is in many ways wholly wrong.
  1.8 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), but one narrow point will illustrate our difference in perspective. He said that London is moving eastward,

  1171
  either in the next 15 years or well into the next century. He should understand that one of the pressures that those in the north feel strongly is that much of the emphasis on the tunnel and developments from it means that we shall be at a considerable disadvantage in the early years. Pressures for economic and industrial development will be dictated by the physical and geographical realities of where the tunnel is and where adequate links to it have been established.
  From the point of view of the north, decisions must be made quickly to implement proposals. We cannot afford to have our links built at some indefinite time in the future. I hope that that message is understood, because there is common agreement among hon. Members that planning by the Government and British Rail has been appalling. Solutions have been based on the minimum possible cost and effort—not strategically or to achieve the maximum possible benefit for the nation.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Kent mentioned freight. The debate on King's Cross has nothing to do with freight, but I am unhappy and unclear about whether the solutions being advanced by British Rail take account of a region such as mine—a major trading region second only to the south-east in economic importance. We insist on adequate access to the channel tunnel for freight distribution. There are all manner of things that we feel British Rail has not provided, such as a decent high-speed link with the north-west, but I accept that those issues are not relevant to the debate.
  Whether the terminal is at King's Cross or Stratford we are still unhappy about the lack of through trains. People travelling to the continent from Manchester, Liverpool or any of the northern cities will not want to stop in London. That is no disrespect to Londoners—we simply do not want to have to change in London to travel through the tunnel and we feel that British Rail is letting us down.
  There should be adequate links with the three railway lines to the north—the west coast, east coast and midlands lines. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, the Nottingham line is not electrified. That is ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous that, the line from Blackpool to Manchester is not electrified, allowing the north-west to become part of an adequate, modern railway system. Any link must connect the London interchange with those three rail lines. A good interchange system is a high priority.
  I say to hon. Members who are arguing the case for Stratford that the problem in the north is that we know that at King's Cross there will be at least a semi-adequate system. It is incumbent on those hon. Members to guarantee that the interchange at Stratford will be just as good. That case has not been made to me or to others from the region.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am sorry to interrupt his flow. As a London Member, I support Stratford because I believe that it will do less damage to the King's Cross area and because in terms of transport infrastructure it makes much sense. We do not see Stratford as a means of worsening rail services or through trains for people from the north. It would improve the throughput of rail
  1172
  freight and passengers and enable people such as my hon. Friend to travel directly from Manchester to the continent more simply than if the trains went from King's Cross.
  Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend's remarks are central to the case being put forward by those who are arguing for Stratford.
  The other problem with the Stratford development is the possibility of delays being built into the system, which would put the north at a further disadvantage. It must be demonstrated that any movement away from King's Cross would not disadvantage the north. Whatever is on offer, we must have an assurance that it will not disadvantage the north. We cannot afford delays in an operational system for the northern regions.
  If there is to be any reconsideration of the proposal, it is paramount that we are guaranteed that the funding will not sabotage achieving what we need. Central to the case of hon. Members so far has been cost minimisation rather than quality of service maximisation. We know the position with the King's Cross development—we understand the advantages and the disadvantages. If that proposal is to be changed, it is incumbent upon the Minister to guarantee that the system will come into operation quickly and that it will be properly funded so that it is a genuine national system, not just a system to serve the interests of one region.
  1.16 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on obtaining such an important debate at such an opportune time. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment. In view of the importance of the issue that we are discussing, he will be kept busy for many months and years ahead.
  It might be helpful to consider the background to the debate—not only the rail link, but the channel tunnel itself, without which we would not be having this debate. The channel tunnel has become an extremely expensive project, not only in money but, as we sadly heard the other day, in loss of life. The House is concerned about the considerable loss of life during construction work to date.
  The main aspect of concern today is the immense financial cost of the project, which has now risen to an estimated £8 billion. The only people who have been right about the finances of the channel tunnel are its critics. Those who have advocated the project have consistently got their figures wrong. The changes in figures have all been negative when proven. The only positive changes to the figures are the hypothetical estimates of the revenue to be earned from passengers and freight. Those figures are pure guesswork because no one knows to what extent freight lorries or passengers and their cars will transfer from the ferries to the channel tunnel. Therefore, it is true to say that the jury is still out. Indeed, the bankers are potentially out of pocket with the channel tunnel finances. The £6 billion debt for the channel tunnel project means an annual interest bill, at current rates, of £900 million. Administration costs will add another £200 million, producing total annual running costs of £1,100 million annually. The revenue earned from the existing ferries operation is estimated at £500 million, so even if the whole of that trade transfers to the tunnel, there would remain a

  1173
  deficit of £600 million and a loss-making channel tunnel for ever and a day. Against that background, we are asked to contemplate an immensely expensive rail link.
  The passenger volumes on which the channel tunnel revenue forecast was based were made at a time when it was thought that the tunnel trains would travel faster than is likely as a result of the technological requirements of the latest designs. That and other factors mean that passengers will probably have to pay more to use the tunnel, as will those who use it to transport freight. Therefore, the traffic volumes predicted in previous revenue forecasts are even more suspect.
  The new ferries being introduced on cross-channel routes are larger, safer and more comfortable than ever before—they even include club class. They present a competitive advantage by comparison with the tunnel. The ferries will offer much more comfort than cramped railway carriages or the shuttles that will force passengers to remain in their cars as they travel through the tunnel. Those advantages, combined with new technology such as hovercraft catamarans on some of the long-haul channel routes, will mean that pasengers will enjoy more comfort if they continue to use sea crossings rather than the tunnel.
  With so many doubts about the tunnel's financial viability, one must question also whether the proposed rail link makes sense or whether alternatives should be examined. Several of my hon. Friends have effectively advocated the viability, in terms both of financial considerations, passenger comfort and commonsense, of alternative rail links. The use of Stratford would seem to make sense and be more cost-effective, and it could benefit many more people. British Rail's plan seems ill thought out, and it has brought complaints from right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House and from their constituents.
  The motives of the supporters of, and participants in, the proposed link were questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich. My hon. Friends and I would not question motivations of profit, because they are laudable in any business man—but we do question the profit motive when it is at the expense of a taxpayers' subsidy, and it is being suggested that the rail link cannot work, in terms of a terminal at King's Cross, unless such a subsidy is provided. That would be ludicrous, and we must not be left with a developer-led scheme that results in a taxpayers' subsidy.
  If there is any spare money around from property developers, it should be used to realise the potential that exists at, for example, Stratford. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was right to appeal for Stratford to be developed, reminding the House that his constituency is not the most beautiful area in London. It is incumbent upon us to promote a project that might improve his constituency.
  The alternatives are not adequately examined in the current proposals. Perhaps if we consider the alternatives in detail we may find that they could benefit many more constituencies and many more people.
  In Dover, we are interested in a good rail link. The present link is a disgrace. Last Friday night when my wife came down to the constituency, she missed an urgent appointment that she was supposed to attend with me, because the train journey ended up taking three hours instead of one and a half. It should not even be one and a
  1174
  half hours. If we had a decent rail service, we could get the time down to an hour and it would then be equivalent to services in the rest of the country.
  What is British Rail going to do about improving the Dover service? It does not have to wait for the channel tunnel rail link. Something could, and should, be done now.
  Dover is a part of east Kent and we are therefore anxious that, if the rail link is constructed, Ashford international should be promoted as a major through-change. That would bring prosperity to east Kent and it would reduce the level of unemployment, which has gone down considerably due to recent Government proposals and the changes that have taken place in this country in the past few years, but it could still be reduced further. A development at Ashford would be beneficial to that.
  In Dover our other interest is to ensure the survival of the ferry industry. Ferries now offer a better, safer and more comfortable service than they did. That is why I am particularly disturbed to hear Labour spokesmen talking about the repeal of section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. The Government put that section into the Act to support the ferries of Dover. It was a sensible section, which ensured that the ferry companies and their employees could be confident that the industry could compete fairly with the tunnel, which would not have a competitive advantage over ferries from Dover. Section 42 ensures that the Government do not put money into the tunnel to do down the ferries in Dover. Therefore it is wrong for the Labour spokesmen to seek to do down the ferry industry. We must ensure that Labour's proposal to repeal section 42 does not succeed and that it is not supported by the House.
  Should there be any public subsidy or support for British Rail? I question whether that would be sensible. I cannot see why British Rail or the proposed Eurorail company should have a subsidy. It would enable a thoroughly unpopular route—one which would not exist if it were not for the subsidy—to be viable. It is a route that does not seem to have any significant benefits. Some environmental benefits have been promised for some constituencies, but they would make the situation worse in other constituencies, such as Dulwich and Mid-Kent. I do not see why £300 million to £400 million of public money should be put in to do down those constituencies for the benefit of a few areas on the route.
  The speed of travel is a marginal reason for a public sector subsidy. It is debatable whether the tunnel, when it is completed, will reduce considerably the time taken to get to Paris. The tunnel will not improve travel speed as much as was originally thought because the rolling stock will have to go at a slower speed, and consequently it will not have such a time advantage. To promote the project with public money to achieve a marginal time benefit seems ludicrous.
  What would happen if the project exceeded its budget? Once the first £400 million or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, £1 billion, has been committed, what will happen if the project goes wrong? Will the Government be committed to financing a share of the overrun, or most or all of it? That would be a major mistake. What would happen if the channel tunnel rail link project went into receivership or liquidation? If the Government had committed money to it, would they have to bail out the project, either in its entirety or in part?

  1175
  The Government must consider the alternative uses to which £100 million, £200 million or even £1 billion of public money could be put. Airports in other parts of the country or road links would be immensely beneficial and would be of far greater benefit than the narrow use of £1 billion on the channel tunnel rail link.
  I am critical of the fact that no figures relating to the cost of the proposal have been published. Only rumours and leaks abound about them. There has been no public debate about the cost of the channel tunnel rail link. There have been suggestions in the press today of a £400 million subsidy, but it could amount to £1 billion or more. There is not even a back-of-an-envelope calculation to support the proposal.
  I see no reason to worry about what the French may or may not be doing. Two out of three people who cross the channel go to France. The French are the net beneficiaries, since only one out of three people who cross the channel from Europe are French. We should not therefore subsidise a project that would benefit French holiday-makers and the French rail link.
  The project is imperfect. The proposal has been neither properly considered nor properly debated. Its finances are uncertain and the taxpayer would have to pick up a considerable part of the bill. We should keep the taxpayer out of it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich on his motion. I shall vote for it.
  1.32 pm
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Minister for Public Transport to his new post. We look forward to his contribution to the debate.
  It is extraordinary that we should be debating what is arguably the most significant engineering project of our time, with potentially the most profound impact on our nation's economy, on a private Member's motion in a half-empty House. Why has that happened? It is because the Government have adopted an entirely cavalier approach. They have chosen to ignore the nation's economic needs and the railway revolution across the channel. They have chosen to stand aloof while alarm and despondency have spread through public and private institutions alike.
  It is extraordinary that the Government have not once raised the subject for debate in this Parliament—extraordinary, yes, but surprising, no. The Government's doctrinaire approach to planning, the economy and transport prohibits strategic planning and proper consideration of the public interest. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) is to be congratulated on bringing this subject before the House, although I guess that it will become obvious that he does not have the backing of his Government.
  The hon. Gentleman's motion seeks to place the responsibility on British Rail for assessing the alternative rail links to the channel tunnel. We cannot support him. There is a clear need to examine the alternatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has consistently called for a full public inquiry into the project, though we recognise that the time for such an inquiry has probably passed. We recognise also that British Rail cannot be expected to be objective. We
  1176
  propose instead that the Secretary of State, by means of the good offices of his hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, should establish a committee of experts to examine all the available alternative rail link options. We believe that the committee could report within three months and should have a brief to examine the economic and environmental effects, the costs and the safety aspects of all the proposed routes. We suggest that can be done because so much work has already been done outside Government circles. The experts should hear the representations of the many groups of ordinary people who have real concerns and sensible questions and have proposals to make on this subject.
  A wide consensus exists on the criteria that should determine the preferred route for the channel tunnel link. That consensus reaches across the political spectrum and encompasses the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. Last month's public opinion panel survey of Members of Parliament gives further testimony to that consensus. It found that the order of priority to specify considerations for determining the route was as follows: first, the need for through links to United Kingdom regions; secondly, the need for fast links to London; thirdly, the environmental impact of the route; fourthly, the cost of the route; and, last, the scheme's ability to be financed completely from private capital. Clearly, the Government are out of step with the views of hon. Members. The survey found also that two thirds of the Members questioned were not satisfied that the regions would be adequately served by links through the tunnel to Europe. Significantly, the survey recorded strong support for greater investment in the railway network to maximise the economic benefits of the channel tunnel.
  This debate, because of the motion, has understandably focused on the merits and, to some extent, demerits of Stratford as a second international terminal. Undoubtedly, there are significant planning issues and property interests associated with all potential terminal locations, but we believe that achieving the priority objectives of the link should determine terminal location and not the other way around.
  There is a clear consensus about objectives but little confidence that the Government are ensuring that British Rail and Eurotunnel meet them. Instead, a financial straitjacket has been applied by a Government determined to maintain the farce that this massive project can be built without any public money. The outcome is likely to be another botched job and a further public outcry when the latest BR-preferred route sees the light of day. The Secretary of State, we understand, has been studying the plans for six weeks. Perhaps the Minister will tell us today when the right hon. Gentleman is likely to make an announcement, or is it possible that he is having second thoughts?
  British Rail's briefing for today gives some sign of the impossible hoops through which it has to jump. It is clear that the financial regime of the Secretary of State cannot be made to work. The preferred route, we are told, will include a proposed new commuter service from Kent to King's Cross in an attempt to attract public subsidy. What a ludicrous way to devise a national infrastructure plan for the 21st century. Having thought up this addition to the route, British Rail then uses it in its critique of alternative routes, saying that the latter do not offer the potential for

  1177
  a Kent commuter service. I do not think that we will find that many Members actively support a preferred route on the grounds of an enhanced commuter service for Kent.
  There are certain fundamental questions. How can we provide a high-speed rail link, a service which links the whole of the United Kingdom to the tunnel and offers a first-rate service for passengers and freight alike? We believe that ideally we should look for a dedicated track built to European standards. Anything less will create a differential between the British service and the continental service, such that in parts of Britain trains could be running at half the speed that they run in France. Will the Minister tell us today whether his Department really finds that acceptable? We believe that the needs of the north of England and of Scottish passenger services——
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose——
  Ms. Ruddock: Just a moment.
  Those needs require major interchange facilities at King's Cross. That is the official Labour party view. However, we believe equally that the case is well made on environmental and strategic grounds in London and Kent for an alternative route linked to Stratford. The case for the Arup group proposal has been rehearsed today. There are those who believe that those two requirements can be combined with a relatively fast link from Stratford to King's Cross at a cost of about £500 million.
  The House needs to know whether that can be done. Is it a solution to what could otherwise be presented as conflicting interests? Does the Minister agree with the costing? Has he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State studied the proposal? Are they still prepared to consider it, and if not, why not?
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose——
  Ms. Ruddock: I am sorry, I shall not give way; I have been asked to be brief.
  Will the Minister confirm that such a combination of terminals present no disadvantage to the running of through services to the north?
  As an hon. Member representing a south London constituency, I am acutely aware of the need to avoid a route that goes through such a densely populated area as my constituency. However, as a shadow Minister, I am also aware of the strong feelings of those in the midlands, the north of England and Scotland that they could be sold short if the concerns of only Kent and London were to be taken into account. Opposition Members are extremely anxious to find a consensus and solution that is right for Britain as a whole.
  Our economic future depends on the rail links to the tunnel. With desperately overcrowded roads in London and the south-east and the dilapidated state of public transport, we shall have a disaster on our hands if millions of people and tonnes of freight are simply dumped outside the tunnel or in the heart of this capital city. We must plan for the needs of the nation as a whole with economic efficiency and environmental sensitivity at the top of the agenda.
  We are aware that European money is available for European projects. Why should not Britain be the beneficiary? If the French can produce a nationwide network of super-fast trains, why cannot Britain? If the French railways can carry 42 per cent. of all long-distance freight, why cannot British Rail do the same? Why should
  1178
  British Rail be forced, through financial restraints, to behave as though it was still running a 19th century railway instead of planning for the 21st century?
  The Secretary of State cannot be allowed to stand aside any longer. He must consider repealing section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. I heard what the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said. Of course, we supported that section to protect the ferry services running from our coasts—and rightly so, but it is our contention that those services are competitive and that they remain so without that special protection. It is in the nationwide interest that they do so. However, we should also bear in mind the nationwide interest of being able to provide an adequate railway link to the channel tunnel.
  The Secretary of State must relax the financial regime imposed on the rail project. Although we believe that money is required, we are completely opposed to using taxpayers' money to prop up private sector projects. The Minister must be aware that rumours abound. It is high time that his right hon. Friend came to the House and admitted what is going on. Will the Minister tell us today whether we can expect a statement on the financing of the rail link before the spring recess? Before he does so, perhaps the Secretary of State should also consult his officials about the likely impact of the proposed European directive on establishing a Community railway policy, because the harmonisation required to build a Community network is directly at odds with the expected British Rail-Eurorail proposals for the British channel tunnel rail link. The report on that proposed directive states:
  "From a technical point of view it is obviously possible, to a certain extent, to live with different systems and different specifications. However, this approach, which up to now has been the basis of co-operation between the different networks, will result in high costs and less reliable equipment. The European railways should rather adopt 'universal' specifications compatible with the particular set of international routes they plan to serve, which is their only chance of success "
  We must note what the directive says about developments on the continent. The Secretary of State would be ill-advised to ignore them.
  If the Government continue with their present stance, Britain will again be relegated to the dark ages while continental Europe reaps the greatest economic benefits of the single market and the opening of the tunnel. We are in danger of paying the highest environmental cost for the least economic return. We in the Labour party are clear where the blame for this fiasco lies. We share all the anxieties that people have about the behaviour of British Rail, but responsibility for the fiasco lies with the Government, and it is the Government who must act now. Money can and must be found to make an adequate link. A review by a committee of experts will not delay the proceedings. We know that it is crucial if we are to achieve the high-quality, high-speed rail links for the whole of Britain, to which the Labour party is committed.
  1.47 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): This has been an interesting debate and it is certainly not yet over. It has been particularly valuable to me as a new Minister at the Department to listen to this timely and useful discussion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) on his courtesy to me prior to the debate and on the clear and even-handed way in which he presented his case. I also

  1179
  thank him and the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) for their kind remarks in welcoming me to my new position.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) described the debate as being, in effect, a five-hour tutorial for a new Minister, and he is right in so far as 15 hon. Members have spoken, excluding my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, and the debate has certainly been helpful to me. I hope that I bring a fresh and inquiring mind to the issue. It will also be helpful to British Rail and to officials at my Department, and I will ensure that the record is fully studied. To the extent that I cannot answer the questions raised in the time available to me, I will write to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I find these half-day debates helpful—for a Minister, one's desk is cleared and one rightly has to listen to the arguments and so far as possible reach decisions. The proceedings which follow such debates are also most helpful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich will be glad to know that no one, least of all British Rail, disagrees with the terms of his motion. British Rail has examined the alternative routes, including those to Stratford, and will continue to examine them. It has been in contact with both promoters of the alternative routes to Stratford or to the east of London to discuss the details of the schemes. I understand that the new Chairman of British Rail, Mr. Bob Reid, plans to see the two groups himself—the Ove Arup group and the Manufacturers Hanover Trust and Bechtel group. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich will be reassured by that.
  Both British Rail and the Government are quite clear that before adopting any final proposals, and before submitting them to Parliament, British Rail will need to be as satisfied as it possibly can be that it has made the right route decision. Parliament will expect to be satisfied, and to have it demonstrated, that the alternatives have been properly and fully examined and that there are good and convincing reasons for the final proposal. There is no monopoly of wisdom in these matters and all ideas must be looked at on their merits.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who sought to put this debate in the context of the channel tunnel opening in three years' time and a rail link being a decade away, even with the fastest possible agreement on the route, and its design and structure. The opening of the channel tunnel and the rail link are governed by two different time scales.
  I can give not only my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, but other hon. Members, the assurance that British Rail takes the alternatives seriously—it has to. I shall return to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Deptford for a committee of experts. British Rail has to convince not only itself but the Department of Transport and Parliament because the private Bill procedure, which operates for extensions or alterations to the railway network, provides a careful examination of such proposals.
  The issue of the channel tunnel rail link must be seen in the context of the Government's policy that the maximum benefits and efficiencies from transport systems, as in other walks of life, are achieved where there is fair and equal opportunity for as many competitors as possible to
  1180
  compete in the market. As for inter-city rail and international services, we believe that the railways can and should compete on an equal basis with other transport modes including sea, air or road. I chose my words carefully when I spoke of "inter-city rail" and "international services".
  Operators and users of other services are not subsidised and in terms of economics and fairness there is no reason why international rail services should be subsidised. The essentially commercial nature of international rail services is also enshrined in section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the channel tunnel. If he believes that the Government are going to bail out or subsidise the channel tunnel, I can disabuse him of that fact. He may have been confusing the channel tunnel and rail link. I assure him that there is no question of the Government bailing out the construction of the tunnel, which needs additional finance. We shall see whether the company is successful—it has a good story to tell and I hope that it will soon be successful.
  Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act was widely supported at the time, not least by the Opposition, who now seem to be calling for its repeal. Indeed, the hon. Member for Deptford called for it to be repealed. At the time, there was widespread recognition that it was right to guarantee fair play to the ferries and ports, and to those working in those organisations who were concerned that subsidised international rail services would inevitably, in effect, subsidise the channel tunnel. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) that we have no intention of repealing section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act, which relates to the international travel aspects. There are other aspects of the financing of any rail link which section 42 does not directly affect.
  British Rail has had a clear remit, both from the Government and from Parliament, to look at the channel tunnel rail link as a commercial project, and one that will have to be acceptable to Parliament.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Newham, South implied that the Government and British Rail were on a hook because of prejudice, that they did not intend to provide finance for the channel tunnel rail link and had a preference—almost a craving—for private sector capital involvement. The hon. Gentleman was wrong on both counts. He knows that the massive sums involved in providing finance for any channel tunnel rail link—albeit sums which are presently under consideration by a joint venture—require the Goverment's approval and agreement because they are taxpayers' funds. It is not true that the Government are not involved in providing finance for capital investment in a nationalised industry. I assume that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the degree of Government subsidy and the hon. Member for Deptford, is now suggesting that we should ditch section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act, but I have said that the Goverment are not contemplating that.
  There is no blind prejudice in favour of private capital. If private capital has a role to play, that is fine, but the hon. Gentleman recognises, as I do, that private capital has a much higher implicit cost in terms of the return that it has to earn. That means that the involvement of private capital tends to make a project even more difficult to justify. The private sector can contribute to property development, which nationalised industries are not particularly good at,

  1181
  nor is it their job, and to the management of particular projects. There is certainly no prejudice on my part or on the part of the Government.
  Mr. Spearing: Surely the Minister is saying that by virtue of the need for a public organisation to achieve a return of 8 per cent. or for private capital to have an even higher return there is a hurdle that the Government have to jump or a hook on which they have to impale themselves? Will he confirm that if he applied the criteria which applied to the Victoria line when it was built under the authority of Ernest Marples, those considerations would not apply?
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is right in his analysis. I have no idea what rates of return private sector capital requires in this or other projects. We set an 8 per cent. real rate of return for commercial projects for nationalised industries. I recognise that the involvement of private sector capital can make the attainment of that more difficult in some cases. As I have said, however, private sector capital can make other contributions. The 8 per cent. real rate of return changes with current financial circumstances and the advice and views of the Treasury. I do not know what rate applied when the Victoria line was built.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) asked the Government, and me specifically, to be the guardian of the national interest. I cannot shuffle off that responsibility because the Department of Transport's job is to approve investment proposals put to us by British Rail. Any channel tunnel rail link is likely to involve substantial sums of public sector capital and must therefore involve our careful consideration of the alternatives and our being persuaded that the chosen route is the right one.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) rightly drew attention to the importance of the environmental impact of any route—the King's Cross route or the Stratford route to east London. British Rail and Eurorail are undertaking a full environmental impact assessment for the rail link along the lines of the European directive. Any proposal which comes to us for final consideration will have to go through that process.
  The Government cannot accept the view that major infrastructure projects do not go hand in hand with a sensible commercial approach. After all, the channel tunnel is a commercial project and is much the better for it. The project has captured public interest in a powerful way, and in concept and scale is the leading transport project for the United Kingdom and France, if not the world. Even so, it needs to be kept in perspective. It will not be the only link with the continent. For years we have had ferries, hovercraft, hydrofoils and aircraft linking and integrating Britain with Europe, and those alternatives will certainly continue. The tunnel will be a substantial and important addition to the existing links. Above all, it will be a tremendous competitive spur.
  With regard to freight, the House should bear in mind that the capacity of the tunnel will be sufficient to handle only 6 per cent. by volume of total United Kingdom trade in 1993, including oil. In 1988, Liverpool handled 7 per cent. by volume of total United Kingdom trade, Southampton 11 per cent. and Tees and Hartlepool 13 per cent.
  I am aware that Eurotunnel would like us to look at an analysis of dry bulk unitised trade between the United
  1182
  Kingdom and Europe. The tunnel's share of that United Kingdom trade would be between 14 and 20 per cent. I hope that that puts the tunnel into perspective in relation to some of our other great ports. If the tunnel were opened today it would rank as the 12th or 13th largest port in the United Kingdom in terms of volume of freight handled.
  Probably the most important aspect of the tunnel is its role in joining the United Kingdom's rail network to the mainland of Europe. That will enable British Rail for the first time to compete with the airlines on price, speed and comfort. No one doubts that international rail travel has a bright commercial future. British Rail is already in the process of investing on a commercial basis more than £1 billion to provide comprehensive passenger and freight services on the day the Channel tunnel opens in 1993. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent for reminding us that we should not lose sight of plans which are already in place and those that we hope to see in place to ensure that we have the rail network to service the tunnel when it opens.
  By any standards, this is a massive investment programme and it is fully geared to maximising for the railways the tremendous opportunities offered by the tunnel. Last December, with the approval of the Government, British Rail signed a contract worth some £350 million with SNCF for the purchase of 18 high-speed trains. The trains will be operated by British Rail and will run between London and Paris and London and Brussels.
  Today I can announce that the Government have approved British Rail plans to build an international passenger terminal at Waterloo station and a maintenance depot in west London. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) cannot be present in the Chamber. I hope that Lambeth council will adopt an objective and fair approach to the planning applications for Waterloo station because that service has to be open and running in three years when the tunnel opens. If the hon. Member for Vauxhall were here I do not think that she would be able to defend further the argument that we should close down our plans for Waterloo and move to Stratford. The time scales for the two projects are wholly different.
  The investments on the passenger side are worth about £175 million. I can also announce that we have just approved investment of about £80 million on electric freight locomotives and on electrification of the line between Tonbridge and Redhill. That forms part of British Rail's core investments of a further £175 million in channel tunnel freight. The Government have now approved the great majority of British Rail's investment plans for 1993.
  Mr. Prescott: The new investment that the Minister has announced will be welcomed by the House, especially the investment in freight trains. Europe wants to see the harmonisation of our high-speed rail system so that trains can leave the tunnel and travel on the French and Belgian systems. Will the new freight trains be able to do that?
  Mr. Freeman: I am sorry that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question because I have not briefed myself on the matter. I will write to the hon. Gentleman. I understand the significance of his question.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) asked us to take a longer term-view—what he called freight vision. While I am sure that he will welcome the announcements that I have made today about improving the existing freight system through new

  1183
  equipment and electrification, he rightly asks us to look 20 or 30 years ahead. No large business undertaking can react short-term to pressures in the next two or three years. British Rail has to take a serious, studied, careful look at the development of freight traffic, and I hope that it will take an optimistic and forward-looking view about the share of such traffic that it can gain. I should not support a limited vision on that. In any proposals which come before me, I shall want to look carefully at whether British Rail has looked forward a decade or two, and I hope that it will rise to the challenges.
  Beyond 1993, traffic will undoubtely grow. No one seriously argues with British Rail's view that, sooner or later, extra capacity will be needed between London and the tunnel. There also seems to be general agreement that a new line is the best means of providing that capacity. Against this background, British Rail published its preferred route in March 1989. As the House knows, the cost of environmental improvements to British Rail's proposed new line—in particular, the cost of tunnelling under London—affected the viability of the new rail link proposal.
  Latterly, British Rail has been pursuing with Eurorail —the Trafalgar-House-BICC consortium—the possibility of establishing a joint venture company whereby the private sector would play a major role in both the financing and the commercial operation of British Rail's international rail services, including the construction and operation of a new channel rail link. British Rail and Eurorail have now submitted to the Government certain proposals for carrying forward the joint venture and the Government will be responding to a complicated package of suggested amendments as soon as we are able.
  The hon. Member for Deptford asked me whether we would make a statement before Whitsun. I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport or the Government, but I can tell her that this debate is both helpful and timely. We shall try to reach a decision as quickly as possible because I am aware, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and the hon. Member for Peckham pointed out, that there is concern about blight on the routes proposed. We know British Rail's preferred route, but the need to remove uncertainty as quickly as possible is very much at the forefront of my mind.
  Mr. Prescott: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way to me again because I know that he is pressed for time. In whatever option is put to them is the Government's preference still for the tunnelling rather than the surface option?
  Mr. Freeman: I cannot comment on that because we have to evaluate the revised proposals put to us. We have not reached a conclusion and I shall not speculate as to what combination of tunnelling and above-ground track we are likely to favour. The Government are aware of the Eurorail and the Ove Arup outline proposals and the support that some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich, have lent to these alternative approaches. The Stratford routes have attracted support for a number of reasons. Some wish to see an international station at Stratford because of the local advantages that this would bring. Others have outlined what they see as the national advantages of such
  1184
  a scheme, including car parking and the onward movement of traffic, both freight and passenger, to the north and the west. I have listened to those arguments with great care.
  A Stratford terminal was on the British Rail shortlist as a possible site and has therefore been carefully evaluated by British Rail. Had British Rail chosen Stratford as its preferred location for the second terminal in London, it would still have approached it from the south, the route from Kent, and not from the east through Essex as envisaged by the promoters of the alternative schemes. The reason for that is to ensure that any benefits of constructing a new line are shared with Waterloo and that it is linked with the increased capacity that would come with the construction of such a line. That would not necessarily happen if at a relatively early stage the line went north and across south-east Essex.
  Mr. Rowe: This is of considerable importance because that was the original point that BR made to us many times. It later changed its mind and explicitly said that it did not envisage that being an essential part of the criticism of the other routes into London. Several Conservative Members were present at the meeting when that was said.
  Mr. Freeman: I have approached the debate with some caution as I am new to the job and do not want to put my foot in it. I hope that I am not making dogmatic statements. I shall study exactly what was said. I apologise if I have confused or confounded my hon. Friend.
  I say to hon. Members who represent constituencies to the north of London, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, south (Sir P. Blaker), the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes), my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and others, that of course we understand the significance of a rail link for the regions to the north and west of London. It is most important that we take a national view of any proposals put to us. Although it is fair to say that the bulk of passengers who will use the rail link will live in the home counties, greater London and the south-east, I accept the argument that one must consider carefully the implications for the north-west and north-east. I have listened carefully to the case for what are seen as the short-term advantages of using King's Cross, but I do not propose to dwell on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the various routes.
  As I have made clear, the Goverment and BR accept entirely that it is BR's responsibility to convince the country that it has examined all the alternatives and reached the right decision. However, there are certain aspects of the alternative proposals to which I should perhaps refer as it may help to clarify the issue for those concerned about it. The first point relates to comparative costs. Everyone must exercise much caution when making comparisons. Those who believe that the costs of the alternatives are higher then the costs of BR's route say, with some logic, that the alternative routes involve building a four-track railway to handle passengers and freight, whereas BR's route is for a two-track passenger railway only.
  I will reply in writing to hon. Members whom I have not answered specifically. The hon. Member for Deptford asked for a committee of experts. British Rail is

  1185
  responsible for putting forward a preferred route and the Department of Transport and Parliament are responsible for evaluating it.
  The contribution that I can make in the forthcoming weeks and months is to listen, as I have to this debate, and to visit the proposed sites. I look forward to visiting Waterloo, King's Cross and Stratford. I will ensure that BR and the Government explain and clarify any proposals extremely carefully, including alternative costs. To the best of my ability, I will ensure that a decision is taken expeditiously to avoid blight and doubt.
  Ms.Harman rose——
  Mr. Freeman: I am sorry, but I have run out of time.
  Several hon. Members have said that that blight and uncertainty have affected their constituencies. I look forward to further debates and discussions on this important subject.
  2.13 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham,North): I welcome the Minister to his new job and also his first announcement that the chairman of British Rail will meet those proposing the alternative routes. I hope that he will meet them with an open mind, and I congratulate the Minister on moving so quickly to do something so constructive. If he is successful in getting BR to consider the alternatives, the name of Freeman may rank with Brunel in the annals of British railways.
  I had hoped to move the second motion on the Order Paper about the need for a democratic revolution in the United Kingdom. However, this debate has proved a classic case study of the need for many changes in the way in which we make our decisions and in the democratic processes in this country. One of the most important historic decisions that this nation could face—how we link with our continental partners—has been typified by bodge, cock-up and half-baked proposals. There has not been a serious, democratic, planned effort through the House, through another place—which should be in a far more representative form—through the contributions of elected regional assemblies or through a system in which everyone could make a decision through a freedom of information Act——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber all morning, but I must remind him that he is speaking to the first motion, which is about the channel tunnel rail link.
  Mr. Allen: That is why I am now speaking on behalf of my constituency and all those in the east midlands who have profound anxieties—which I hope the Minister will take on board—not merely about the current proposal, but about the alternatives.
  I have some sympathy with the Stratford proposal because it appears to make geographic and railway sense in a way that the current proposal does not. My concern, which applies to both schemes, is that the east midlands, and Nottingham in particular, could be isolated. That certainly would be the case if the midlands main line was not electrified. There has been electrification on the continent, railway building in France, the building of two
  1186
  new north-south lines in Germany and Spain is changing its gauge. They are all gearing up for 1992 and a single market.
  Those whom I represent, and those in my region generally, are fearful that we shall be left behind, with the line going up either the east coast or the west coast. One of the major engines of the British economy—the east midlands—will be left to flounder and to fend for itself in a competitive new area—[Interruption.] It appears that other hon. Members are still waiting to contribute to the debate.
  The responsibility is not merely to my constituency, my region, south London or the constituencies of other hon. Members who have spoken this morning; it is to the whole nation. How can we all benefit from the opportunities that the channel tunnel and the rail links can offer? While supporting Stratford, we must make it clear that Stratford itself is no better an alternative than King's Cross on its own. The essential feature is that Stratford must be linked to King's Cross-St. Pancras. Without that essential link, there will be great concern among hon. Members, constituencies and regions about the efficacy of the proposal, just as there are doubts about the current proposal.
  My great fear, which has not been allayed this morning, is that the proposers of the new scheme may well follow the salami tactics to which the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) referred in another context. They may go for the easier part of the scheme, which would be the channel tunnel link to Stratford, and then, all of a sudden, say that for commercial reasons they cannot afford the expensive, updated, dedicated link from Stratford to King's Cross-St. Pancras. People in my region would be left high and dry with connections possible from Stratford up the east coast and even across to the west coast. That would be a devastating blow.
  Will the Minister take away one thought? Why cannot there be two stations serving London? There could be a Stratford station, which would be London international east, and a King's Cross-St. Pancras station, which would be London international north, with the lines going through of equal status so that through traffic could go to all parts of the region.
  We have heard some knocking of British Rail, and it was partly deserved. However, we must direct our criticism not at the current Minister but at some of his predecessors over the past decade, who inhibited British Rail from presenting reasonable options and plans. In imposing investment restraints, the Government left British Rail in an extremely difficult position, and that has led to botched plans that will serve the interests neither of the nation nor of my region.
  I welcome alternative proposals that have appeared, and am glad that the representations made by trans-Pennine, Midland Mainline Consortium, the Railway Development Society and many others throughout the land are apparently being echoed in some of the Minister's remarks.
  I began my speech by remarking that there may be hallowed future references to the name of Freeman along with that of Brunel. I was only half-joking. We have a new Minister and a new British Rail chairman, and there is a possibility that progress will be made. Certainly there is a feeling among the public that the matter should he re-examined and a new settlement reached, so that we may

  1187
  have a railway system of which we can all be proud, and which taps into the continent in the same way that our foreign competitors have done.
  I wish the Minister well in his new job. His is nothing less than an historic role, and I hope that he will seize the opportunities before him.
  2.21 pm
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I welcome the opportunity presented by the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), for right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in the north of England to air some of the concerns that we have about a project which pre-eminently seems to affect the south-east. In reality, it will affect us all.
  Anxieties have already been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), and by the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that the link should benefit the north just as much as anywhere else. I also appreciate the arguments made by right hon. and hon. Members representing constituencies in southern England. After all, if such a link were to be routed through my constituency, I would have the same passionate and vehement interest in obtaining detailed information about the villages affected. Inevitably, those of us representing northern constituencies can deal with the matter only with a very large brush.
  Those who look after our interests include the Channel Tunnel Group, which comprises the most powerful and influential bodies in the north-west. They include north-west local authorities; Rail Forum; Greater Manchester Economic Development Limited; Central Manchester, Merseyside and Trafford Park development corporations; English Estates; chambers of commerce in the north-west of England, and the Confederation of British Industry in the north-west. Those voices wanting to be heard in the debate are not insignificant—and it is not an insignificant issue.
  Time is of the essence, and there are also questions of convenience and money. They can all be summed up in one plea that the north-west makes—"Please, the time has now come to stick to the present proposals for King's Cross." I know perfectly well how time will be consumed if we change our minds again—I am not a member of the Court of Referees for nothing. I give my hon. Friend the Minister an assurance that the Court of Referees will deal with subsequent matters, a new Bill, or new proposals—if it has to do so—rather more expeditiously than he fears. However, he is right to say that it will take time.
  If the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) were in her place I would say to her that if she comes before us next year for locus standi—I cannot anticipate events and I shall not comment on any decisions already made—we shall view with great sympathy those people who have problems because a line is being driven through their constituency. Nevertheless, time is of the essence and any change is likely to cause more delay.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I have listened to my hon. and learned Friend with great interest and, speaking from the perspective of my Leicestershire constituency, it seems that far too much consideration is being given to landscaping and the link going round villages in Kent.
  1188
  Those resources should be devoted to better terminals in the midlands and in the north for the tunnel rail link. That is of great concern to my constituents.
  Mr. Miscampbell: I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend. We live in a lovely island and we have managed to make a good mess of it in some areas. I am in favour of ensuring that we do not make any more mess. I am an old inflationist—there is no question about that. I think that a few extra millions to ensure that we preserve Kent looking nice and reasonable will be money well spent and that people who follow us will be pleased that we had the courage and the guts to do it.
  Obviously arguments are raging in Kent, in the constituencies that the line might pass through, and all those arguments will be opened up again. Time will tell. If that happens we may find that we are being left behind. We have manufacturing interests, not only in the north-west, but throughout northern England and they must be accommodated. If they are not, those regions will be marginalised. I cannot go into detail because there is not time, but on behalf of hon. Members representing northern constituencies I want to voice our constant concern that we should be looked after and our interests should be borne in mind, because they are also the interests of Great Britain.
  Convenience is another issue. It is no use saying to my constituents or to people in Liverpool or Manchester that there will be a train going down to Stratford. Traditionally, they have gone to Euston or, if they come from the north-east, to King's Cross and they will still have to use those stations under these proposals. It became clear, although we did not go into details in the Court of Referees, that the complex of Euston, which is adjacent to King's Cross, has the capacity for such things as travelators, and the easy communications between the two stations mean that it is simple to change from one to the other.
  In reality the vast King's Cross development, and Euston, which is nearby, means that we are discussing two stations which can easily be joined. Therefore, for convenience, and because the stations are connected with Heathrow and with 60 per cent. of the underground lines, we should stick with King's Cross.
  British Rail included in the King's Cross Railways Bill in November 1989 powers to improve the Hampstead link. That would be another link with the general rail network.
  Naturally, people in Kent who have problems because of the link are intensely interested, but in the north we have our interests. We want people to pay more attention to them. For example, as several hon. Members have mentioned, there is the electrification of the rail lines in the north of England. We want to know of British Rail's plans for electrification between Manchester and my constituency. What are its plans for a depot in the north and where does it propose to site it? How will it be tied in to the lines coming through from King's Cross—we hope—or from wherever, to join up with continental railways? Such a development is essential and we must have it.
  We do not want to be marginalised and left on the periphery. However, many people in the north of England believe that that is what will happen. I refer not just to Conservative party members but to Labour party members. Many ordinary folk in the north of England believe that London thinks that it knows best, but——
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day

  SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [11 May], That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

  ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION (SPEED LIMITS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CONTROL) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 June.

  Secondary Education (Maidstone)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  2.30 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise such an important subject. When the proposed reorganisation of schools in Kent, particularly in Maidstone, comes before the Minister, my constituents will wish certain criteria to be paramount. They are the maintenance of grammar school places and the size of the schools concerned.
  Another matter must also be closely examined. I raise it with specific reference to Kent and Maidstone, but it could affect other authorities that my find themselves in the same position. It relates to the financial mechanism that authorities have to use when they engage in a large-scale reorganisation.
  Kent county council decided this week not to go ahead with the proposed closure of Oakwood grammar school or with the reorganisation of other schools in Maidstone until the autumn, when it is to institute a proper review. It will be the third review of Maidstone's secondary education in three years. Two years ago, there was a proposal to close Senacre, Maplesden Noakes and Astor of Hever schools in my constituency. There was a great deal of uncertainty which did them no good. While they were under threat, parents were reluctant to make them their first choice and to send their children to those schools. The threat was removed in the face of an immense outcry by the people of Maidstone who did not want those high schools to be closed.
  One of the reasons given for the proposed closures was that school rolls in the area were falling. To some of us that seemed peculiar, in view of the immense amount of development in the south-east—the growth of housing estates and the pressure on the area that is concomitant with the building of the channel tunnel and the rail link. It was difficult to understand how school rolls could be falling. We have been told that now there are more children in the primary schools and that in three or four years' time they will filter through into the secondary schools.
  The recent closure proposals, which have not been abandoned but whose consideration has merely been deferred, have brought in their train, once again, uncertainty and blight. The proposals stem from the wholly admirable Kent county council decision to move from selection at 13 to selection at 11. Kent county council has a wide variety of schools—high schools, comprehensives and grammar schools, including those based on the 11-plus system, the 13-transfer system or the Thamesside system, the latter being the least satisfactory.
  I am delighted that Kent county council has decided that, in due course, Maidstone will move to selection at 11. But what will happen to the grammar schools? If there is selection at 11, children of 11 and 12 will seek grammar school places. There are only two ways to cope with that extra demand: either the grammar schools must expand to absorb those children, or the authority must cut down on the number of forms of entry.
  Many of my constituents and I have been alarmed by the fact that the Kent county council has proposed in recent months to close one of our four major grammar schools—Oakwood boys grammar. When the primary

  1191
  school population is rising and more children will need grammar school places and when, because of a complete change in the system, more grammar school places will be needed anyway, what is the sense in closing a grammar school? The consistent answer has been that the county council can see no sense in closing a grammar school, but it proposed to do so—and may yet propose to do so—because the financial regulations governing secondary education are such that the council does not feel able to keep the school open for three or four years if rolls are falling.
  There are smaller schools than Oakwood grammar in the county. When I asked why, if Oakwood could not be kept open, smaller schools could be, I was assured that the only reason was that transfer at 11 was occurring more quickly in those areas and, therefore, the length of time a school would have to be financially unviable was much shorter. Kent county council expressed its problems in this way:
  "Formula funding is based largely on the number of children attending a school. While older children, who pursue more intensive and extensive curriculums, attract more money any school must make sure it attracts sufficient numbers of pupils. If they fail to do this they will lose resources and, if they are unable to stem this flow, could 'wither on the vine'."
  Kent county council said that it had a particular problem because of a temporary dip in numbers—that is, it is dealing not with a long-term trend but a short-term difficulty. Although the school roll may be due to pick up in, say, five years' time, because of the shortfall in pupils numbers in the interim, there is a shortfall in resources. Kent county council says categorically that, because of the rules governing formula funding, the local authority cannot top up school budgets to help schools through this problem. The authority has asked whether more flexible approaches to the proplem can be taken without abandoning the principle of formula funding. For example, could not a school that has no transport costs be credited with the opportunity costs of transport, so that that is taken in on the plus side of its revenue? Apparently, the formula funding problem is as bad whether it is a locally managed scheme or not.
  Kent county council feels that if it is facing a massive reorganisation, it should be possible to treat the whole thing as one big in and out scheme so that, instead of having to hand back the proceeds to the Treasury when it disposes of buildings, it could say that that money is but a part of the cost of having to provide other buildings, and it could then be assessed only on the net proceeds. The county council has worked out that if it were allowed to do that, it would be able to produce a profit of £4 million in west Kent, which it could use for new buildings——
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Does my hon. Friend agree that if the county council's interpretation of the rigidity of the formulas is correct, there is a serious danger that a whole range of schools will opt for direct funding which, if it were to continue, would make running the local education authority very difficult?
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He, too, is most concerned about this problem because his constituency covers part of Maidstone and these schools
  1192
  serve his constituents. He is right—Maplesden Noakes school has already applied to opt out, as has Cornwallis school. Those schools will be familiar to my hon. Friend.
  Obviously, a pattern could be set but I do not believe that that pattern would be necessary if Kent county council could say finally and firmly, "This is what we want to do. These are the schools that will survive. We shall ensure that there is no reduction whatsoever in the number of grammar school places. We shall ensure that buildings are ready and in place when the changeover to 11 is made so that education does not suffer. This is the number of places that we have to provide for in high schools, and this is the number of high schools that we need."
  If Kent could say that finally and firmly and could assure my constituents that there is no question that between now and the time when selection takes place it will indulge in endless reviews based on some immediate ad hoc assessments of where school rolls are falling and where they are not, my constituents could have the stability that they want. If the only way that schools can guarantee stability is to seek to opt out, there is obviously the possibility of increased numbers of applications to opt out. That in turn will make it difficult for the Kent county council to come up with a proper organisation.
  Apart from the maintenance of grammar school places, my constituents are also concerned about the size of the schools involved. It was proposed that the Oakwood site would be closed, but that Oakwood school would be amalgamated with Invicta girls school to produce one large mixed grammar school. The proposed size of that school was 1,600 pupils. Surely this Government of all Governments have always believed that small schools have a value as long as they are viable, that individual attention for pupils is valuable and that large impersonal schools do not always best serve the community.
  Two years ago, when the proposed high school reorganisation was under way, we were told that some of the schools would have 1,100 pupils, but now we are told that a grammar school of 1,600 pupils is proposed. That flies in the face of what I think both the Government and the county consider ideal. Indeed, the county has said that the ideal school size is 800 pupils. That makes one wonder why it has come up with a proposal for a school twice that size.
  Apart from the closure of the grammar school and the fact that the new school would be on a different side of town, my constituents would be deeply unhappy if the number of smaller schools in the area were to decrease and they were left only with a choice of enormous schools where the head cannot possibly know every pupil, where there will be increased discipline problems—that must occur even in the grammar school system if the school is very large—and where the individual development of each child is much harder to maintain.
  I should welcome the Minister's comments on what the Department regards as the right size of school at least in general, if not in this context. Does the Minister agree that the Kent county council, whose grammar schools have an excellent reputation, should not come up with a system which results in fewer grammar schools? Is there any possibility of treating the whole reorganisation as an in and out scheme and is there any way that formula funding could be made more flexible to help schools that face a temporary problem? Is it true, as Kent county council has said, that if it wants to keep a school open but there is a temporary problem, it is forbidden to top up? Is there

  1193
  something that Kent could be doing? If so, my constituents want to know about it, because they would demand that Kent does it.
  There has been a massive public outcry against Kent's proposals, particularly this week when the decision was being taken. I can see exactly what will happen. These proposals will be dropped as the review of the high schools was dropped. We shall enter the next academic year with Oakwood thoroughly blighted because nobody will know whether it will survive in the long term. We shall face another period of gross uncertainty in which schools will be named as possibilities for closure. The process will have been going on for years. It must be stopped. Does the Minister agree that it is essential for the good health of education anywhere under whatever system that there should be stability and certainty? Does she further agree that even if that must be jeopardised once because of a major review, it should not be jeopardised four times in a short period?
  2.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on securing this Ajournment debate on the reorganisation of secondary schools in Maidstone and the wider area. I share her anxieties about stability, about which she spoke with such clarity and vigour and which she was right to highlight. I fully understand that the upheaval that has been going on in this part of Kent almost continuously in the past few years is not satisfactory for the stability of the schools or the education of children.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in an intervention noted the possibility of grant-maintained schools causing difficulties for the local education authority in its planning proposals. That may well be so, but grant-maintained schools may provide the stability that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone talked about. When considering the possibility of grant-maintained status the Government have always borne in mind the wishes and entitlement of parents to have a choice in education.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the public consultations on several options for the future organisation of schools in her area in general and Mid-Kent in particular. She mentioned that Maidstone grammar school and Maidstone grammar school for girls are unlikely to be changed. However, she said that it was intended to amalgamate Oakwood Park grammar school and Invicta grammar school for girls. I listened carefully to her comments about that and about the possibility of changing the age of entry from 13 to 11. I have noted her points about the uncertainty that that is causing and about the effects of school size and of choice of school for parents.
  I shall concentrate first on the way in which the Government look at reorganisation. It is important to describe how proposals come to us for decision. Obviously, we have to look at the proposals sent to us by local authorities strictly on their merits. We take careful account of the circumstances and arguments put forward, both for and against. We listen to the consultations, but we cannot prejudge the issues.
  Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that I cannot tell her precisely what our views might be on
  1194
  particular proposals and so it would be difficult for me to give her specific guidance or reassurance about the sizes of schools, the way in which they are organised and whether there is adequate choice in terms of single sex schools or grammar schools. All those issues must come through in the section 12 proposals.
  Local education authorities should be looking carefully at their school organisations because the Government are committed to improving quality for education. That was part of the thrust of our Education Reform Act 1988. We are also committed to ensuring that there is better value for money in education and, with all the other demands we have, that we make the best use of the resources that we can afford for education.
  We have repeatedly been asking local education authorities to remove surplus places in schools that have been created by falling rolls. When those places are removed it releases money for more productive use, for example in improving the learning environment through larger budgets for repairs and maintenance and for passing on, through local management, to schools.
  It is important to say something about my hon. Friend's remarks on size and preference. We do not believe that there is any optimum size for secondary schools. Much depends on local circumstances. Small schools may need relatively more generous support to offset diseconomies of scale, and larger schools have their own challenges. Planning an appropriate school organisation for their areas is a matter for the local education authorities. If the local view is substantially that a school is of a certain size that view will come through clearly in the consultation exercise.
  We have always made clear in our circular 3/78 and elsewhere, the importance we attach to giving full weight to parental preferences for particular sizes, types—including the option for either grammar schools or single sex schools. I am sorry that I am not able to give my hon. Friend more guidance on that, but I am sure that she will appreciate the difficulties that I would be in where I to commit myself too firmly at the Dispatch Box.
  My hon. Friend mentioned capital receipts and capital in relation to local education authorities when they are making proposals that embrace a large number of schools. She referred, in passing, to what are known as in and out schemes, which allow local education authorities to utilise capital receipts from the sale of facilities for the provision of broadly similar facilities, without having to make the normal 50 per cent. reduction for debt redemption.
  We believe that those schemes represent an excellent method of ensuring that resources are used to the maximum advantage. Therefore, it is for each local authority to decide, with its legal advisers and the auditors, where there are particular in and out transactions that come within the terms of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1990. No approval or consent from the Department of the Environment is required. I think that my hon. Friend knows that, providing those conditions are met, it seems possible for that scheme to operate. I hope that she will welcome that message and take it back to her authority.
  I was extremely interested in what my hon. Friend said about the application of local management schemes for schools in Kent. She said that it seems that Kent feels that there are no ways in which assistance can be given to small schools. That is not quite the case, because the Government have always recognised that there are extra

  1195
  costs associated with small schools. I talk not only of primary schools—three quarters of all schools in this country fall into that category—but of a number of secondary schools.
  We have given the local education authority quite wide latitude over including factors in its local management of schools formulae to protect the curriculum in small schools. A number of local authorities have taken that up. Many factors to achieve that have been designed by local authorities, some of which could be contacted by Kent for assistance in designing those factors. For example, schools can be allocated lump sums, or there can be per capita enhancement for schools below a threshold size. So long as those factors do not amount to a falling rolls factor—in other words they do not interfere with the amount of money per pupil going into a school—the local authority can submit proposals to the Government and we shall be happy to consider them.
  Kent's scheme provides some curriculum protection for primary and middle schools. But I understand that it provides no curriculum protection for secondary schools. That is a matter for the Kent education authority if it wishes to seek a variation in its scheme to lower that point, and we shall consider such an approach.
  Mr. Rowe: If, for example, a school wishes to improve its heating system to make savings in future, can money be provided under that flexible arrangement? If such improvements involve running costs more than capital sums, would that be a possibility?
  Mrs. Rumbold: There has been some misapprehension concerning Kent. I have spoken to other hon. Members representing Kent constituencies about small schools.
  The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent must be considered as part of the total component factors for allocating resources. If an appreciable need is felt by the governing body of a small
  1196
  secondary school that the school should be classified and there should be some compensating factor, it can produce a proposal which we shall consider carefully. I know that that is not a direct answer to my hon. Friend's question, but it opens the door for the authority to approach us.
  Obviously, it is right and proper that Kent should review its secondary school provision against that background. The authority is concerned to provide value for money. It is known to be a good authority which takes care to ensure that many of its resources go back to the schools, the children and those responsible for teaching them. Obviously, it is important for Kent to find a way to provide a school system that implements our education reforms and benefits children and parents in the area. But it is entirely for the authority to determine what is the most appropriate organisation to achieve those objectives. It cannot do that in a vacuum. We have made it quite clear that we attach great importance to public consultation and we also have to follow the statutory procedures laid down in sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980. They require that if a local education authority wishes to establish, close or change the size or character of a school, it has to publish proposals explaining its intentions. Following publication there has to be a two-month period in which interested parties can submit objections.
  If objections are made, if we give appropriate notice to the local education authority or if the school concerned is a voluntary school, the proposals fall to us to decide. Of course, we shall treat them strictly on their merits. However, through the forum of today's debate, I urge the authority to take great care in its consultations and proposals to take note of the widely held feelings that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has outlined and the disruption that such proposals inevitably cause when parents feel insecure about the future of a school. I wish the authority well and I hope that the schools settle into a sensible plan of organisation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Inner London Education Authority
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science who has responsibility for paying arrears of pay to former employees of ILEA whose contracts of employment were not taken over by the successor boroughs.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The London residuary body has that responsibility for all ex-ILEA employees who were not transferred by statutory order to the employment of the inner London councils.

  Special Needs Education (Training Grants)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will extend the in-service support from the local education authority training grants scheme for special support assistants, nursery nurses and other carers involved in providing special needs education.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government have no plans to extend the scheme specifically to cover these or other groups.

  Zidovudine
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, pursuant to the reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, 15 December 1989,Official Report, column 832, he will make a further statement on the progress of the Medical Research Council/INSERM trial of zidovudine.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand from the Medical Research Council that the trial is continuing satisfactorily and that there is no significant information to add to that provided in my previous reply of 15 December 1989.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the figures of participants in the Medical Research Council/INSERM trial of zidovudine given in reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on 15 December 1989,Official Report, column 832.

  Mr. Jackson
  The number of participants enrolled in the Medical Research Council/INSERM trial of zidovudine up to 15 May was 772 in the United Kingdom and 727 in France.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total of the capital allocations to grant-maintained schools in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 26 January I announced allocations of capital grant to grant-maintained schools totalling £6·6556
  million for the financial year 1990–91, at columns 900–2. I said that a further sum of up to £1·9 million was available for grant-maintained schools to meet commitments and contingencies. A total of about £8 million has now been allocated.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electoral Rights
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Commonwealth countries and colonies enjoy reciprocal arrangements by which their citizens resident in the United Kingdom enjoy the right to vote in United Kingdom elections; and what is his estimate of the number of such people who had that right at the time of the 1987 general election.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Commonwealth citizens resident in the United Kingdom, who are not otherwise disqualified, are eligible to register as electors and vote at elections here. The table lists those Commonwealth countries and dependent territories which allow British citizens, subject to residency qualifications, to register as electors. Approximately half a million Commonwealth citizens living in the United Kingdom were eligible to vote at the 1987 general election. Of these, about 150,000 were from countries which allow reciprocal voting rights to British citizens.

  Commonwealth Countries and United Kingdom Dependent Territories which allow voting rights to British citizens

  Anguilla

  Montserrat

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Mauritius

  Barbados

  New Zealand

  Belize

  Pitcairn

  Dominica

  St. Helene

  Falkland Islands

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  Gibraltar

  St. Lucia

  Grenada

  St. Vincent

  Guyana

  Sierre Leone

  Hong Kong

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Jamaica

  Tristan da Cunha

  Passports
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why it was decided that British passports should no longer specify residence, height and distinguishing marks.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These details, which are no longer considered to be essential for identification of the passport holder, were deleted in the interests of efficiency, and to meet the requirements of the international standard for machine-readable passports.

  New Hall Prison
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the categories of prisoners to be accepted by New Hall prison when the present extension is complete.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is planned that Her Majesty's prison and young offender institution New Hall should continue to hold both remand and sentenced female prisoners who are required to be kept in closed conditions, with the exception of those classified as category A (prisoners requiring the highest level of security).

  Immigration
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arriving persons at United Kingdom points of entry have been allowed to go to

  Number of passengers (a) granted temporary admission and (b) who absconded

  Number of passengers granted temporary admission

  Year

  pending further examination

  After being refused entry

  Total

  Total number of passengers who absconded1

  1985

  26,746

  26,595

  3—

  388

  1986

  12,414

  10,757

  3—

  1,161

  1987

  3—

  3—

  7,517

  821

  1988

  3—

  3—

  8,692

  401

  1989

  3—

  3—

  13,744

  475

  Year ending 31 March 1990

  3—

  3—

  14,870

  488

  1 Includes passengers who absconded from the control, temporary admission and detention.

  2 For April to December. Comprehensive data are not available for the first three months of 1985.

  3 Not available.

  The temporary admission figures for 1985 and 1986 were on a different basis from those for later years. Figures for 1985 and 1986 separately identified those granted temporary admission pending further examination, from those granted temporary admission after being refused entry, with the result that those granted temporary admission under both circumstances were counted twice. In subsequent years those granted temporary admission under both circumstances have been counted once only.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his most recent figures for the movement in the overall prison population over the last 12 month period.

  Mr. Mellor
  On Friday 11 May the total prisoner population including those in police cells was 45,671. This compares with 49,147 at the same time last year.

  Suicide
  Mr. Terry Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many attempted suicides have taken place in Birmingham prison in each of the last five years;

  (2) if he will provide a month by month breakdown of the number of attempted suicides by inmates in Birmingham prison in 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  The number of inmates who were recorded as having attempted suicide at Birmingham prison in 1987 was 25; in 1988, 13; and in 1989, 24. No information is available for earlier years. A month-by-month breakdown of the figure for 1989 is given in the table:

  Number of inmates recorded as having attempted suicide at HM Prison Birmingham in 1989

  Numbers

  January

  2

  February

  2

  March

  4

  April

  3

  May

  —

  June

  2

  July

  2

  August

  —

  September

  4

  558
  temporary addresses while their cases have been considered in each of the last five years and the current year to date; and, in each year, how many have absconded.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is given in the table:

  Numbers

  October

  1

  November

  —

  December

  4

  Total

  24

  Magistrates
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent race-awareness training is a part of the current training procedure for magistrates.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Judicial Studies Board is responsible for supervising the training of the lay magistracy, which is carried out locally. The revised syllabus set out in the "Handbook For The Training of Magistrates", published by the board earlier this year and approved by the Lord Chancellor, requires newly appointed magistrates to be given instruction in
  "awareness of the different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds of those with whom they may have to deal as defendants or witnesses".
  In addition, "Ethnic Minority Cultures" is an approved subject for inclusion in further training for magistrates.

  Mr. Kemel Karaca
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will expedite the date for the appeal of Mr. Kemel Karaca, formerly of Crewe, to enter the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have been asked to reply. In accordance with the guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases, issued to Members on 14 December 1988, I have referred the question to the correspondence unit of the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Member will receive a reply from the unit as soon as possible.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has agreed British Rail's recent proposals for further investment connected with channel tunnel passenger rail services.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I am pleased to announce my approval of British Rail's proposals for investment of £174·2 million to build an international passenger terminal at Waterloo and a train depot at Willesden for maintaining international trains. These are major items in British Rail's plans to spend over £1 billion so that a full international passenger and freight service can begin on the day that the channel tunnel opens.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it remains his policy that British Rail's commuter services in peak hours should not be cut back to accommodate channel tunnel international passenger and freight trains when the channel tunnel opens in 1993.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that British Rail stands by its assurance given to Parliament during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Act that existing services would not be curtailed by the introduction of channel tunnel rail services.

  Search and Rescue Service
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any hoax telephone call or message was received on Wednesday 16 August 1989 which interfered with the search and rescue service in the Bristol channel area.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Nationally some 30 per cent. of calls received by the coastguard are false alarms and a further 3 per cent. are "hoaxes", so officers must be alert to this possibility. However, there were no hoax calls or messages which interfered with search and rescue operation in the Swansea coastguard district on 16 August 1989.

  London Taxi Fares
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement about London taxi fares.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Secretary of State has made an order increasing London taxi fares by about 9·2 per cent. on average with effect from Friday 8 June 1990. The new tariff will incorporate a minimum fare of £1·00 (including an unchanged hire charge of 40p) for the first 1,021·5 yd or 3 minutes 36 seconds. The rate will then be 20p for every 340·5 yd or 1 minute 12 seconds up to 6 miles and 20p for each 227 yd or 48 seconds thereafter.

  British Rail Freight
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about investment in British Rail's deepsea container freight business.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to announce that I have given approval to the Board's proposal to invest in 700 new container-carrying wagons for BR's deepsea container business at a cost of some £40 million. This will 560
  enable British Rail to offer its customers a more reliable service and to improve the financial performance of this part of its freight business.

HEALTH

  Nurses (Training)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trainees have entered nursing for a state registered nurse or registered general nurse course in England for each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information is given in the table:

  Numbers of entrants to registered general nurse training in England—years ended 31 March 1985 to 1989

  Number

  1985

  14,903

  1986

  14,208

  1987

  14,002

  1988

  13,581

  1989

  14,473

  Source: Statistics provided by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the average cost of private sight tests.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The price of a private sight test is a matter for individual opticians. It is up to them to use their best commercial judgment and set their prices accordingly.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people annually he expects to qualify for help with the cost of a private sight test on the grounds of low income.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities are required to allow disabled people to give their views about their community care needs during the assessment procedure and are required to produce a written statement of the outcome of the assessment procedure if requested by the disabled person.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Our White Paper "Caring for People" said that assessments should take account of the wishes of the individual. This includes disabled people. In our guidance to local authorities on assessment procedures we intend to emphasise the importance of involving the individual user in the assessment. We also intend to make it clear that decisions should be conveyed in writing when requested by the person concerned.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the effects of hormone replacement therapy in connection with osteoporosis.
  561
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave her on 19 March at column 460. Since then we have received representations about osteoporosis and hormone replacement therapy from the all-party parliamentary group for pensioners on behalf of the National Federation of Women's Institutes and from hon. Members on behalf of the National Osteoporosis Society. I shall also be meeting the National Osteoporosis Society shortly to discuss these matters.

  Alcohol Services
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the allocation of £3·83 million for the development of alcohol services, announced by Baroness Hooper, includes an amount for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. The sum to which the hon. Member refers has been allocated to Alcohol Concern for the development of alcohol services in England.

  Health Benefit Scheme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people claimed health benefits in 1989–90 through their automatic entitlement as claimants of income support or family credit; how many claimed help as a result of the low income scheme: and if he will estimate how many people would be able to claim in 1990–91 if the passport was extended to cover housing benefit and community charge benefit;

  (2) what is the rate of take-up of health benefits for (a) claimants with automatic entitlement and (b) claimants entitled to help under the low income scheme.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information concerning help with NHS charges and hospital travel costs for people receiving income support or family credit or who qualify for help on low income grounds is derived from the number of occasions help is provided which does not always identify the numbers of individual patients who have benefited. Nor is it possible to estimate how many people would be able to claim health benefits if the passport was extended to cover housing benefit and community charge benefit because some of them will already qualify for health benefits on other grounds.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for every £ sterling of expenditure on the agency benefits low income scheme for help with costs of glasses, wigs and fabric supports, prescriptions, dental charge and hospital travel costs, how much is spent on administering the scheme.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time taken to process a claim for help under the low income scheme for health benefits; how it differs between the different benefits; and what is the average time taken to process a claim from a claimant with automatic entitlement to health benefits.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Social Security administers the low income scheme for health benefits and help with hospital travel costs on behalf of the Department of Health. It has advised that in the year ending 30 April 1990 around 86 per cent. of all claims received were cleared within 10 working days.
  562
  Persons who have automatic entitlement to help with those benefits and those who have established their entitlement under the low income scheme obtain that help simply by declaring that entitlement when requiring those benefits.

  Cancer
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what form of report he receives from the Yorkshire regional cancer registry.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Yorkshire regional cancer registry submits records of newly diagnosed cases of cancer for its region to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) in the form of a magnetic tape once the data for a particular year are judged to be complete. The records contain information which enables OPCS to maintain its cancer surveillance system and to produce the national annual reference volumes on cancer incidence.

  General Practitioner Beds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy towards the provision of general practitioner beds as a move towards more comprehensive community care, respite care, and recuperation in the community.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities are required to draw up plans for the provision of health care services to the population for whom they are responsible. The provision of general practitioner beds is an option we would expect them to consider as part of this process.

  Resource Management Programme
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the money made available by his Department for the resource management programme has been allocated to(a) St. James hospital, Leeds, (b) Pontefract general infirmary and (c) Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since March 1989 Yorkshire regional health authority has been allocated nearly £7 million for the resource management programme. In March 1989 nine hospitals in the Yorkshire region, including St. James' hospital, Leeds and Pontefract general infirmary, were selected to prepare and implement the resource management programme. In January 1990 a further five hospitals, including Pinderfields general hospital, were selected to prepare and implement the programme in 1990–91. Although the financial allocation made to Yorkshire regional health authority takes account of the number of its designated hospital sites it is for the regional health authority to decide how these additional funds are allocated to the sites.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of patients from psychiatric institutions who were released into the community who have been readmitted to psychiatric institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Most readmissions to mental illness hospitals are of short duration and are part of a planned
  563
  programme of care. No information is available centrally on emergency readmissions of long-stay patients released into the community.

  The total number of readmissions to mental illness hospitals and units in England is set out in the table:

  Year

  Numbers

  1979

  120,073

  1980

  127,184

  1981

  132,893

  1982

  133,475

  1983

  138,080

  1984

  138,431

  1985

  146,895

  1986

  145,578

  Activation

  Scope

  Event

  Date

  25 January 1990

  England

  Storms

  25 January 1990

  26 January 1990

  England

  Storms

  16–17 December 1989

  5 February 1990

  Severn Valley

  Flooding

  late January 1990

  1 May 1990

  Maidenhead

  Flooding

  early February 1990

  1 May 1990

  England

  Storms

  26–28 February 1990

  Earth Tremors
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on trends in the incidence of earth tremors and earthquakes in the United Kingdom; and whether any research has been done on a possible relationship with the abstraction of oil and gas in the North sea.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Earthquakes in the United Kingdom are monitored by the British geological survey (BGS) using a network of seismometers which is being upgraded at present under contracts placed by a number of organisations, including my Department. Historical events and recent monitoring records, which are published by the BGS, have not yet established any trends towards changes in patterns of seismic activity.

  There is frequent seismic activity associated with natural geological structures beneath parts of the North sea. However, there is no evidence for any relationship between the abstraction of oil and gas in the North sea and earthquake activity although, for some small earthquakes, the possibility cannot be discounted.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the closing date for claims of entitlement to rebates and transitional relief as it relates to the community charge.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals on claims for rebates and relief in respect of the community charge to allow a longer time scale for claims to be lodged.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government have no plans to review the relevant provisions. For community charge benefit, claims may be backdated by up to 56 days after the issue of a community charge bill or longer where there is good cause for a delayed application. Rates-related transitional relief is calculated automatically by authorities and no application is required. The special form of transitional relief for certain pensioners and disabled people requires
  564
  Source: Mental Health Inquiry.

  Note: These figures represent in-patients readmitted to a psychiatric hospital subsequent to a previous admission to that, or another, psychiatric hospital, although not necessarily in the same year. The number of readmissions reported each year do not correspond to individual patients since the same patient can be readmitted more than once during the year.

  Bellwin Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the dates of, and the events which led to, the activation of the Bellwin scheme since 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Bellwin scheme has been activated in England on the following occasions since 1 April 1989:

  application which can be made at any time up to 1 October 1990 or such later date as a charging authority allows arid all adjustments are made with effect from 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider in his forthcoming review of proposals for modification of the community charge that element which has been added to the charge for local government services to meet the losses on non-payment of the charge to be returned to community charge payers taking into account the actual non-payment before the end of the financial year, and after all legal steps have been taken to obtain payment.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Local authorities have always had to make an allowance for losses on collection and in this respect the community charge is no different from the old domestic rating system. The single change introduced is the design of the community charge demand notice which identifies this element so that local charge payers can consider whether their authority is being efficient in collecting the community charge.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the actual level of outstanding debt faced by Rotherham local authority; and what was the level recognised by his Department for the purposes of the standard spending assessment for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: The actual level of outstanding debt, as at 31 March 1990, is not yet known. The assumed level of outstanding debt as defined for the standard spending assessment is £66,657,656; this figure relates to 31 March 1990 and includes a share of the assumed outstanding debt for the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, where the cost of community charge collection exceeds the amount outstanding from an individual, and the local authority should write off the charge, the local authority will be deemed responsible to have collected this amount, and be charged for it by central Government, when assessing the community charge payable for the following financial year.
  565
  Mr. Chope
  The amount of grant payable to each charging authority is calculated on the basis of the number of people shown on the register as being liable to pay the charge. It does not vary according to the number of charges actually collected.

  Gipsies
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many appeals on applications on behalf of gipsies for residential development his Department's inspectors have reversed decisions taken by(a) Taunton Deane borough council and (b) the other four district councils in Somerset, since 1 January 1986.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department's records show that:

  (a) two appeals have been allowed against decisions of the Taunton Deane borough council to refuse applications made by or on behalf of gipsies for planning permission for residential development;

  (b) one further similar appeal has been allowed in the area covered by the other four district councils in Somerset.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce his decision on the inquiry which ended in March 1989, into Somerset county council's proposal for a transit gipsy site; and if he will make a statement on the provision and distribution of gipsy caravan sites in each of the five districts of Somerset.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to issue his decision in this case as soon as possible.

  Gipsy site provision is the statutory responsibility of the county council, but authorised sites can also be provided privately by gipsies themselves. Somerset county council has six sites (all residential) as listed in the table:

  Pitches

  Mendip DC—Berk ley, near Frome

  8

  Sedgemoor DC—Westonzoyland

  8

  South Somerset DC—Chubbards Cross, Ilton

  15

  South Somerset DC—Marsh Lane, Tintinhull

  11

  Taunton Deane BC—Otterford

  12

  West Somerset DC—Farringdon Hill Lane, Stogursey

  10

  Total pitches

  64

  The Department does not collect information on private gipsy sites on the form requested but according to the latest available figures produced by the district councils there are 26 gipsy caravans accommodated on private authorised sites in Taunton and two in Mendip.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the trading results of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Chope
  The Comptroller and Auditor General has today laid before the House the annual accounts for the Crown Suppliers for 1989. TCS recorded a deficit on its ordinary activities of £2·5 million on a turnover of £165 million. I have placed in the Library a copy of the chief executive's report. He says that a surplus would have been made, as in previous years, but for the reduction in turnover of £57 million which resulted from the transfer to 566
  other Government Departments of activities which are not to be privatised, with insufficient time available in the period to make commensurate reductions in overheads. Sales for the first quarter of 1990 were above budget, and the business has been restructured to prepare it for privatisation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in Wales are in receipt of family credit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At the end of December 1989, the latest date for which comprehensive information is available, the number of families receiving family credit who at the time of their award were living in Wales was 20,500.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for any adjustments to the reduced earnings allowance consequential on industrial injury.

  Mr. Scott
  Our plans for reduced earnings allowance are set out in paragraphs 6.12 to 6.14 of Cm 917, "The Way Ahead", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of allowing people who have been in receipt of invalid care allowance the option of satisfying the first contribution condition for unemployment benefit on the basis of paid contributions in either of the two years before first claiming invalid care allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In relation to a claim for a short-term national insurance benefit, including unemployment benefit, the contribution conditions have to be satisfied during the last two complete tax years before the benefit year in which the relevant period of interruption of employment (PIE) starts. The estimated net benefit costs of treating the first day for which invalid care allowance was paid as the first day in the PIE for short-term benefit claims made immediately after payment of invalid care allowance ceases would be in the order of £1 million a year.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to the reply of 7 December 1989,Official Report, column 343, he will publish the proportion of social fund expenditure, on a month by month basis, which local offices are recommended to spend, for each month in the financial year 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  The national profile of anticipated expenditure for 1990–91 is set out in the table. It was devised from an analysis of previous levels of national expenditure, as a guide to assist managers of local offices in planning expenditure of their annual budgets. It is not intended to represent a recommended pattern of monthly expenditure, and managers are free to produce their own profiles to take account of local factors in the area.
  567

  National social fund anticipated expenditure profile 1990–91

  Month

  Per cent. of annual gross budget profiled

  April

  7·98

  May

  8·90

  June

  7·83

  July

  8·03

  August

  7·93

  September

  6·81

  October

  8·82

  November

  9·50

  December

  7·65

  January

  7·28

  February

  8·78

  March

  10·49

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table itemising expenditure savings in housing benefit and the numbers of losers between 1982–83 and 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 3 May 1990]: The housing benefit scheme has been subject to a number of changes since it was introduced in 1982–83, including a fundamental reform in April 1988 and the replacement of rate rebates by a separate community charge benefit in April of this year. Because there are no standard rules for uprating the benefit, calculations of the financial effect of these changes are at best hypothetical; with time, it also becomes increasingly unrealistic to try to separate the effect of changes themselves from those of other factors such as movements in housing costs, changes in unemployment, and movements in income levels.

PRIME MINISTER

  South Africa
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what trade sanctions are currently operating between the United Kingdom and South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  A list of internationally agreed trade measures which are currently operating between the United Kingdom and South Africa is as follows:

  UN Measures

  The British Government comply fully with the mandatory UN arms embargo (United Kingdom Security Council resolution 418 of 1977) which forbids the provision to South Africa of arms, related material, equipment and technical knowledge needed for their manufacture. The United Kingdom also implements the voluntary United Kingdom Security Council resolution 519 of 1986 which clarifies, but does not extend, the embargo.

  The United Kingdom also implements the voluntary United Kingdom Security Council resolution 558 of 1984 which covers the import from South Africa of arms, ammunition and military vehicles.

  EC Measures (September 1985)

  (i) A rigorously controlled embargo on export of arms and paramilitary equipment to South Africa.

  (ii) A rigorously controlled embargo of import of arms and paramilitary equipment from South Africa.

  (iii) Cessation of oil exports to South Africa.

  (iv) Cessation of exports of sensitive equipment destined for the police and armed forces of South Africa.

  (v) Prohibition of all new collaboration in the nuclear sector.

  568

  Commonwealth Measures (October 1985)

  (i) Strict enforcement of the mandatory arms embargo against South Africa.

  (ii) Agreed upon and commended to other Governments the adoption of the following economic measures against South Africa:

  (A) A ban on all Government loans to the Government of South Africa and their agencies.

  (B) A readiness to take unilaterally what action may be possible to preclude imports of krugerrands.

  (C) No Government funding for trade missions to South Africa or for participation in exhibitions and trade fairs in South Africa.

  (D) A ban on the sale and export of computer equipment capable of use by South African military forces, police or security forces.

  (E) A ban on new contracts for the sale and export of nuclear goods, materials and technology to South Africa.

  (F) A ban on the sale and export of oil to South Africa.

  (G) A strict and rigorously controlled embargo on imports of arms, ammunition, military vehicles and paramilitary equipment from South Africa.

  Commonwealth Measures (August 1986)

  Agreement to implement any EC decision to ban the import of coal, iron and steel and of gold coins from South Africa. EC Measures (September 1986)

  (i) A ban on imports of certain South African iron and steel.

  (ii) A ban on the import of certain South African gold coins.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make representations to President De Klerk calling for the reprieve of the Upington 14 and the abolition of the common purpose law: and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The verdict on the Upington 14 is subject to an appeal and there is, in any case, a moratorium on all executions in South Africa while the application of the death penalty is reviewed. The doctrine of common purpose in South Africa is a matter of common law, not statute legislation.

  Local Authority Rent Arrears
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list(a) the 10 local authorities with the lowest rent arrears, (b) the 10 local authorities with the highest rent arrears and (c) the political party in control in the relevant authorities for the latest period for which she has figures.

  The Prime Minister
  The 10 local authorities with the lowest rent arrears as at the end of 1988–89, expressed as a percentage of the rent roll, and the then controlling political party were as follows:

  Per cent.

  £ thousand

  Political party

  South Hams

  0·5

  21·0

  Conservative

  Wansdyke

  0·6

  26·0

  Conservative

  West Oxfordshire

  0·8

  36·0

  Conservative

  Rochford

  0·8

  121·0

  Conservative

  South Northamptonshire

  0·8

  26·0

  Conservative

  East Cambridgeshire

  0·8

  36·0

  2NOC

  Rother

  0·9

  29·0

  Conservative

  Gedling

  0·9

  42·0

  Conservative

  Babergh

  0·9

  40·0

  2NOC

  Newbury

  0·9

  70·0

  Conservative

  1 1988–89 arrears not reported, 1987–88 figure shown.

  2 NOC = No overall control.

  569
  The 10 local authorities with the highest rent arrears, as at the end of 1988–89, expressed as a percentage of the rent roll and the then controlling political party were as follows:

  Per cent.

  £ thousand

  Political party

  Brent

  49·0

  113,713·0

  Labour

  Lambeth

  35·7

  17,492·0

  Labour

  Southwark

  35·5

  126,820·0

  Labour

  Hackney

  30·3

  12,357·0

  Labour

  Islington

  28·9

  13,081·0

  Labour

  Ealing

  26·2

  5,651·0

  Labour

  Liverpool

  26·2

  15,292·0

  Labour

  Haringey

  25·6

  7,200·0

  Labour

  Waltham Forest

  20·6

  4,365·0

  Labour

  Newham

  16·0

  5,373·0

  Labour

  1 DOE estimate of rent arrears.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Judges
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many formal complaints about the behaviour of judges have been received in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many complaints have been lodged against judges in the last five years; and how many were upheld.

  The Attorney-General
  Communications about judicial decisions and behaviour take many different forms and it would not be possible to give a precise figure relating to complaints except at disproportionate expense. The large majority of complaints concern decisions made by judges, or remarks made in the course of their official duties. In such cases, it is constitutionally improper for the Lord Chancellor to comment, or to seek to intervene. Of the remainder, which relate to the conduct of judges, two such complaints in the past five years have led to the Lord Chancellor publicly reprimanding the judge.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans his Department has to monitor sentences passed by judges.

  The Attorney-General
  Neither the Lord Chancellor nor I have any plans to monitor sentences passed by judges. Within the statutory limits laid down by Parliament, sentencing is a matter for judicial discretion. Guidance on sentencing in particular classes of case is given from time to time by the Court of Appeal, criminal division, and notably in cases brought before it in the exercise of my power under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Data on the sentences passed by the courts are maintained by the Home Office.

  Race Awareness
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General to what extent race awareness is a component of the education and training of(a) judges, (b) barristers and (c) solicitors.

  The Attorney-General
  The Judicial Studies Board is responsible for training judges, recorders, registrars and stipendiary magistrates and for supervising the training of the lay magistracy. Since racial awareness is considered to be an important element in ensuring that all members of the judiciary act impartially, the Judicial Studies Board has commissioned an information pack on ethnic 570
  minorities. The revised syllabus set out in "Handbook For the Training of Magistrates", published by the board earlier this year and approved by the Lord Chancellor, requires newly appointed magistrates to be given instruction in
  "awareness of the different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds of those with whom they may have to deal as defendants or witnesses".

  Moreover, those who attend the board's courses are reminded to be alert for any example of racial discrimination in anyone who appears in court.

  The education and training of barristers and solicitors is a matter for the professional bodies concerned. Race awareness is a component of the education and training of both barristers and solicitors. It is not covered as a separate topic but features in certain compulsory subject study areas.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Overseas Loans
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the loans made by Her Majesty's Government and British financial institutions to(a) Poland and (b) Hungary which still need to be repaid, the terms of each of those loans and the date at which they will be cleared.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government contributed $35 million to a bridging loan for Poland at the end of 1989 as part of an operation organised by the Bank of International Settlements. This loan has now been repaid. The United Kingdom Government's aid to Poland and Hungary has primarily taken the form of grants. A list of loans to specific countries by British financial institutions is not kept by the Bank of England or the Government. United Kingdom banks' claims on Poland and Hungary at the end of 1989 were $1,180 million and $518 million respectively. Repayments of 67·3 per cent. of Poland's debt to United Kingdom banks is due in five years and over, and 18·5 per cent. within the next year. Repayments of 11·6 per cent. of Hungary's debt to United Kingdom banks is due in five years and over, and 42·7 per cent. within the next year.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what lending by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) British financial institutions to the Third world is taking place currently; and what screening takes place to ensure that such lending is not used for questionable military purchase or white elephant public sector projects.

  Mr. Ryder
  In 1988—the latest date for which information is available—£134 million of United Kingdom bilateral aid was provided in the form of loans. No part of the official aid programme is used for military purposes. Detailed systems for project identification and appraisal ensure that all proposals for aid funding are very carefully scrutinised to ensure that they conform to the Government's objective of promoting sustainable economic and social progress and alleviating poverty. ECGD guaranteed loans of £1·4 billion in support of United Kingdom exports—both civil and military—in 1988.

  A list of loans to the Third world by British financial institutions is not kept by the Bank of England or the Government. United Kingdom banks' claims on

  571
  developing countries at the end of 1989 were $53 billion. Lending by the British banks is for their own commercial judgment.

  East European Debt
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what debts are owed to the United Kingdom by each east European country; and when each will be paid off.

  $ million

  By maturity

  Total contractual debt

  Less than one year

  One to five years

  More than five years

  Bulgaria

  530

  300

  210

  20

  Czechoslovakia

  320

  200

  100

  10

  German Democratic Republic

  1,195

  795

  345

  55

  Hungary

  520

  220

  210

  60

  Poland

  1,180

  220

  170

  795

  Romania

  Not available

  European Monetary System
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rate of gross domestic product growth since 1983 in(a) European monetary system countries and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  Since 1983 United Kingdom gross domestic product at constant prices has grown at an average annual rate of 3·4 per cent. compared with an average of 2·8 per cent. for present members of the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage level of unemployment in France at the inception of the European monetary system; and what is it now.

  Mr. Ryder
  On OECD standardised definitions French unemployment was 5·7 per cent. in March 1979 and 9·4 per cent. in March 1990.

  Public Debt Interest
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the interest paid on public debt in each of the last 10 financial years.

  Mr. Ryder
  Figures for gross debt interest payments of the public sector are given in the table for each of the last 10 financial years (1989–90 is an estimated outturn).

  Public sector gross debt interest payments

  Cash £ billion

  Percentage of money GDP

  1980–81

  12·0

  5·1

  1981–82

  14·1

  5·4

  1982–83

  14·7

  5·2

  1983–84

  15·2

  4·9

  1984–85

  16–8

  5·1

  1985–86

  18·4

  5·1

  1986–87

  18·2

  4·7

  1987–88

  18·3

  4·3

  1988–89

  18·6

  3·9

  1989–90

  19·0

  3·75

  572
  Mr. Ryder
  Debts owed to the United Kingdom by the east European countries fall into two categories: debt owed to the Government and debt owed to banks registered in the United Kingdom. It has not been the past practice of the Government to reveal specific debt owed by individual countries. Eastern Europe as a whole owes £1·7 billion to the United Kingdom Government. Eastern Europe's debt to United Kingdom banks is as follows:

  TESSAs
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when savers will first be able to open TESSA accounts.

  Mr. Lilley
  The legislation will provide that a TESSA may be opened from 1 January 1991. The earliest practical date for most people will be 2 January in England and Wales and Northern Ireland or 3 January in Scotland.

  Schedule D Tax
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about how many schedule D Tax assessments are incorrect.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: The Inland Revenue conducts regular quality control checks. The most recent results show that 10 per cent. of schedule D assessments are incorrect when first issued.

DEFENCE

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total volume of aggregate radioactive waste produced by his Department or arising from activities conducted on behalf of his Department by British Nuclear Fuels and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority since the military nuclear programme began; and what provisions have been made for the disposal of these wastes.

  Mr. Neubert
  It would not be in the national interest to disclose figures in the form in which the hon. Member seeks them. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that:

  wastes were disposed of in the past under conditions no less stringent than those then prevailing for civil wastes;

  (b) Ministry of Defence disposals to the Drigg site in Cumbria are now published by British Nuclear Fuels plc;

  (c) United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. has stated (in the United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory) that wastes arising from military operations will add no more the 20 per cent. to its published total of civil arising to the year 2030; and

  (d) military wastes which cannot be sent for disposal under current regulation will, in common with civil wastes, be consigned to the national radioactive waste centre once it commences operation.

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distribution of total radiation exposure for Clyde submarine base workers in the ranges(a) 0 to 5 mSv, (b) 5 to 10 mSv, (c) 10 to 15 mSv, (d) 15 to 20 mSv, (e) 20 to 25 mSv, (f) 25 to 30 mSv, (g) 30 to 35 mSv, (h) 35 to 40 mSv, (i) 40 to 45 mSv, (j) 45 to 50 mSv, (k) greater than 50 mSv, (l) greater than 100 mSv,(m) greater than 200 mSv, (n) greater than 300 mSv, (o) greater than 400 mSv, (p) greater than 500 mSv, (q) greater than 600 mSv, (r) greater than 700 mSv, and (s) greater than 750 mSv, in numbers and in terms of percentage of the overall work force.

  Mr. Neubert
  A breakdown of cumulative radiation exposures for workers currently registered in DRP's record-keeping system as employed at Clyde submarine base is as follows:

  Cumulative radiation exposures—Clyde submarine base

  Dose range (mSv)

  Number of persons

  Percentage of overall workforce

  0 – 5

  274

  7·33

  5 – 10

  61

  1·63

  10 – 15

  25

  0·67

  15 – 20

  20

  0·54

  20 –25

  8

  0·21

  25 –30

  13

  0·35

  30 –35

  14

  0·37

  35 –40

  9

  0·24

  40 · 45

  2

  0·05

  45 – 50

  5

  0·13

  Greater than

  50 (50 – 100)

  28

  0·75

  100 (100 – 200)

  12

  0·32

  200 (200 – 300)

  1

  0·03

  300 (300 – 400)

  0

  0·00

  400 (400 – 500)

  0

  0·00

  500 (500 – 600)

  0

  0·00

  600 (600 – 700)

  0

  0·00

  700 (700 – 750)

  0

  0·00

  750

  0

  0·00

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distribution of total radiation exposure for Aldermaston workers in the ranges(a) 0 to 5 mSv, (b) 5 to 10 mSv, (c) 10 to 15 mSv, (d) 15 to 20 mSv, (e) 20 to 25 mSv, (f) 25 to 30 mSv, (g) 30 to 35 mSv, (h) 35 to 40 mSv, (i) 40 to 45 mSv, (j) 45 to 50 mSv, (k) greater than 50 msv, (1) greater than 100 mSv, (m) greater than 200 mSv, (n) greater than 300 mSv, (o) greater than 400 mSv, (p) greater than 500 mSv, (q) greater than 600 mSv, (r) greater than 700 mSv, and (s) greater than 750 mSv in numbers and in terms of percentage of the overall work force.

  Mr. Neubert
  Data on the lifetime aggregate whole-body external radiation exposure of workers employed by AWE since it commenced operations are presented in the table. The data are for all AWE sites, including Aldermaston, and represent the situation as at the end of 1989. In the interests of national security, it is inappropriate to provide the figures in terms of percentage of the overall work force or to provide the number of workers in the 0–10 millisievert category. I can confirm, however, that the majority of workers are in this category. A more detailed breakdown could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  574

  Millisieverts

  Number of Staff

  10–15

  1,095

  15–20

  753

  20–30

  740

  30·50

  576

  Greater than 50

  528

  Greater than 100

  1166

  Greater than 200

  149

  Greater than 500

  11

  Greater than 750

  11

  1 One case resulted from a single high result of 1600 mSv in 1979 from a film dosimeter which, after investigation, was shown to have been exposed while not being worn. Without this false exposure, the individual would have appeared only in the greater than 50 category.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the distribution of total radiation exposure for Devonport dockyard workers in the ranges:(a) 0 to 5mSv, (b) 5 to 10mSv, (c) 10 to 15mSv, (d) 15 to 20mSv, (e) 20 to 25mSv, (f) 25 to 30mSv, (g) 30 to 35mSv, (h) 35 to 40mSv, (i) 40 to 45mSv, (j) 45 to 50mSv, (k) greater than 50mSv, (l) greater than 100mSv, (m) greater than 200mSv, (n) greater than 300mSv, (o) greater than 400mSv, (p) greater than 500mSv, (q) greater than 600mSv, (r) greater than 700mSv and (s) greater than 750mSv in numbers and in terms of percentage of the overall work force.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is a matter for the contractor, Devonport Management Ltd, which assumed responsibility for the health and safety of persons employed within the nuclear licensed site at Devonport on 5 April 1987.

  Falkland Islands
  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the marginal cost of the British military presence in the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The estimated extra cost to the defence budget of the Falkland Islands commitment in 1989–90, as published in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990, is £63 million.

  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer in each of the last five years of emergency assistance by British military forces to foreign fishing vessels in waters surrounding the Falkland Island.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Where British military forces are available in the area of an incident emergency assistance is provided free of charge; therefore no comprehensive records are kept and no estimate of the costs involved can be made.

  Detention Centres, Hong Kong
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there is any intention to use British troops to prevent escapes from Vietnamese detention centres in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Camp security is the responsibility of the civil authorities in Hong Kong, and no request for military assistance has been received from the Hong Kong Government.

  Regular Forces (Fatal Injuries)
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the fatal road traffic accidents that resulted in the death of regular forces personnel in each of the years 1984 to 1989 occurred when the personnel concerned were on duty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The proportion of fatal road traffic accidents that resulted in the death of regular forces personnel in each of the years 1984 to 1989, which occurred when the personnel concerned were on and off duty are as follows:

  Year

  On duty per cent.

  Off duty per cent.

  Not known per cent.

  1984

  12

  88

  —

  1985

  29

  71

  —

  1986

  23

  76

  1

  1987

  17

  83

  —

  1988

  22

  78

  —

  1989

  20

  80

  —

  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the fatal injuries to regular forces personnel in each of the years 1984 to 1989, other than road traffic accident injuries, occurred when the personnel concerned were on duty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The proportions of fatal injuries, other than road traffic accidents, to regular forces personnel in each of the years 1984 to 1989, which occurred when the personnel concerned were on and off duty are as follows:

  Year

  On duty per cent.

  Off duty per cent.

  Not known per cent.

  1984

  36

  25

  38

  1985

  46

  18

  36

  1986

  42

  14

  43

  1987

  46

  21

  33

  1988

  32

  19

  49

  1989

  38

  16

  46

  A90 Project, Aldermaston
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has received the Property Services Agency report on the management of the A90 project at atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes. The report has been submitted to both the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment. Investigations by both the PSA's central inquiry unit and the MOD police found no evidence of wrongful substitution of materials, fraudulent activity or financial loss to the Government under the A90 mechanical and electrical contract at AWE Aldermaston. The outcome of these investigations was reported to the House of Commons Defence Committee in March 1990 in a memorandum submitted by the PSA.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if progress with the construction and commissioning of the A90 plant at atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston is within its scheduled programme; and whether any special difficulties are being experienced with the ducting to remove radioactive gases from the plutonium processor.
  576
  Mr. Neubert
  The overall A90 programme remains within the scheduled time scale to achieve the Trident warhead production programme. The replacement of the zone 1 ductwork in A90 by a pipework system was completed in April 1990 and full leak testing has been carried out successfully. No special difficulties with the replacement pipework system have been encountered. Memorandum No. 5 in the House of Commons Defence Committee's fifth report on the progress of the Trident programme (HC374) gives full details of the reasons for the replacement of the zone 1 ventilation ductwork.

  Templeton Airfield, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the installation recently constructed on the site of the wartime Templeton airfield, Pembrokeshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The newly constructed building at Templeton airfield is intended to house an automatic telephone exchange which will form part of a country-wide system to provide modern communications for the Royal Air Force. Equipment installation will be undertaken by GEC Plessey Telecommunications Ltd. later this year. When operational, the facility will be unmanned except during periodic maintenance visits.

  Manorbier Range, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to close or reduce the use of the Manorbier range, Pembrokeshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans either to close or to reduce the use of the Manorbier range.

  RAF Brawdy
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has as to the annual expenditure by RAF Brawdy on the purchase of goods and services from local suppliers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Brawdy spends some £2·5 million a year locally on a range of goods and services, including some building work. In addition, I understand that the United States authorities have estimated the local expenditure of the United States navy oceanographic research centre at Brawdy was some £700,000 in 1989–90.

  Defence Installations, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the installations under his Department's control, situated in the former county of Pembroke together with the number of(a) civilian and (b) service personnel at each location, the annual cost of running each installation, the total wage bill for (a) civilian and (b) service personnel and any estimate he has of the benefits which each installation provides to the local economy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend.

  Penally Range, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to close or reduce the use of the Penally range, Pembrokeshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans either to close or to reduce the use of the Penally range.

  Land Force Districts
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the review of United Kingdom land force districts.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The structure of United Kingdom land force districts is currently the subject of an internal review by the Commander in Chief United Kingdom Land Forces. It is expected that recommendations will be made to the Ministry of Defence later this year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that should the Wales land force district be amalgamated with any English land force district the new land force district will include the name of Wales in the title.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No proposals have yet been put forward concerning the reorganisation of the Army district structure in the United Kingdom. It would therefore be premature to discuss any retitling that may be recommended.

  Castlemartin Range, Pembrokeshire
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to close or reduce the use of the Castlemartin range, Pembrokeshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans either to close or to reduce the use of the Castlemartin range.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use by the German armed forces of the Castlemartin range and any proposals to increase or reduce their usage of the range.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The German army has shared the use of the Royal Armoured Corp range at Castlemartin with the British Army under a Government-to-Government arrangement since 1961. This sharing arrangement is considered by both sides to be highly satisfactory. I am not aware of any intention on the part of the German army to alter its level of activity at the range.

WALES

  Health Service, Gwynedd
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is regarded by the Welsh office as the appropriate number of dentists working as general dentistry practices to serve the needs of Gwynedd; and how many such dentists are in post on the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As at 3 September 1989 there were 70 general dental practitioners operating within Gwynedd. This figure includes 67 principals and three assistants.
  578
  It is essentially for the Gwynedd family practitioner committee, in consultation with the district health authority, to assess the need for general dental services in Gwynedd, taking into account the demography and epidemiology of the population.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many general practitioner practices in Gwynedd have expressed an interest in becoming fund-holding practices; and how many doctors are involved in these practices.

  Mr. David Hunt
  To date, two practices in Gwynedd comprising six general practitioners have expressed an interest in becoming fund-holding practices.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his reply of 14 May,Official Report, column 294, what factors account for the rise in Gwynedd health authority's capital allocation from 1982–83 to 1990–91 by a lower proportion than any other district in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Computerisation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the value of orders given by the Welsh Office for computer equipment for each month from 1 August 1988 to 1 May 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The value of orders placed by my Department for computer equipment was as follows:

  £

  1988

  August

  30,514

  September

  121,723

  October

  69,525

  November

  25,477

  December

  19,176

  1989

  January

  100,797

  February

  225,422

  March

  29,094

  April

  19,519

  May

  82,210

  June

  51,185

  July

  38,858

  August

  82,413

  September

  32,817

  October

  65,042

  November

  64,429

  December

  78,768

  1990

  January

  106,998

  February

  237,091

  March

  239,101

  April

  47,011

  National Parks
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money is currently granted by the Government to each national park authority in Wales to set up an effective wardening scheme; and what plans there are to increase these sums.

  Mr. Roberts
  The three Welsh national parks have allocated over £600,000 towards wardening in 1990–91 out
  579
  of an estimated accepted expenditure of £4,573,000 of which the Government will contribute £3,430,000 by way of the national park supplementary grant. The amount allocated to wardening each year is entirely a matter for each individual park.

  Farms
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money is currently allocated to the farming industry in Wales to counteract the problems caused by visitors' presence.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No money is paid directly to the farming industry by my Department in relation to visitors' presence on farmland.

  However, I understand that the three national parks in Wales are likely to pay grants of the order of £50,000 in 1990–91 to farmers and landowners in this connection. In addition, the Brecon Beacons national park, in conjunction with the Countryside Commission, is establishing an experimental project on the black mountains to test new ways of improving and maintaining rights of way, including payments to farmers.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how long the restrictions on the sale and movement of sheep due to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster will continue in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is not possible to predict how long restrictions on the sale and movement of sheep due to the Chernobyl nuclear accident will need to remain in force. Restrictions will be lifted as soon as I am satisfied it is possible to do so without compromising food safety.

  Single-parent Families
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many families and what percentage of families in Wales are single-parent families.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Preliminary results from the 1989 labour force survey estimate that there are 58,000 single-parent families with children under the age of 16 years living in private households in Wales, which represents 16·9 per cent. of all Welsh households with dependent children.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of people in employment in(a) primary industry and (b) manufacturing in Wales in the first quarter of 1979 and the last quarter of 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In March 1979 there were 85,000 employees in employment in primary industry (divisions 0 and 1 of standard industrial classification 1980) and 314,000 in manufacturing industry (divisions 2 to 4.)

  The figures for December 1989 are 50,000 and 250,000 respectively.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children and what percentage of the children of Wales are disabled.
  580
  Mr. David Hunt
  Surveys of disability in Great Britain carried out by the Office of Population Censuses arid Surveys between 1985 and 1988 suggest that there are about 18,000 disabled children under the age of 16 years in Wales, which represents 3·1 per cent. of the child population of Wales.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what definition of main residence is used by his Department for community charge purposes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None. Decisions as to individuals' sole or main residences are matters for community charge registration officers, who will have regard to the provisions of subsections 2(3) to 2(6) of the 1988 Act. Further guidance for CCROs has been issued in community charge practice note No. 9, "Sole or Main Residence". A copy of the practice note is in the Library.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will introduce into Wales a transitional relief scheme for disabled community charge payers comparable to that applying in England;

  (2) if he will bring forward proposals for Wales to have a community charge transitional relief scheme for elderly relatives who were not previously ratepayers.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government are reviewing the operation of the community charge system. It is too early to say what changes might be made.

  British Coal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss redundancies in the south Wales coalfield.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My predecessor met with the chairman of British Coal on 23 April and I hope to do so shortly.

  Brymbo Steelworks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the owners of Brymbo steelworks to discuss the future of Brymbo; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I met with the owners of Brymbo steelworks at Gwydyr house on Wednesday 16 May. United Engineering Steel Ltd. has agreed to have immediate discussions with the Welsh Development Agency about the options open to the company for the future of the steelworks at Brymbo.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether a hospital can be deemed to be closed prior to all of the activities at that hospital being terminated.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Closure of a hospital may involve a staged reduction of services. However, I would not consider a hospital to be fully closed until all patient services there had ceased.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the exact conditions which he has stipulated prior to the closure of the cottage hospital, Caernarfon.
  581
  Mr. David Hunt
  The exact conditions to be met before the full closure of the cottage hospital can be completed were set out at paragraph 42 of annex A to the letter of 20 April 1990 from the Welsh Office to the general manager of the health authority, a copy of which was sent to the hon. Gentleman.

  War Memorial Institute
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce his decision in respect of the urban aid grant sought for Llandough and Leckwith War Memorial Institute.

  Mr. David Hunt
  An application for grant aid has been made in respect of Llandough and Leckwith War Memorial Institute under the capital grants to voluntary youth services, village halls and community centres programme. South Glamorgan local education authority was notified on 11 May that this project was successful in attracting grant.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many members of his staff are involved in responsibilities relating to the National Health Service in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As at 1 April 1990–338·5 (full-time equivalents).

  £

  Geriatrics2

  Mental Handicap

  Mental Illness

  1987–88

  (1)

  (1)

  (3)

  (1) (5)

  (4)

  Pembrokeshire

  1,822,733

  409,699

  18,558

  245,461

  94,070

  Clwyd

  7,666,607

  922,444

  227,582

  5,963,107

  800,911

  East Dyfed

  4,549,917

  462,485

  121,369

  6,512,926

  552,505

  Gwent

  8,250,795

  3,113,079

  290,531

  9,761,446

  758,127

  Gwynedd

  5,938,671

  2,595,592

  90,836

  1,330,158

  367,714

  Mid Glamorgan

  8,409,299

  5,743,148

  72,520

  12,280,112

  467,639

  Powys

  2,650,704

  2,423,604

  72,437

  2,753,664

  337,373

  South Glamorgan

  8,235,709

  3,653,904

  112,945

  7,977,621

  325,431

  West Glamorgan

  6,299,904

  744,581

  113,318

  5,098,206

  439,720

  TOTAL

  53,824,339

  20,068,536

  1,120,096

  51,922,701

  4,143,490

  1988–89

  Pembrokeshire

  2,283,163

  422,781

  12,824

  427,069

  103,647

  Clwyd

  8,576,817

  994,811

  331,817

  7,716,060

  810,888

  East Dyfed

  5,056,018

  690,450

  144,498

  7,739,875

  575,426

  Gwent

  9,647,059

  3,557,989

  321,027

  11,541,789

  966,543

  Gwynedd

  6,808,664

  3,057,594

  109,038

  1,744,850

  567,413

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,856,418

  6,256,565

  179,490

  14,386,295

  635,331

  Powys

  3,085,714

  2,704,192

  95,571

  3,401,677

  466,258

  South Glamorgan

  10,387,908

  4,475,559

  134,778

  9,642,005

  388,812

  West Glamorgan

  7,627,215

  1,030,093

  181,811

  5,535,776

  552,567

  Total

  63,328,976

  23,190,034

  1,510,854

  62,135,396

  5,066,885

  1 Net hospital expenditure on patient treatment services only (ie. excluding general services).

  2 Expenditure in geriatrics specialty only—note that elderly patients are also treated in other specialties (eg. general medicine, general surgery, orthopaedics etc.)

  3 Mental handicap nursing (sub code 106)—ie. only the nursing element can be separately identified.

  4 Psychiatric nursing (sub code 105)—ie. only the nursing element can be separately identified.

  5 Classed as 'other psychiatric' on the FR12 return.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the district general hospitals in Wales, indicating for each(a) the year of opening, (b) the

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how each health authority in Wales responded to the requirement laid down by the Welsh Office in 1987 to transfer 0·5 per cent. per annum towards priority services; how much money was diverted by each authority in 1987–88 and 1988–89 for this purpose; and whether any such requirement is still operational for any specific purpose in any health authority in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: In 1983 the Department introduced a requirement for district health authorities to redeploy efficiency savings amounting to a minimum of 0·5 per cent. of recurring revenue expenditure to the continuing care services, specifically for people with a mental handicap, for people suffering from mental illness, and elderly people. From 1988–89 no minimum level of redeployment has been stipulated by the Department.

  Expenditure on these services in 1987–88 and 1988–89, taken from health authority financial returns, is given by health authority in the table. In respect of services for the elderly, expenditure is shown for the geriatrics specialty only although elderly patients are also treated in other specialties such as general medicine, general surgery and orthopaedics. Care in the community is not separately identified, costs being generally subsumed within patient treatment services such as district nursing, health visiting, chiropody, and so on.

  Directly comparable figures for earlier years are not available.

  number of staff employed on the most recent available date, (c) the original capitial cost of constructing and equipping each hospital and the equivalent of each of those figures adjusted for inflation and (d) the gross revenue cost of running each hospital in 1989–90.
  583
  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: Information on the capital cost of constructing and equipping all district general hospitals in Wales or the gross revenue cost of running each hospital in 1989–90 is not available. The information on the number of staff employed and the year of opening is given in the table:

  Hospital

  Year of opening

  Staff in post1

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  1980

  989·7

  Ysbyty Maelor

  1986

  1,697·1

  Bronglais

  1966

  508·1

  West Wales General

  1958

  621·2

  Royal Gwent/St. Woolos

  Pre 1948

  2,407·0

  Nevill Hall

  1969

  995–8

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  1984

  1,084·6

  Princess of Wales/Bridgend General

  1985

  1,147·1

  East Glamorgan

  Pre 1948

  1,078·2

  Prince Charles

  1977

  784–8

  Withybush

  1978

  876·9

  University Hospital of Wales2

  1971

  2,306·1

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  Pre 1948

  1,005·9

  Llandough

  Pre 1948

  752·2

  Singleton

  1967

  949·6

  Morriston

  1985

  1,674·4

  Neath

  Pre 1948

  808·2

  Prince Philip

  1990

  3—

  1 Whole-time equivalents as at 30 September 1989. Excludes medical and dental staff and learner nurses as these cannot be easily allocated to individual hospitals. The figures are based on pay records for staff paid at the named hospitals and it is not possible to adjust for staff paid at one unit working partly at another.

  2 Includes the dental hospital.

  3 Information not yet available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  International Investments Ltd.
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will urgently seek co-operation from the Government of the Irish Republic to jointly fund legal actions against those persons suspected of fraudently acquiring investors' monies from International Investments Ltd.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry understands the position, International Investments Ltd. is a company which was incorporated in Gibraltar and is now in liquidation. The Secretary of State is not aware of any activities of the company which would bring it within the jurisdiction of the statutes for which he is responsible.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of his Department's staff are actively engaged in promoting trade with the countries of eastern European(a) based in the United Kingdom and (b) based in those countries; and what are the comparable figures for 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The answers to the first two parts of the question are 28 and none. The answer to the third part is more complicated but as far as I can tell the equivalent figure in 1979 was 24. Staff have recently been increased by the appointment of a G5 officer and secretary and an HEO and EO to reflect the opportunites and larger workload in eastern Europe. Similarly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is strengthening its staff numbers in this area. In 584
  addition, both now and in 1979, staff in other parts of my Department, including regional offices, spend part of their time in helping to promote trade with these countries.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will introduce legislation providing that auditors owe a duty of care to each shareholder.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on 26 February at column 15.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the real terms increase in productivity and manufacturing output in the periods 1960 to 1969, 1970 to 1979 and 1980 to 1989 for(a) Britain, (b) France, (c) Italy, (d) West Germany, (e) the Netherlands, (f) Sweden, (g) the United States of America and (h) Japan; and what was the average inflation rate for those countries in those decades.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: The available information is in the tables:

  Output per person in manufacturing Changes in real terms

  Per cent.

  1960–69

  1970–79

  1980–89

  United Kingdom

  17·4

  13·3

  50·5

  France2

  19·9

  23·7

  28·9

  Italy1 2

  25·1

  15·4

  23·9

  Federal Republic of Germany

  22·0

  24·6

  20·6

  Sweden2

  24·7

  12·8

  23·3

  United States of America

  17·5

  20·2

  33·8

  Japan

  29·5

  28·4

  28·3

  Netherlands

  19·1

  31·2

  17·0

  1 1980 to 1988 change.

  2 1961 to 1969 change.

  Source: OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  Manufacturing output Changes in real terms

  Per cent.

  1960–69

  1970–79

  1980–89

  United Kingdom

  25·2

  4·2

  23·3

  France

  29·0

  26·7

  9·0

  Italy1

  32·5

  24·5

  8·2

  Federal Republic of Germany

  29·5

  15·5

  15·1

  Sweden

  32·0

  9·0

  18·0

  United States of America

  25·9

  27·3

  31·6

  Japan

  33·8

  24·2

  36·1

  Netherlands

  28·0

  21·0

  22·0

  1 1980 to 1988 change.

  Source: OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  Average annual inflation rates1

  1960 to 1969 per cent.

  1970 to 1979 per cent.

  1980 to 19882 per cent.

  United Kingdom

  3·8

  12·7

  7·4

  France

  3·9

  8·9

  7·8

  Italy

  3·8

  12·3

  11·7

  Germany

  2·6

  4·9

  2·9

  Netherlands

  4·1

  7·0

  3·1

  Sweden3

  3·6

  7·9

  7·4

  United States of America

  2·4

  7·1

  5·6

  Japan

  5·6

  9·1

  2·5

  585
  1 These rates were calculated using the consumer price indices.

  2 Latest year figures available.

  3 IFS.

  Sources: OECD Main Economic Indicators.

  Iraq
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, further to the reply of the Minister for Defence Procurement of 2 May,Official Report, column 603, what were the trade deals of protocols 1 and 2 with Iraq that required the credit facilities of £275 million and £300 million, respectively.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: The credit facilities established under protocols 1 and 2 financed in excess of 500 contracts ranging from United Kingdom participation in major Iraqi projects to relatively small contracts for the supply of goods, equipment and pharmaceutical products.

  Insurance Companies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking under section 44 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 in respect of Debt Indemnity Service (UK) Division; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: It is not the practice to comment on the affairs of individual persons and I am unable to add to my Department's press notice of 30 April 1990 which made it clear that Debt Indemnity Service (UK) Division is not authorised to carry on any class of insurance business in the United Kingdom and that any business or person who has taken out a "policy" with this organisation should urgently take legal advice.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate for the cost of the collection of the community charge in each region of Scotland for 1989–90; what is the estimate for collection of business rates for 1989–90 for each region; and what is the equivalent cost of collection of all rates for each region in 1988–89.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: It is not possible to produce satisfactory figures on this basis for these years because the local authority estimates leave out costs attributable to central administration and include income in respect of statutory additions for late payments. The table, which includes negative and low amounts for certain authorities, shows the results of processing the available figures in the manner requested:

  1989–90

  1988–89

  Regional council

  Cost of collection of the community charge £000

  Cost of collection of non-domestic rates £000

  Cost of collection of all rates £000

  Borders

  564

  187

  368

  Central

  861

  -26

  920

  Dumfries and Galloway

  355

  2

  225

  586

  1989–90

  1988–89

  Regional council

  Cost of collection of the community charge £000

  Cost of collection of non-domestic rates £000

  Cost of collection of all rates £000

  Fife

  2,191

  31

  681

  Grampian

  1,692

  99

  1,555

  Highland

  787

  304

  744

  Lothian

  3,227

  1,169

  2,656

  Strathclyde

  7,105

  -531

  5,346

  Tayside

  2,123

  201

  1,081

EMPLOYMENT

  Technical and Vocational Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the planned level of funding for the technical and vocational education initiative for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Eggar
  As laid out in the public expenditure White Paper the planned level of funding for the technical and vocational education initiative for 1991–92 and 1992–93 is £133 million and £141 million respectively.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what funds he is making available for the extension of the technical and vocational education initiative in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 May 1990]: As laid out in the public expenditure White Paper, the Department plans to make available £134 million in 1990–91, £133 million in 1991–92 and £141 million in 1992–93 for the extension of the technical and vocational education initiative in England, Scotland and Wales.

  Female Employment
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will initiate a series of local research projects into the barriers faced by older women wishing to return to work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department has recently funded a number of studies which cast light on the problems of older people and women who wish to return to work but we have no plans for new research into the specific subject of the barriers faced by older women.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that TECs have sufficient flexibility to meet the training needs of disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  The national framework we have established within which training and enterprise councils (TECs) will operate ensures that TECs have the flexibility to adapt national programmes to meet individual needs, including the needs of people with disabilities. TECs will also have access to specialist residential training providers offering places for people with disabilities who need particular facilities and support, where appropriate local provision is not available.
  587
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether he will issue guidance to training and enterprise councils on meeting the training of people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that examples of good practice of training and enterprise council's provision for disabled people are disseminated to all training and enterprise councils;

  (3) how he plans to ensure that training and enterprise councils are fully aware of the training and employment needs and abilities of people with disabilities.

  Mr. Eggar
  TECs must set out in their business plan how they intend to meet the training needs of people with disabilities. These plans will be subject to my approval.

  Existing guidance issued by my Department on assessment, training and employment of people with disabilities is available to TECs, in the following publications:

  "Building on Ability"—a guide for training people with disabilities (Training Agency publication December 1989).

  Code of good practice on the employment of disabled people (employment service revised October 1988).

  The Training Agency has begun to issue a series of good practice guidance written specifically for TECs which among other issues will cover special training needs, including people with disabilities. The agency will continue to review the need for further guidance in this area.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that all training and enterprise councils' boards have a member with explicit responsibility for the needs of people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for each training and enterprise council (TEC) to determine the membership of its board within the broad parameters set by my Department. The position on membership of TEC boards is set out in the TEC prospectus.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to develop alternative performance indicators in training and enterprise councils for disabled people and those with learning difficulties.

  Mr. Eggar
  There will be a system of performance-related funding for TECs which achieve specified levels of performance against particular output measures. One of these measures will relate to people with disabilities. All the performance measures used will be regularly evaluated to look for ways in which their effectiveness and reliability can he improved.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that training and enterprise councils do not suffer budget penalties for meeting the higher unit costs of training disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will operate under a performance-related contract with my Department. This is designed to give an incentive for good performance by TECs in achieving objectives. This will include meeting the training needs of people with disabilities.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has to provide people with disabilities who need personal assistance in employment with equivalent help to that they have been receiving during their course of higher education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department provides a range of special schemes designed to overcome barriers to employment encountered by people with disabilities. Included is a personal reader service for the visually handicapped.

  These special schemes are currently being evaluated and proposals for their future development will be published soon.

  Deaf People (Employment)
  Sir Alan Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of whether a person is suffering from severe deafness should be permitted to work near dangerous machinery or water.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The fitness for work of people with disabilities such as severe deafness can be assessed only on an individual basis, taking into account all the circumstances of the proposed employment. This assessment is the responsibility of the employer, seeking appropriate advice as necessary. It is possible to devise systems of work that would enable deaf people to work safely near machinery or water.

  Mr. Kenneth Harris
  Sir Alan Glyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the accident involving the death of Mr. Kenneth Harris which occurred at Teddington weir on 8 January.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive are carrying out an investigation into the death of Mr. Kenneth Harris on 8 January. The investigation commenced on 9 January and is continuing.

  Action Credit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of research into the viability of extending action credit to five employment service areas; and if he is considering alterations to the current pilot scheme.

  Mr. Eggar
  A draft report on the reactions of long-term unemployed people to the action credit concept is due in June 1990.

  I have no plan to alter the current pilot scheme.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether refusal of a place on action credit could constitute a failure to avail oneself of an employment opportunity.

  Mr. Eggar
  Participation in employment with action credit, which is for less than 24 hours a week, is entirely voluntary. Refusal of a place, therefore, could not be regarded as neglecting to avail oneself of a reasonable opportunity of employment.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage voluntary organisations to participate in employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Voluntary organisations already play a significant and welcome part in ET. The new flexibilities available to ET provide further encouragement to voluntary organisations and other providers to participate in training.

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provision is being made to include suitable courses of study under the 21-hour rule on the restart menu; and what guidance has been given to restart counsellors to interpret the meaning of "suitable" when judging a course to be a positive outcome from a restart interview.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: The employment service, which is responsible for the restart programme, became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. The employment service chief executive, Mr. Mike Fogden, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rural Funds
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to make the application of rural funds under EC objective 5(b) available over wider areas of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  Areas eligible for grants under objective 5(b) of the European Community's structural funds are determined
  590
  by the European Commission under the terms of article 4 of Council regulation (EEC) No. 4253/88. I understand that the Commission has no present intention of designating further areas. The money available for objective 5(b) grants up to the end of 1993 has already largely been allocated to the areas already designated.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the effects of(a) the amounts of time spent by scientists writing grant proposals and (b) training the staff for short-term contracts, on the overall scientific effectiveness of core staff at Agricultural and Food Research Council institutes.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 16 May 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that no such assessments have been made. The writing of grant proposals is part of the work of research scientists whether in Agricultural and Food Research Council or elsewhere. Permanent scientific staff at Agricultural and Food Research Council institutes have an on-the-job training role for new staff whether on permanent or period appointment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Stamp Office for Deeds
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation there was within Northern Ireland other than with relevant staff and the legal profession before the decision to close the Belfast stamp office for the registration of title deeds.

  Mr. Major
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. Any prior consultation would have been incompatible with Budget confidentiality for my decision to abolish stamp duty on shares.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Nuclear Waste: Reprocessing Contracts
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What contracts have been obtained by BNFL for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that to date BNFL has secured contracts for THORP for the reprocessing of spent fuel containing 6,845 tonnes of uranium. Those contracts are worth over £5 billion and THORP will be a major export earner for the UK.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it may be that THORP will be a major exporter, but is it not the case that the viability of the THORP installation now depends on importing nuclear waste from other countries which will not process it? Is it not therefore the case that Britain is becoming the waste bin for Europe, in particular Germany, and for Asia, in particular Japan?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. One-third of the baseload capacity for THORP is committed to reprocessing spent fuel from UK reactors. In addition BNFL is currently discussing with Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear new reprocessing contracts for UK spent fuel covering the post baseload period from 2002 onwards.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, is it not a fact that since 1976 all contracts for dealing with nuclear waste contain a clause allowing for the return of the waste to the country of origin?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. I am happy to confirm that all reprocessing contracts agreed since 1976 contain options for the return of waste. It is our intention that those options will be exercised and waste returned.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that when we last discussed this matter at Question Time on 17th January I asked certain questions about return on capital employed? If the THORP installation is to be two-thirds dependent on foreign contracts, which will certainly be less favourable in financial terms than domestic contracts, what will be the return on capital employed? If that capital is costed at the present base rate of 15 per cent., will the whole thing be in profit?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Lord following our last exchange. I reiterate what I said then. The contracts that BNFL has already secured for THORP will ensure that over the baseload period—by which I mean the 10 years after completion in 1992—the capital costs will be recovered and the plant will make a profit. The eventual return on THORP will depend on the level of future business that is secured. BNFL is in the process of securing that business now.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that BNFL is already signing contracts for the second decade of business and has just signed one with West Germany, which contains the usual clause about waste being returned to the country of origin, for £225 million?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. That is quite correct. BNFL has recently secured a contract for the reprocessing of a further 450 tonnes of fuel from the Federal Republic from 2002 onwards. BNFL is also confident of signing additional contracts with the Germans over the next few weeks, bringing the total value to £750 million.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Viscount, but his answer—like his letter—does not take us much further. Can he kindly give an estimated return on capital employed for the THORP installation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, It would be impossible to arrive at that figure. The costs of constructing the plant are well known —£1.8 billion. I have told the noble Lord that contracts have been signed for £5 billion worth of reprocessing. I cannot go further.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount saying that an investment of £1.8 billion is being undertaken without any estimate of what the return will be?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I said that THORP will be run at a profit.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is this whole question not a clear indication that the Labour Party consists of little Englanders? Chernobyl and other incidents have shown that the destruction of nuclear waste is an international problem that should not be confined in the manner suggested.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, reprocessing is a proven and safe technology that keeps open the possibility of recycling uranium and plutonium. It puts the wastes into a better form for storage and ultimate disposal and avoids leaving spent fuel as a problem to be tackled by future generations.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the Labour Party's record on nationalisation, is it not very reassuring to find noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench now anxious that concerns should make a profit?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, I hope I have indicated that that is indeed what will happen. As I said in my original Answer, THORP will be a major export earner for the United Kingdom.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Viscount not agree that the entire nation considers this an extremely important issue which we should not allow to be reduced to a cheap level of political point-making?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will consider that I take the subject seriously, as does BNFL. It would not construct a plant to do what it considers is required with the waste unless it also considered it to be very important.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, was not the contract with the West Germans arrived at when planned reprocessing in Bavaria was scrapped as a result of German public opinion being against it? However great the profits the Government or BNFL may make, are those profits not being obtained at the cost of endangering the health of the people around Sellafield?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. The health of the people working at the Sellafield plant is considered carefully. BNFL, the Sellafield workforce and associated trade unions work closely together to try to reduce radiation doses wherever possible. Over the 10-year period to the end of last year, the average dose for the Sellafield workforce was reduced from 8 millisieverts to 3 millisieverts which is a long way below any recommended level.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is not the level of leukaemia among children in the Sellafield area much higher than the national average? Will the noble Viscount answer my question as to whether the Germans turned down the plant in Bavaria because of the opposition of German public opinion?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is correct to say that the German plant has not gone into production. But it would be wrong to say that a profit will be made out of exposing workers at Sellafield to leukaemia because of that decision.

Aviation: Liberalising Measures
11.15 a.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government: What efforts are being made to further the liberalisation of air transport.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government are committed to the liberalisation of air transport. We seek to conclude liberal bilateral agreements with individual countries wherever possible. Within the European Community, the Government have taken a leading role in progress towards a single market in aviation. A first package of liberalising measures was agreed by EC Transport Ministers in 1987 and agreement is due to be reached on a second package of measures by the end of June this year.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Has he any information on the progress of liberalisation proposals made by the Council of Ministers on 4th and 5th December last year?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. The Council of Ministers agreed in principle on the key ingredients of the single market in aviation. Those ingredients were the introduction of the double disapproval system for setting fares; the abolition of bilateral capacity sharing by 1st January 1993; and the introduction of Community-wide licensing criteria by 1st July 1992. The second stage, due to be agreed by the end of June 1990, will essentially build on the first package of measures agreed in 1987. It will provide for interim agreements which will operate until the completion of the internal market which was discussed at that meeting.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important to dispel any view that liberalisation means a complete free-for-all in civil aviation? Will it not be desirable for there still to be some degree of regulation to carry out the welcome assurances given by his noble friend Lord Davidson yesterday and to ensure that there is always safe air space for planes to travel in, always airports to land at and the utmost degree of aircraft security?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, I should be happy to agree with everything that the noble Lord has said, which is a nice opportunity for me. However, I must also point out that liberalisation will afford airlines greater freedom to exercise their own commercial judgments concerning the setting of fares and the type of service provided. It is expected that the second package will further relax restrictions on market access and the approval of fares.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that virtually all of us warmly welcome any action to break up the European cartel on air fares? However, is he aware of the serious problems at present facing some of the smaller British airlines and the anxiety felt by many at the increasing, monopolistic power of British Airways?
Viscount Ullwater: My Lords, the noble Lord has a fair point. It is important that, in order to engender competition, the fate of the smaller airlines should be taken into consideration when the routes are designated and the sharing of routes is undertaken.

Upper Solway Special Protection Area
11.19 a.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
How proper management of the Upper Solway special protection area will be ensured following the break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council, since one side of the estuary is in Scotland and the other in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the provisions of Clause 129 of and Schedule 10 to the Environmental Protection Bill, currently before the House, set out how the Government propose to deal with areas of importance for wildlife which are designated under existing legislation and which straddle the boundaries between England and Scotland, or England and Wales.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what mechanism will be available to ensure that grants are still available to landowners on either side of the estuary? Will he also tell us whether there will be co-ordination to ensure that the same level of grant is: available on both sides?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the new councils over the years that lie ahead of them will obviously perceive what they feel is best on a country by country basis. However, I am sure that we shall be discussing this matter further and more intensively later in the day. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Bill requires the councils concerned to consult with each other before exercising their functions in respect of sites which have been divided between two countries. In fact there is a permissive power in the Bill that allows joint activity to be conducted over a site if the two councils are minded to do so.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will this situation not be similar to those in other fields which have been handled over many years both on the Tweed and Solway by Scottish and English bodies working closely together? Can the Minister confirm that the National Rivers Authority which, despite its name, functions in England and Wales is now co-operating with its Scottish counterparts on both the Tweed and the Solway?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend; he is absolutely correct. Arrangements concerning the countryside, rivers and many other spheres—particularly as we live in a wider Europe—have to operate across borders and physical features too.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 700,000 hectares of Scotland have now been designated as protected areas? That virtually sterilises the 700,000 hectares, and there is no appeal. Is he further aware that this is causing great concern in Scotland and emphasises the need for the administration of such matters to be in Scottish hands?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord's use of the term "sterilisation". However, I understand the point that he makes. No doubt later today he will be reinforcing it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I, as one who expressed serious misgivings when we discussed the splitting up of the Nature Conservancy Council, say how much I welcome the Government's decision to have this joint committee to co-ordinate the
474
activities of the councils for England, Scotland and Wales?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's remarks and look forward to hearing his views later today.
Baroness David: My Lords, in the past the Government have given undertakings that if a management agreement has been made the funds will be available. Can the Minister tell me whether that undertaking will be honoured?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that that is so, but I am not sure whether it is right given the exact form in which the noble Baroness put the question. On the basis that I believe it is so I shall say yes. I shall write to her if I am incorrect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what discussion he had with his noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden before it was decided who should answer this Question? Can he say whether discussions took place between the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment and, if so, at what level of acrimony on the Richter scale they could be measured?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to answer any Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. We fought to have the honour to answer it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, arising from the last question, does the Minister agree that the key to these matters is that every government decision on the environment in Scotland is taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland and that any attempt to try to subtract powers from the Secretary of State for Scotland at present would be entirely unrealistic?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are not proposing to do so.

Action against Drug Trafficking
11.24 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the armed forces in the United Kingdom are taking part in international action against the trade in drugs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, international action against drug trafficking is a matter for the appropriate civil authorities. The services provide assistance when requested in UK territorial waters and elsewhere, including joint patrols with the US Coastguard in the Caribbean, and training assistance to Colombia.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. As the armed services of most countries are in a good position to carry out monitoring and surveillance in relevant areas without significant additions to their normal functions, can he say what are the prospects for fruitful co-operation, especially now, with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe against this worldwide menace?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend asks a very interesting question. I am happy to say that co-operation between the law enforcement agencies of Eastern and Western Europe in this field is very good. I have no doubt that with the greatly improved relationships between East and West there will be scope for improving it still further.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister referred to law enforcement agencies. The Question is expressed in terms of the armed forces. Can the Minister confirm whether there has been any collaboration between the armed forces of various countries? For instance, have British armed forces personnel with special experience in the drug field given advice to other countries or taken advice from them? Will he bear in mind that while we are deeply concerned about the international aspect, there is evidence to show that in this country drug taking in general is on the increase? In our prisons drug taking is a major problem. And from time to time evidence comes forward that in the armed forces drug taking is on the increase. Can he reassure the public on that point?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the second question put by the noble Lord goes somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Of course I agree with him that drug trafficking of any form, whether in this country or abroad, is a vile and abhorrent form of trade. With regard to his first question perhaps I can take as an example the Caribbean where the Royal Navy West Indies guard ship and other Royal Navy vessels in the area provide assistance, when they are available, in co-ordinated anti-drug patrols for the US Coastguard. Their role is limited to surveillance and monitoring. It has made a significant contribution in deterring and apprehending drug traffickers. We have the warm appreciation of the United States for that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend take note of the success of Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore in dealing with drug trafficking by making it a capital offence and enforcing sentence?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, his question goes slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I believe that it would be better answered by someone else.
Lord Carver: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the legal basis for using armed forces of the United Kingdom in support of the United States Coastguard in this affair?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may first say that the services most frequently involved are the Navy and, to a less extent, the RAF. The legal basis relies on the Customs and Excise and the police as the law enforcement agencies.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we fully support all the measures taken by Her Majesty's Government in the fight against the drug traffic. We appreciate that the United States is deeply involved in the struggle in Colombia. Can the Minister say what part we play? What contribution do we make in the fight against the substantial and well organised drug traffickers in Colombia?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that, at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and as part of Her Majesty's Government's package of assistance to the Colombian Government, we have been providing training to the Colombian law enforcement authorities in a number of areas, including bomb disposal and close protection of VIPs. Furthermore, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 9th April announced further assistance to the extent of £4.5 million for Colombia. The details of the package are still being worked upon.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Earl expand on his answer to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver? It seemed to me that he did not tell us under what law British forces are used in support of American coastguards or whatever other drug enforcement officers there are.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sorry. I thought that I had well explained that fact. Apprehension and arrest are the responsibilities of the law enforcement agencies in those countries.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is, and has been for many years, part of the function of our armed forces to support the civil power of this country? Does not the help that is being given in these matters come within that definition?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have tried to outline the responsibilities of the armed forces with regard to international drug trafficking. I do not think that I can add more.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, it is good that there should be international co-operation. However, I should like to raise a matter referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. As regards our forces, are the Government satisfied with some of the intricate legal aspects of such co-operation that may arise from time to time, some aspects of which may embarrass our own armed forces?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the legal aspects and the particular role that they play are well defined. In this form of drug trafficking the lead is taken by the law enforcement agencies.

Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
11.31 a.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—{Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I believe that this is the appropriate moment for me to say what I wish before the Bill passes from your Lordships' House. Those who have followed the progress of the Bill will realise that the official Opposition are not only unhappy at the progress of the Bill but are very angry indeed.
Events over the past few weeks and days reinforce all that we have said. It is an unnecessary, shabby Bill. It is more than that: it is a con trick. As we have sought to demonstrate over the past few weeks in this Chamber and in another place, the Government are not privatising any part of the business. Privatisations such as water, gas and electricity involved selling the business; but the PSA/TCS privatisation sells nothing but the staff and the assets. The business of designing, furnishing and maintaining the Crown estate will stay with the Government.
Let me illustrate to the Minister and to the House what is; causing deep concern. Only this week we understand, and it is fairly authentic, that the Ministry of Defence is undertaking a major review of its expenditure. I remind the House that the PSA is responsible for more than £2 billion of the MoD expenditure. We hear that there is to be a moratorium on its expenditure. As a consequence there will be a shortfall in the profits that have been earned by the PSA in the past. At the end of the year—during the period when the PSA is being sold on—it will be making a great loss.
One consequence is that the price that the Government will be able to obtain from any prospective purchasers will be depressed. However, what is. more important is that the Government's ability to lay down and insist on protective conditions will be so much the weaker. The trade unions involved forecast when the naval dockyards were to be privatised that there would be 6,000 redundancies; and so it came to pass. There were more than 6,000 redundancies. They now tell me that as a result of the Bill, and of what I have just told the House, we can expect between 5,000 and 8,000 redundancies. Of course they are very worried, angry and fearful for the future.
The Government have sought in an anodyne and very often patronising way to tell the employees that
478
they have nothing to worry about; that there are arrangements in place which will protect them; that they will be no worse off in the future than in the past. Tell that, for instance, to some of the employees of the Skillcentres. In another place, Mr. Tim Eggar had to admit only this week that with regard to one of the Skillcentres that had been sold with arrangements comparable to these in place, the employer issued redundancy notices to all employees on the very day after he took prossession. The official record indicates the Minister's concern about this, and states that he will make arrangements for employees who are no longer employees of the Government to be given financial assistance to take legal advice. We do not wish those employees of the Crown who cease to be employees of the Crown to be given legal advice to protect their interests. They should previously have had those interests protected. We know of course who will be advantaged and benefit from this legislation. It will not be the employees. The normal people who benefit when the Government sell on are the merchant bankers, the property speculators, the public relation firms and the City.
I challenged the Minister about who he had been in touch with regarding the viability of the sales. The House will know the names: Price Waterhouse, Samuel Montagu, and many others. Those are the people who will benefit. When the ordinary employees consider the disadvantages of the package with dismay they will not be in the position of Sir Gordon Manzie who was head of the Property Services Agency. He retired early with a golden handshake. Within three months of his retirement he was able to take over a top job, taking over many of the facilities of the Property Services Agency. The Sir Gordon Manzies of this world have nothing to worry about. However, 22,000 overwhelmingly dedicated, long serving, and efficient civil servants wish only to continue to serve the Crown; or, if the Government are intent on flogging off their business to the highest bidder they wish their redundancy arrangements and pensions to be protected. They do not have the same assurances as the Sir Gordon Manzies of this world.
I asked the Minister whether he could exclude the Northern Ireland nexus on security grounds. He said no. The Government have excluded from this Bill the government car service. Ministers will still be able to travel in cars that are part of a public service. The quite proper security arrangements on Ministers' houses will be kept within a new government department. However, civil servants who work in Northern Ireland and who are often subjected to terrible threats will cease to have the protection of the security services. They will be left to fend for themselves.
Let us consider what the Government have done. They have sold off the Royal Ordnance factories, Rover and the Skillcentres. We sympathise with the worries of the employees who will be affected. They were previously considered as good civil servants. The Minister may tell us that such privatisation will benefit the taxpayer, the ratepayer and the poll tax payer. This Government know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. They have said to highly

479
valued civil servants, "Your time has come. We must pay you off; and we shall return to the business of getting rid of the public empire." It is a shabby, shoddy and shameful Bill. It is a Tory Bill. We believe that it ought not to make progress in this House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord made a splendidly emotional speech in the true tradition of the Labour Party and one cannot let it pass without comment. We know that the noble Lord hates anything being privatised and is a sincere exponent of what he believes to be the merits of public enterprise. But that view is not shared by many noble Lords. In particular, it is not shared by those of us who, from time to time, have had dealings with the Property Services Agency. The presence of the noble Lord on the Woolsack prevents me from referring to episodes somewhat nearer home. However, anyone who has had dealings with the PSA will know that, compared with similar organisations in private enterprise, it was slow and costly. That derived in part from its position as a publicly-owned and publicly-operated service.
Noble Lords have only to look at what has happened in other organisations—one or two of which the noble Lord mentioned—to see the increase in efficiency and economy of operation which followed privatisation. I have not the slightest doubt that the public will benefit from the privatising of the Property Services Agency. It is a consistent policy which has been successfully pursued by the Government in many directions. Obviously, it is not one of the major changes but it is substantial.
I fully understand the anxieties of those who work in the PSA and who, naturally, fear change. We all fear change and uncertainty which is an understandable cause of apprehension. However, good assurances have been given and there is no solid reason for believing that those who work in the PSA will suffer. There is every evidence to show that the British public, the Government and their agencies will gain and profit from the change. I welcome the Bill and hope that it will soon be law.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not believe that the House and noble Lords who took part in the debates in Committee and on Report will thank me for repeating the arguments which rebut the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean, who is not present today, for the doughty and committed concern and attention that they gave to the Bill in Committee and on Report and for the generous way in which they reacted with the Government to the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, it was remiss of me not to acknowledge and pay tribute to the courteous way in which the Minister always responded to the points that we made. I have taken advice about the subsection relating to the EC directive and have been reassured that it is to the
480
benefit and not to the detriment of the points that I made.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Environmental Protection Bill
11.44 a.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I must first apologise to your Lordships' House. Later in the day I must attend upon Her Majesty the Queen for a brief period of time and I shall then return to your Lordships' House. The arrangements were made a considerable time ago.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The 147 clauses of the Bill cover much territory but they are united by one goal—a safer, cleaner environment. The Bill gives us the means of making further substantial progress towards that. It reforms the control of air pollution, land wastes, nuisance and radioactive substances. It provides an integrated system of pollution control and controls over genetically modified organisms; measures for tackling litter; the means for improved conservation of our wildlife and countryside; and a battery of smaller measures.
Tying together these provisions are common threads. There is encouragement for individual citizens to act to protect their environment, not least through the improved access to environmental information. There are greater powers of enforcement and tougher penalties for law breakers. Accountability is increased and there is a significant extension to the environmental responsibilities of local authorities. The new powers and duties given to them in this Bill underline their central role in protecting the local environment.
The Bill is the outcome of a substantial process of development and consultation. Many provisions take forward recommendations of Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament as well as of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The result is a series of measures which have generally received warm endorsement. Even regarding the reorganisation of our conservation agencies, there is wide agreement on the principle of devolution. I am delighted that the Bill was the subject of constructive and co-operative debate between all parties during its passage through another place. That, I hope, bodes well for its further progress in this House.
It would be a daunting task to describe in detail the many provisions of the Bill. Let me therefore outline the main features of each part in turn. Part I introduces an innovatory system of integrated pollution control (IPC) which will be operated by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. IPC has been welcomed widely. That is a credit to the work of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in developing the concept of the best

481
practicable environmental option. That concept, which is central to IPC, means reducing or modifying waste generation and directing the waste which arises to the environmental sector where the least overall environmental damage would be done.
I also pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on European Affairs, which reported last November on freedom of access to information on the environment. Part I, in common with other parts, introduces measures to increase such access. They are in full accord with the Community directive that was the subject of the committee's investigations as well as with the committee's findings.
Processes prescribed under Part I will need an authorisation before they can operate. In setting conditions within it the enforcing authority will have as its principal objective the prevention or minimisation of the release of prescribed substances by the application of the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. As techniques and our awareness of environmental risks improve, so will authorisations be updated.
Part I recognises that we cannot treat environmental media in isolation. It is not enough to limit the releases to water if in so doing we increase releases to air and thereby cause greater harm to the environment. That is why both operator and enforcing authority will have to have regard to the effect of releases on the environment as a whole.
The most potentially polluting or complex processes will be prescribed for IPC. But Part I also gives major new air pollution control powers to local authorities over a second tier of less polluting processes, together with the resources, through cost recovery charging, to discharge them. That significant extension of local authorities' remit on pollution control is a major vote of confidence, and a recognition of both their wish and their need to involve themselves fully in environmental protection. This part of the Bill marks a major step forward. Indeed, IPC is an environmental first for Europe and I commend it to your Lordships.
Part II of the Bill deals with waste. The proposals in it spring in the first instance from a report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson. They also closely reflect the findings of the RCEP's eleventh report. They tighten the controls that we already have, extend new controls over fresh areas and reform the role of the enforcing authorities. This will promote higher and more consistent standards of waste management.
As elsewhere in the Bill, we provide for greatly increased information to be available to the public. Not only will information be available on registers, there will be obligations on local authorities to publish reports on their performance. I hope that this will bring greater accountability to bear on them.
Part II confirms our confidence in the ability of local authorities to regulate waste management to high standards. It separates out their executive job of waste disposal, freeing them to concentrate on regulation. They will be subject to closer central scrutiny and be bound to take account of central guidance on how to improve standards.
482
The Bill provides these reformed waste regulation authorities with stronger and more effective powers. Waste controls will apply at every stage from the duty of care on a waste producer right through to the control of landfill gas at a disposal site 30 years or more after its closure.
The duty of care is the key. It extends legal responsibility for waste to each person who produces or holds it. Failure to discharge the duty will be a criminal offence. This is a more effective and fairer measure than putting either civil or criminal liability solely on the producer. We need to pin responsibility for waste on the person who controls what happens to it at each stage.
That approach is being extended to increase the legal responsibilities of licensed waste managers. Authorities will have power to vet licensees so as to exclude the criminal, the technically ill-equipped and the under-financed. Once a licensee is allowed a licence, he will have to stick with it. meeting all his environmental responsibilities without leaving any poisoned chalice for future generations.
We shall be looking to local authorities to use their new powers responsibly and effectively to raise the standards of waste management. And we are confident that this new regime will bear comparison with any in the world.
Part III of the Bill carries over, with improvements, existing legislation on statutory nuisance. This legislation is long-standing—there is a clear genealogy from a Leeds local Act of 1842 through the Public Health Acts to the provisions of this part of the Bill. It has stood the test of time well. However consultation has shown that some aspects needed strengthening to reflect modern conditions—for example, the parchment making trade is not what is used to be, whilst neighbourhood noise is an ever-increasing problem.
Part III deals with activities that can cause discomfort or distress to individuals rather than significant damage to the environment as a whole. It is about preserving the balance between an individual's right to a decent quality of life and the need to allow local businesses to operate effectively.
Part III aligns the regimes in England and Wales for dealing with statutory nuisance and noise nuisance, and streamlines the procedures for dealing with statutory nuisance by cutting out a time-consuming stage in the legal processes. It gives local authorities a new anticipatory power to deal with transient nuisances such as dust from demolition or sand-blasting of buildings. Perhaps even more importantly, it raises the maximum penalty which can be incurred by businesses from £2,000 to £20,000. This will be a very real deterrent to any company that is tempted to behave in an anti-social way.
I am pleased that our proposals in Part IV of the Bill have generally been welcomed by all who wish to see an end to littered streets and open spaces. It is a truism that if only people would stop dropping litter the problem would cease to exist. The importance of education, both in schools and in the community, cannot be overemphasized. Substantial government grants to the Tidy Britain Group have

483
enabled them to continue their sterling work in this field.
But despite entreaties some people continue in their selfish habits. To bring these wanderers back into the fold will, I fear, require an assault on their wallets. The Bill proposes an increase in the maximum fine for dropping litter from £400 to £1,000. I have no doubt that fines of this magnitude will bring home even to the most anti-social the message that the vast majority no longer wish to live with the squalor they create. The Bill also provides a power for local authorities to operate fixed penalty schemes along the lines of that operating successfully in Westminster. The Government recognise the key role of local authorities in the war against litterers, and we are determined to give them the powers they need to wage it.
Even with these deterrents we would be optimistic to expect the eradication of litter overnight. It is vital that once dropped, litter is speedily and efficiently cleared up. To this end the Bill proposes a duty on local authorities, statutory undertakers, educational institutions and some owners of other land to keep their land clear of litter and refuse. This duty will fall also upon the Crown. A code of practice will describe standards which should be met and will advise on methods for achieving them.
Many complaints relating to litter focus on commercial operators such as fast-food restaurants. I applaud the efforts being made by many businesses to keep their frontages clear of litter. However, too many still have no regard for their responsibilities. The Bill therefore proposes a power for local authorities to issue "street litter control notices" against commercial frontagers, requiring them to take appropriate steps to keep the land clean.
We have also sought, in Part IV, to deal with the nuisance of abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys. By giving local authorities powers to seize them and charge for their return, we hope to give owners an extra incentive to manage their trolleys efficiently.
Part V of the Bill provides a number of amendments to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Under the Act no radioactive material can be kept or used without a registration granted by the Department of the Environment or the relevant territorial department. Similarly no radioactive waste may be accumulated or disposed of without authorisation.
Our view that the Act continues to provide an effective control mechanism was endorsed by our public consultation exercise. The current system will therefore remain, but amendments will be made to improve its operation and extend its scope.
We propose that the responsibility for issuing registrations and authorisations in England and Wales should pass to the Chief Inspector of HMIP, with a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Similar systems will operate in Scotland and Northern Ireland. To back up these new controls the powers of entry and inspection of inspectors are being extended and the penalties for offences are being increased.
484
The 1960 Act at present partially exempts the activities of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. The Bill provides for this exemption to be terminated. It also provides that the activities of the Crown which at present are exempted will be brought within its scope, though for reasons of national security the exemptions in respect of MoD and visiting forces will remain.
Part VI of the Bill introduces wide-ranging controls to protect the environment against damage from genetically modified organisms—GMOs. Biotechnology using techniques of genetic modification is well-established and developing fast. It offers the prospect of great benefits. So far, the safety record has been good. Existing health and safety legislation has provided protection against the risks to man for many years. Part VI is designed to ensure that the environmental risks are also properly controlled and that the good safety record continues.
Our proposals have been widely welcomed and will implement the environmental provisions of two European directives on GMOs which were adopted in April. They closely follow the recommendations of the RCEP's invaluable 13th report. I am pleased that our debates on this part of the Bill stand to benefit from the counsel of present and former members of the commission who are also Members of your Lordships' House.
The core of Part VI is a structured risk assessment regime, underpinned by a general duty to use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost to protect the environment. The system would match the scrutiny appropriate to proposed operations with the potential risks. At the basic level, we would require everyone who proposed to import, acquire, keep, release or market GMOs to carry out a risk assessment and keep records. Where the risks were higher—for example, because of the large scale of a new plant—the user could be required to notify the Secretary of State of his intentions and the results of the risk assessment. Finally, where it was clear that operations should only proceed subject to conditions—perhaps in the experimental release of a novel organism—the Secretary of State's consent would be required before the operation could proceed.
The new provisions will interlock with existing controls. The Government will be advised on notifications, consents and other matters by a single expert committee to be called the Advisory Committee on Release to the Environment—ACRE. The appointment of a chairman—professor John Beringer—and members of a forerunner to this committee were announced in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We expect those appointed to assume the role of ACRE on the passage of this Bill.
In keeping with our policy on openness, public registers will give details such as the nature of the GMO involved in a particular operation, the location of the operation and any foreseeable effects on the environment.
I believe that this approach reflects the best principles of this Bill. It gives proper weight to concern for the environment while accepting

485
industry's need for well-balanced, unbureaucratic regulatory systems. With Part VI, we intend that the environmental damage will not detract from the benefits of GMO biotechnology.
Part VII of the Bill contains the first comprehensive reform of our conservation agencies since they were established as the Nature Conservancy Council and the National Parks Commission more than 40 years ago. The reform has been criticised in some quarters, but quietly welcomed in many more, particularly by those who have experienced the impact of the current arrangements in Scotland and Wales. There have been suggestions that the Government will drop the proposals or kick them into the long grass by reissuing them in some green-edged pages of the forthcoming White Paper.
I make no apology for the fact that the Government are not going to turn those suggestions into substance. We believe that the case for our reform stands undiminished. It is needed to equip the agencies with a structure more accountable both to Parliament and the public, and more relevant to the challenges of the 1990s. Nor has any argument of substance been put forward against our strategy of creating integrated agencies in Scotland and Wales covering both NCC and countryside commission interests. Conservationists know in their hearts that this will strengthen arrangements for the protection and enjoyment of wildlife and the countryside in these two countries, where separate bodies would be unlikely to be as effective as the "one-door" agencies we are establishing. In England, the circumstances are significantly different and we have decided that the additional pressures on the English countryside, from conflicting interest, make it sensible to retain separate organisations, at least for the time being. But in all three countries the effect of our reform will be to create agencies which are less bureaucratic and more responsible to the needs of the countryside and all its inhabitants.
The new agencies will have exactly the same functions as the current bodies, including responsibility for the designation and protection of sites such as national nature reserves, SSSIs and AONBs. They will be committed to carrying out these functions thoroughly, something which the Government have underlined by the appointment of three shadow chairmen with such fine track records in conservation—my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, Magnus Magnusson and Michael Griffith. I should like to explain that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is unfortunately prevented from attending today's debate because of his duties as Leader of the International Tropical Timber Organisation's Mission on the assessment of sustainable forestry in Sarawak. My noble friend has asked me to present his regrets to your Lordships that these duties oblige him to be absent today.
Both my noble friend and the other shadow chairmen will have the resources to do the job; a point which the Government emphasised from the outset. Furthermore, they will have the resources and staff to carry on the NCC's international, UK and Great Britain work through the statutory joint committee to be established under Clause 123 of
486
the Bill. Its first chairman will be Professor Fred Holliday. He has previously served with distinction as the NCC's chairman, and his qualities are recognised on all sides of this House.
I now wish to turn to the Government's response to the excellent and persuasive report of your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology, prepared under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The Government's response to the report is contained in a Written Answer made yesterday to my noble friend Lady Carnegy. Copies of that reply have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. With the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and his colleagues, I am able to say that the Government have been pleased to respond positively to almost all of the report's 24 recommendations. Several of our responses will require amendments to the Bill. These include provisions to ring fence the joint committee's resources more securely; to provide voting rights for the scientists appointed to the committee by the Secretary of State; to allow non-voting assessors to be appointed to the committee to represent Northern Ireland interests; and to clarify the respective roles of the country councils and their joint committee. The necessary amendments will be brought forward at Committee stage.
There is only one significant caveat, in that we do not accept that the statutory remit of the joint committee should be extended to cover countryside matters. We shall however take two steps to ensure that the committee is well placed to take account of countryside interests. First, the chairman of the countryside commission will be a permanent, ex officio member of the joint committee, with full voting rights. This is itself in line with another recommendation in the Carver Report. Secondly, the chairman of the committee, Professor Holliday, will invite the chairman of the Scottish Countryside Committee to be a non-voting assessor on the joint committee until the commission merges with the NCC for Scotland to form a Scottish Natural Heritage Agency.
I can also make a further announcement today about the composition of the joint committee. As our reply to the Select Committee indicates, we have accepted their recommendation that there should be three independent members of the joint committee appointed directly by the Secretary of State for their scientific excellence, and enjoying full voting rights on the committee. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has secured the services of three distinguised scientists who have agreed to work alongside Professor Holliday immediately in a shadow capacity, with a view to formal appointment after Royal Assent. The three appointments cover the key disciplines of botany, earth science and zoology.
For botany, we propose to appoint Professor John Harper, emeritus professor at the University of Wales. For earth science we have been fortunate in securing the services of Professor John Knill, currently chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council and a member of the present NCC, as well as a distinguished academic. For zoology, we

487
intend to appoint Professor Robert May, a professor at Oxford University and Imperial College. There can be no doubt that these are men of outstanding achievement and expertise. This announcement will give further substance to the concept of the joint committee. When these names are put alongside the appointments already announced and the amendments we intend to bring forward I believe that the concept will win the endorsement of this House.
I conclude this part of my speech by quoting the report of the Select Committee:
"The Committee take the opportunity to praise the admirable work done by the NCC for conservation generally in Great Britain. Whatever local difficulties there may have been, the NCC has achieved a great deal. These achievements should not be sacrificed".
The Government endorse that sentiment wholeheartedly. They believe that Part VII will build on the achievements of both the NCC and the countryside commission in a way which will make this Bill—like the 1949 Act—a milestone in the protection and appreciation of our natural heritage.
I turn finally to Part VIII, which provides for a number of smaller but nonetheless significant measures. Notably, Clause 133, in line with developing international policy, extends existing powers to give us jurisdiction over dumping anywhere on our continental shelf by foreign ships loaded in foreign ports. The UK is the first North Sea country to seek such power. Clause 135 provides powers to ban the burning of crop residues. Noble Lords will be aware of the major nuisance caused by the burning of crop residues, otherwise known as straw burning. The Government feel that that practice has to be stopped. Any exemptions to the prohibition will be kept to a bare minimum.
In addition to the provisions already in Part VIII, in Committee I shall be moving amendments to the Bill to meet shortcomings in the legislation controlling the location of hazardous substances. Those amendments will enable the new controls to be brought into operation on a much more satisfactory basis than would be possible under existing provisions.
I have, I hope, demonstrated that this Bill contains many far-reaching and welcome measures. It brings fundamental improvements to our system of pollution control and conservation. It does not, however, provide an alchemist's stone to turn everything green at one touch. The environmental challenges that face us are too many and too varied for that ever to be true. But responsible and responsive legislation continues to have a crucial role to play. It offers the possibility of further substantial progress towards a cleaner, greener environment. This excellent and important Bill holds the key to such progress. I am confident that it is welcome to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hesketh.)
12.9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I first thank the Minister for that very clear, thorough and
488
indeed sometimes new introduction to this Bill. Let me say immediately, because a large part of my speech will inevitably be devoted to criticism of the Bill, that in principle we support the motivation behind the Bill and many of the provisions made in it. That will be obvious, I think, from the way the Bill proceeded in Committee and on Report in another place, where my honourable and right honourable friends paid many tributes not only to parts of the Bill as originally proposed but to the willingness of Ministers in another place to listen to arguments and to make amendments accordingly. I hope that that precedent will be followed in this place. Indeed, knowing the Minister and his colleagues I am sure that it will be.
Before proceeding to deal with the Bill in detail perhaps I may also say how much I look forward to the three maiden speakers who are to speak today. I will be forgiven if I say that I am particularly looking forward to the speech of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, but I am sure that all three maiden speakers will make a valuable contribution not only to this debate but to future debates.
Having said that, I am bound to say that this Bill does not deserve the title of Environmental Protection Bill. On behalf of her party the Prime Minister took a very important initiative in 1988 in her speech to the Royal Society. She indicated a new awareness of both global and national environmental problems, which was very welcome and, I believe, has been taken up by all parties. It deserves the support of all well-meaning citizens in all parties. However, hosting international conferences in London and putting forward legislation of this nature by no means fulfils the expectations which the people of this country have in regard to their government in dealing with environmental pollution on a large scale.
I question whether this Bill should be called the Environmental Protection Bill at all. When I look at it in detail the most apt description is the "Control of Pollution (Amendment) Bill"; though it could be call the "Litter and Related Purposes Bill", the "Dogs (Fouling and Licensing) Bill", or indeed the "Nature Conservancy Council (Fragmentation) Bill". It is certainly not the Environmental Protection Bill which we were led to expect and which we now learn we are not to have even in the next Session; in other words, the last full Session, if it is a full Session, of this Parliament.
We are told that the White Paper which is to sum up the Government's views on all matters of environmental protection is to come in time not for this Session of Parliament but for the Conservative Party Conference. We are told, unless the Minister wishes to correct me, that there will be no major legislation on this subject in the 1990–91 Session. Therefore, we must look at this Bill in its proper role as the last major Environmental Protection Bill which this Government will be able to introduce. We must look at the gaps in the Bill as well as the provisions in it. It is in that sense that we shall have major amendments to put forward as the Bill proceeds.
I illustrate that by starting with Part I, which introduces a welcome concept of integrated pollution

489
control. I also pay tribute at this stage to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, is to speak this afternoon. What the Bill does not do is pay any serious attention to the vital issues of energy conservation. It is a Department of the Environment Bill. No energy Ministers took part in the debate in another place. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has agreed to take part in the debates on this part of the Bill and I wish that the Government would follow suit and recognise that environmental protection is not confined to the Department of the Environment but must affect all departments of government.
There is no coverage in the Bill of transport policy. The absolutely vital issues of vehicle emissions and of carbon dioxide—both relate to transport and energy—dwarf some of the detailed provisions made in the Bill. Unless those aspects are controlled the detailed provisions in the Bill become, not worthless of course—they are still worth doing—but far less significant than they are claimed to be.
In dealing with pollution control we need not just integration but a national strategy for charging for pollution and discouraging pollution by our charging policies. The Bill provides that the spearhead of integrated pollution control shall be Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. I am sure that that is right but there must be two major qualifications to that. First, the resources for the already demoralised inspectorate must be improved. The measures which have already been implemented have not worked. There is still a large number of vacancies in the inspectorate. It remains to be seen whether the measures now being announced will work. It is clear, however, that to restore confidence within the inspectorate is not just a matter of money but of giving this fine body of men and women a real sense of purpose and self respect and a feeling that they are being treated seriously by government.
The second requirement for this policy to work is that the relationship between local authorities and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution should be worked out correctly. After all, local authorities are the environmental protection agencies for this country and have been such for at least 150 years. Unless the inspectorate is to work closely with local authorities and unless the division of labour between them is rational and not purely arbitrary, as in this Bill where many kinds of air pollution are the responsibility of the inspectorate and some less serious pollutions are the responsibility of local authorities, the division between them will not be rational and the expertise of local authorities will not be used to the best effect.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which the Government have today paid such tribute in regard to the Nature Conservancy Bill, was highly critical of the Government's failure in regard to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, with his expertise in this
490
area, for his confirmation of the point that I was attempting to make. If integrated pollution control is to succeed it must be extended to cover all agencies and not just some. In particular, it must be extended to cover the National Rivers Authority.
Part I also introduces the concept of BATNEEC. I was interested to hear the Minister, in his introduction, refer instead to the best practicable environmental option—BPEO—whereas the Bill refers to the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs. The best practical environmental option is a much more simple and clear concept and has far fewer boltholes for those who wish to elevate cost above environmental protection in the way in which they deal with offenders. Our problem with BATNEEC—and we have looked carefully at the practice note which the department issued in April—is that it could too readily be interpreted as putting cost above environmental protection. I was interested to note that the Minister made no reference to this point in his speech.
Above all, in dealing with Part I—I regret that I shall have to return to this when dealing with other parts of the Bill—there are significant duties placed on local authorities, but there is no indication whatever that there will be adequate resources for the local authorities to carry out the tasks which are to be imposed upon them.
Again, Part II of the Bill is largely welcome. We welcome the improvements in the Control of Pollution Act in so far as they deal with waste management, and the fact that they are improvements. I remind the House that Section 1(1) of the 1974 Act said that there should be a national waste strategy which imposed a general duty on local authorities to act on a national basis in accordance with that strategy.
What is interesting about the 1974 Act is that it does contain provision for a national strategy but that in the 16 years since the Act was passed that particular section has not been put into effect. If we now talk about a national strategy for waste management we are doing so not by improving the law but, we hope, by improving the willingness of governments to act on the legislation which they have. I have to make this a non-party point because it refers to the Labour Government of 1974–79 as well.
There are major problems with the waste management proposals as far as they affect local authorities. One of them is that waste management is to become part of compulsory competitive tendering. The argument behind that is that it will deal with the poacher-gamekeeper conflict. In fact, what is likely to happen is that the polluter pays principle will be interpreted to mean, "You can pollute if you can afford it" rather than that the polluter pays for the prevention of pollution which is the correct interpretation of that principle.
We shall be seeking amendments to make sure that local authorities retain control over the waste management activities which they will be forced to put out to tender under the Act and to be sure that the polluter pays principle means that he pays for prevention. It is no good saying that local authorities

491
will be able to recoup by charges up to 90 per cent, of the cost of improved waste management. The Bill restricts the amount of charges which can be levied on polluters. It makes it more difficult for local authorities to have the resources which will be necessary.
The recycling and reclamation provisions of the Bill concentrate on planning for recycling and reclamation rather than dealing with the much more important issue of providing the resources. One of the local authority experts to whom I was speaking recently said that there is no pot of gold at the end of the recycling rainbow. That is certainly true. There must be ways of dealing with the problems which were discussed last week during the debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. As things stand, the value of recycled materials is less than the cost of the recycling in comparison with virgin materials. Whether it is through compulsory deposits on cans or some form of recycling credits, there must be ways to rationalise the economics of recycling. That is what is neccessary. It is not simply a matter of plans.
I shall refer very briefly to Part VIII of the Bill which is part of the same subject. We do not think that the provisions for dumping at sea or the increased fines are adequate. The fines should be related to the profits available from dumping at sea rather than for them to be at a fixed level. The restrictions on the import and export of hazardous materials are inadequate. They should include hazardous or polluting recyclable materials. We shall certainly seek to ensure that the straw burning provisions do not have loopholes which will enable Ministers to provide too many exemptions and therefore negate the whole purpose of the legislation.
I turn now to Part III. The Bill is extremely complicated and deserves proper attention. The House will wish to know the lines of argument which the Opposition will put forward in Committee. The rationalisation of existing legislation is extremely welcome. Clause 76 of the Bill refers to nuisances which are prejudicial to health or which are a nuisance. In an Environmental Protection Bill we should refer to factors which are prejudical to health or to the natural environment or a nuisance. I suggest that there should be improvements in the definition of health so that it can mean not merely the avoidance of illness but also include positive well being.
There are particular points to be made about floodlighting, cable burning and the noise of vehicles off the road to which we shall have to pay attention as the Bill goes through Committee. We shall certainly wish to make the provisions for fines more effective than they are in the Bill as it stands. As I suggested at the beginning, this is also a litter and related purposes Bill. Any movement towards the better control of litter has the full support of the Opposition.
However, there are still considerable difficulties about the way in which this part of the Bill deals with the subject. Above all, there is the problem of resources. In effect, all the expenditure is to come
492
from local authorities which are subject to standard spending assessments for the poll tax. We think that more emphasis should be paid to the responsibilities of traders. The responsibility for publicity should be a national charge rather than a local one.
There are major points concerning the standards to be imposed as regards litter with those authorities which have already been obliged by the compulsory competitive tendering procedure to put contracts out to tender. They have specified standards for litter which are different from those imposed by the Bill. We shall be seeking to ensure that the highest possible standards are part of any tendering procedure. It may be that there will have to be a way of looking back at the previous and existing tenders.
There are matters concerning enforcement and the lack of powers of local authorities to ensure that people who are accused of dropping litter give a correct name and address so that they can be pursued. There are also the problems of the obstruction of litter wardens and the danger that a local authority will be asked to be a de facto police force without having police powers.
I can pass over Part V of the Bill fairly rapidly. The improvements in the legislation on radioactive substances are worthwhile. It is good to know that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Crown are now largely included. Points concerning information to local authorities and consultation with them which have been revealed by the Dudley case will undoubtedly be raised during Committee. There are only 27 pollution inspectors concerned whereas there are at least 568 premises involved; therefore, there are major problems of resources.
The duty of care provisions concerning genetically modified organisms are worthwhile. The duty of care and application of BATNEEC are not the same as the strict liability which was recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The Minister somewhat skated over that point in his opening speech. We shall be looking to strengthen those provisions just as we shall be seeking to strengthen the statutory responsibilities of the advisory committee on release to the environment. We welcome the appointment of Professor John Beringer to the chairmanship of that body.
I turn now to Part VII of the Bill which as I see from the list of speakers will occupy the attention of probably a third of the speakers this afternoon. I do not mind confessing that my starting point is that Part VII should not be there at all. The unilateral announcement in July of last year, at the stage when the Nature Conservancy Council had just completed its own plans for devolution and had been presenting them to the Government, was a disgrace to proper Government procedures of consultation. The virtually unanimous—I am not sure who the exception is—opposition of the voluntary bodies is evidence of the outrage of this maladroit attempt to, I am afraid to say, appease the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office at the expense of environmental protection. It is evidence of how severely things are wrong. If I had been in another place for the Bill's Second Reading I am pretty sure that I would have voted against it.

493
The responsibilities of this House mean that we have to approach it in a slightly different way. Our responsibility here—this is what I shall be recommending to my noble friends—is to seek to achieve the greatest possible improvement to Part VII. This includes adopting the improvements suggested in the Government's response to the Carver Committee report and also looking at the many areas in which the Nature Conservancy Council and the voluntary bodies have suggested that the improvements are not enough. We have then to consider the Government's response and decide whether Part VII, as amended, is acceptable to us. I do not know what the answer will be but I have no hesitation in saying that unless we achieve certain requirements for nature conservation, unless we are sure that countryside activities are good enough and unless we are sure that the proposed joint committee has enough powers to deal with the responsibilities which ought to be put upon it, we shall seek to overturn the entire procedure. But we must do it in the way of seeking to achieve improvement first, and then making a judgment whether that improvement is adequate.
It is already obvious that there are gaps in the Government's proposals even as amended by the statement yesterday and by the Minister's speech. It is not clear that the joint committee will have adequate control over national standards of nature reserve agreements, of the compulsory acquisition of land for nature reserves and of management agreements of nature conservation areas. It is not clear that there will be a national quinquennial review rather than three quinquennial reviews which may not add up to a proper national policy. It is not clear that there is adequate protection for SSSIs, for national nature reserves or for marine nature reserves.
In the past few minutes the Minister has said that there will be ring fencing of the joint committee's income. That could mean two things. It could mean that the country councils are not allowed to spend more than a certain amount or that they are not allowed to spend less than a certain amount. It is not clear from what the Minister said that that will be achieved.
We welcome the appointment of Sir Fred Holliday as chairman, and appointments announced today. We are sure that they are distinguished scientists who will fulfil their role very well. But we are far from satisfied that the joint committee will achieve the requirements which not only the voluntary bodies but all experts in nature conservation and in the preservation and enhancement of the countryside expect of that body. If that is achieved we shall be satisfied. If not, we may have to look again at the whole principle put forward in Part VII.
I said at the beginning of my speech that this is not a true Environmental Protection Bill. If it were it would have been closer to the Environment Protection Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, before Christmas. Such a Bill would include an Environmental Protection Executive which is not responsible to the Secretary of State for the Environment but independent of any one department. It would include, as the Labour Party
494
will suggest in its election manifesto this year and for the next election, an Environmental Protection Agency responsible in particular to an Environmental Protection Minister. We shall be looking for very much stronger coverage of the wider issues of vehicle emissions, of energy conservation and of response to our international obligations which are simply not covered by the Bill.
I cannot overstate the seriousness of the issues facing us. At the Bergen Conference this week Jan Syse, the Prime Minister of Norway, compared what is necessary in terms of environmental protection with arms control verification. Arms control verification is essential to our survival, but so too is environmental protection. When the Bill finishes its passage through your Lordships' House we should like to see environmental protection taken no less seriously than arms control verification. The future of our planet depends upon it.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for his lucid introduction of the Bill. He went through it very clearly and we understand what it contains. On these Benches we give a qualified support to most parts of the Bill. It is a hotchpotch of measures but they are welcome nevertheless. The criticisms of the exclusions listed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, are fully justified. There is nothing in the Bill to cover energy conservation and transport problems. Those matters will have to be resolved.
My special concern is with Part VII to which I shall come in due course. On that issue I part company with the Government. We are certainly supporters of the principle of integrated pollution control but there are reservations to which I anticipate my noble friend Lord Ezra may well refer in his speech. Certainly the CPRE feels that more should be written into the Bill and not left to regulations. That is a common complaint about all modern legislation.
Over the past 12 months we have heard and read welcome speeches by the Prime Minister and her Secretary of State expressing concern about global warming and the many other threats to our environment. Too often the bold words uttered have not been matched by action. Time, as we all know, is not on our side. We are constantly accused by those of our more forward-looking European colleagues of delaying tactics, no doubt for financial reasons. But as has been said many times, in the environment business problems do not go away; rather they pile up, like the rubbish in our streets. If the measures contained in the Bill are to work, the vitally necessary financial resources will have to be forthcoming too.
A good many extra responsibilities will fall on our hard pressed local authorities which must be thoroughly sick of being accused at least twice weekly in another place of being blatant overspenders and, apparently now, a major part of the cause of current inflation. For instance, the Association of County Councils draws attention to Clause 33 and the duty of care. Its members will be required to monitor the

495
forthcoming code of practice. But the consultative paper blandly states:
"no new costs are expected to be incurred".
The association is still unhappy about the Bill's proposals for recycling; and so it should be. It is astonishing to me that we are still unable to establish sustainable markets for all our waste paper, bottles and tin cans. Anyone who saw the recent television programme on the subject will no doubt be aware of the problems. But if other countries can do it, why cannot we? Every two weeks or so my dear wife helps in the collection of waste paper. But if at the end of the day the whole lot is going to be dumped in a hole in the ground, what is the use? Willing helpers become disillusioned and give up.
Visitors to our capital city interviewed on the "Business Programme" last Sunday complained of the litter and filth in our streets and the indiscriminate graffiti everywhere which must cost British Rail, London Underground, bus companies and local authorities vast sums of money. One walk through the underpass at Elephant and Castle was enough to convince me of how right they are. I never want to go near the place again. It is quite disgusting. Yet thousands walk through it every day apparently oblivious to their surroundings.
We are rightly concerned about mad cow disease, but surely we should be far more concerned about the filth which surrounds us and the vermin which that attracts. If we do not act quickly, I suggest that it is quite possible that we shall again face a rat infestation plague. I cannot understand why we cannot oblige the football hooligans who break up places like Bournemouth to carry out their community service orders by clearing up some of the graffiti which appears all over the country. Indeed, a Saturday or Sunday spent doing just that might do them a world of good.
We must change the present climate of opinion. The obvious place to start is in our schools. Other countries, notably Australia, have done this and so can we. I well remember travelling on a train in Yugoslavia. It was totally packed. There was an old boy in the corner with a bottle of beer in his hand. When he had finished swigging he chucked the bottle out of the window. The whole coachload of people descended upon him and he ran for his life right the way down the end of the train. I think that we should start doing likewise in this country. There will have to be suitable incentives and plenty of publicity. Of course, the increase in the rates of fines is certainly a step in the right direction. However, we must do a great deal more.
It is to be hoped that the influence of children will work through to their parents, many of whom are every bit as guilty as the younger generation. Local authorities should be obliged to empty their litter bins daily and their bottle banks far more frequently than they do at present. They should also be obliged to start road sweeping operations on Saturday and Sunday mornings. Of course, that will entail overtime and extra costs. However, it would not prove such a problem, if they were to do so, for the poor old road sweeper who turns up to do his job
496
on the Monday morning. Everywhere in town one can see that all the drains are clogged. I do not know what it costs, every time we have a heavy rainfall and flooding occurs, to put the matter right. In my view, all that is needed is a little more time spent on actually carrying out a good job.
Near to where I now live is a peaceful valley but it is full of tyres. We have a massive tyre dump there which is some 60 feet deep where tyres have been dumped for the past 20 years. It recently caught fire and is now causing problems of pollution as regards the local stream. I know that the situation has been monitored and thus far I do not think that anything too serious has happened. But this pollution could get into the River Teme which is one of the better fishing rivers in the Border country. Nevertheless, it is an obvious health hazard and one of several that exist in the UK. There was one such dump in Glasgow that has been on fire and there is certainly another one in Staffordshire.
However, there is an answer to the problem—or, at least, a partial one—of what to do with surplus tyres. A Connecticut-based firm wants to build a £32 million recycling power station near Stafford which would be capable of burning half the 25 million scrap tyres produced each year. It would provide enough electrical power for 20,000 homes into the bargain. I suggest that the firm should be encouraged to do so and that it should be assisted by grants if it becomes necesary.
I was told only yesterday that at the recently modernised Oxford Railway Station the gents toilets have already been vandalised. That must be soul destroying for British Rail which daily faces enormous repair bills for actions which should never have happened in the first place. Why our fellow countrymen take such fiendish delight in smashing up public conveniences has always been beyond me. Apart from making the public pay, as is the case at some of our mainline stations, I do not know what is the immediate answer to the problem. However, I believe that we can change people's attitudes both through the schools and through the skilful use of television.
Why the Government continue to oppose a dog registration scheme is also quite beyond me. I very much hope that in this House we shall carry an amendment on the issue. I personally welcome the proposal to ban straw burning; but I see the need for a dispensation where crops are diseased, full of weeds or incapable of being harvested, such as occurs after heavy storms. In all other cases, I believe that the ban should be absolute.
I intend to devote the rest of my speech to Part VII of the Bill which deals with the reorganisation of the NCC. However, first, I must declare an interest as I am chairman of Wildlife Link. The link is the liaison body for all the major voluntary organisations in the UK that are concerned with the protection of wildlife. It has 43 member organisations, ranging in size from the largest voluntary conservation bodies such as the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and the RSPB, to the smaller ones, such as the Marine Conservation Society, the Otter Trust and others.

497
The objective of Wildlife Link is to enable its member organisations to co-ordinate their views on national and international wildlife issues and thereby work together to influence UK policy on wildlife protection. Any action by Wildlife Link is taken on behalf of those member organisations which specifically express support for such action. Wildlife Link is not a representative body and does not issue statements on its own behalf.
The member organisations have expressed considerable reservations about the Government's proposals to break up and reorganise the statutory conservation agencies since the announcement in July 1989 which was itself, I believe, constitutionally questionable. If implemented, the proposals will have a detrimental impact on both the GB science base and the delivery of nature conservation by the statutory and voluntary bodies.
The Minister boldly attacked that view and said that the Government were going ahead, that they would not in any way withdraw or consider putting the matter back until the publication of the White Paper on the environment which is promised for the autumn. He made clear that everything in the garden was lovely. In fact, they have been conceding all down the line. If it had not been for the opposition, and the views of the committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, we would not now have the central co-ordinating body with an independent chairman. Moreover, we would not have achieved the concessions which were announced today. However, the Minister boldly ignored all these developments.
There was a great opportunity, if we were really looking at the role of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council, to look at other bodies such as the Forestry Commission, the Crofters' Commission and so on. We could look at all the bodies involved in one way or another in the environmental problems of this country to see whether i: is not now time after 40 or 50 years to renew some kind of overall heritage body. However, that opportunity has been lost and it is a great pity.
I turn now to the real complaint which we have. First, there is the total lack of consultation; indeed, there is still no consultation on the matter. In the evidence given to the committee of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that point was clearly made by bodies such as the CPRE, the National Trust and others. I shall not read out the comments which were made to the House because many noble Lord wish to speak in this debate today. However, they are there in printed form and anyone can read them.
Since October 1989 Wildlife Link has been urging the Government to establish a full independent inquiry to undertake a deeper, and more wide-ranging review into the merits and terms of reference of the new countryside agencies, the required conservation and recreation policies and the requirements for the effective implementation in all pats of the United Kingdom. The White Paper, the publication of which we now hear will be delayed—and I was also interested to hear that apparently there will now not be legislation
498
introduced in this Parliament—was surely an opportunity to do just that.
Other problems have concerned the dangers to the science base. That case has been argued very strongly and concessions have been made. But as to whether they are adequate I cannot, at this time, express a view. However, we can take, for example, the evidence given by the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust which Sir Peter Fox set up. In its evidence to the Carver Committee it said:
"We believe that international and national conservation require a strong independent, widely respected science base such as the NCC now provides and which will apparently be lost under the reorganisation. Others will have told you of the outstanding international reputation which the NCC deservedly enjoys".
Indeed, it does—and throughout the whole of Western Europe. It is a great shame that that reputation is now in jeopardy.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I must ask him whether he is speaking for the Liberal Party officially? Is he aware that the Scottish Liberal Members opposed this view and that his party in the House of Commons supported the Government's scheme of decentralisation in the field?
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will kindly wait, I shall come to that point. I am speaking on behalf of the party. All the points I now make were actually made by my honourable friend Mr. Malcolm Bruce in Committee in another place.
I turn finally to the question of resources. Members of the voluntary bodies are concerned that very substantial extra resources will be needed for the proposed new three agency structure to enable it to be effective in the delivery of conservation policy. However, no indication has been given that the resources allocated will be adequate. The NCC puts the additional cost at £20 million. World Wildlife talks about £38 million. But it is estimated that an overall figure of about £80 million will be required. That is almost, but not quite, double the NCC budget.
In any event, there is much more money involved and we want to hear from the Government during the passage of the Bill whether that money will be provided. For a Secretary of State who in all fairness has—thank God!—reversed previous tendencies (and there is much we can thank him for), he is beleaguered in having to try to battle not only for money for the environment but also for housing and for so many other fields. Will he be able to come up with the money that will be needed for what is now proposed for nature conservation in this country?
Finally, there is the problem of the relationship between the voluntary and statutory bodies. I was grateful for the comments in the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, which said:
"If the reorganisation is going to work, it will have to command the support of the voluntary bodies as well as those connected with the land". The voluntary bodies are powerful. The RSPB has over 600,000 members. I am sure that Ministers have received many letters from them. They are important for the future, and there is no question but that they will have to play an increasing role if the

499
Government are hell bent on proceeding with what they propose. It is important that the voluntary bodies are kept on board. They must be listened to.
I shall finish—this is perhaps where I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—by assuring the House that neither Wildlife Link nor my party (the Liberal Democrats) object in any way to a properly constructed, fully funded federal-type structure for the NCC. We shall study with care the Government's response to the recommendations contained in the Carver Report, which was published only yesterday.
We recognise that valiant attempts have been made to repair the damage caused by the ill-conceived proposals, and they include some good appointments. I repeat, there have been some good appointments to those new bodies. However, we fear that the cost and the commitment now required from government may not be forthcoming. If the Government think that they can allay those fears, we are more than prepared to listen.
12.51 p.m.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, perhaps I may say how pleased I am to be making my maiden speech on a Bill that seeks to strengthen environmental protection.
As a biologist by training and an employee of an organisation whose primary aim is to protect the environment, I am keenly aware of the challenges that are before us, not only as a nation but in a global context. The Environmental Protection Bill is a lengthly piece of legislation and in order to keep my maiden speech brief, as is the custom, I intend to speak only on that part of the Bill which deals with the control of genetically modified organisms.
Genetic engineering embraces powerful techniques which can be used to introduce, delete or enhance the characteristics of living things. Potentially that allows genetic material from almost any organism to be introduced into almost any other organism regardless of sexual compatibility or of evolutionary relationships and processes. It is possible that that could result in the breaking down of the barriers between life forms as we know them and in the engineering of new combinations of genes that are unlikely to occur in nature.
The actual and potential applications of genetically modified organisms are many and diverse spanning the field of medicine, industry, agriculture and indeed pollution control. Those applications promise great benefits to mankind. Last week in a Sunday Times article it was reported that in as many as 25 areas of human medicine genetically engineered products are beginning to provide cures. So far, the commercial use of GMOs has been restricted to contained systems in the laboratory which offer little potential for escape.
A report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution cites only six cases of deliberate release of GMOs into the environment in the United Kingdom, all of which took place on an experimental basis. None of those releases was shown to have any adverse effect on the environment, but as bio-engineering moves rapidly from an experimental to a commercial phase so
500
the scale and number of releases will be bound to increase. What will be the outcome of such releases? There are fears that some releases could have a detrimental effect on the environment or public health or both. At the moment our knowledge is limited. We simply do not know enough. Because of that it is vitally important that there should be legislation to minimise the dangers of careless or possibly even unscrupulous use of the environment.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the driving force behind this industry is a commercial one. Potentially there are huge profits to be made from genetically engineered crop and livestock production as well as microbiological processes. Rapid developments within the industry could result in the possiblity of long-term interests being sacrificed to short-term profits. Instead, I suggest that the long-term interest of the biotechnology industry, the public and the environment are best served by the type of regulation provided by the Bill. A release or escape of GMOs that resulted in serious damage to either public health or the environment could easily provoke a reaction which resulted in severe restrictions being imposed on the industry, thus impeding its development and delaying the application of its benefits.
The introduction of the proposed legislation will provide a system of control, but, however good that system is, there is a possibility that sooner or later the release of GMOs into the natural environment may result in damage. It has been asked why the Bill does not stipulate absolute liability and compulsory insurance for all those who will choose deliberately to release GMOs. However, doubts have been expressed as to whether companies would be able to obtain insurance cover against unspecified risks to the environment which might or might not take place at an indeterminate time in the future. Even if that insurance becomes available, the costs might be prohibitive and constrain the expansion of the industry.
The assessment of "damage to the environment", and hence liability, poses further problems. Is there any foolproof definition of what constitutes damage in that context? Can one prove a link between the suspected GMO and the damage caused? Those questions are far from straightforward. In those cases where GMOs can be proved to have caused damage, the extent of that damage may be difficult to quantify and cost, and anyway how does one assess damage that is irreversible or the extinction of a species?
I welcome the principle of the setting up of public registers of the information relating to GMOs. The need to build public confidence in this technology is vital if we are to make full use of its advantages. A potential problem to the acceptance of GMOs could be widespread public suspicion of what they are and the dangers they present. Certain well publicised reports, such as that of the genetically engineered pig in America which suffered such severe arthritis that it was unable stand up, have fuelled public fears.
The Bill provides legislation that goes some way towards safeguarding the environment from any harmful effects that introduced GMOs might cause. However, developments in techniques and in the

501
scale of bioengineering operations are likely to continue to increase rapidly. As public awareness of the issues involved increases, so too will public debate on the possible ethical, moral and legal problems; of GMOs. I believe that the provisions before us might be only a first step. Further legislation could well be required in the future to address some of the wider issues associated with genetic engineering.
1 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the noble Viscount and to be able to congratulate him on its clarity, the deep thought behind it and the persuasiveness of his arguments. I welcome the speech as an important contribution to the debate on the Bill. His expertise in fish biology will, I hope, often be available to the House when environmental matters are concerned. I note also that the noble Viscount lists as one of his interests fine wines. I hope that his expertise in that field may be of benefit to the House.
I speak on this Bill as chairman of the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology which reported on 1st March on the effect of the Government's proposals, now in Part VII of the Bill, on the science base of the Nature Conservancy Council. The report has not yet been debated and it seemed appropriate that it should not be so before the Second Reading of the Bill. It has been referred to a good deal in another place and also today by the Minister and others.
Compliments have been paid on the report, and I have been somewhat embarrassed by its being mentioned as the Carver Report or the Carver Committee. It was the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House; I was merely the chairman of the sub-committee. The members of that sub-committee were almost all of far greater expertise in the subject than myself. I wish to take the opportunity of expressing my great gratitude to all of them.
I shall confine my remarks to Part VII of the Bill. I start by emphasising that we did not address the question of the rights or wrongs of the decision to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commissions. Individual members of the sub-committee have their own views on that, and some will express them no doubt in this debate. I shall keep firmly to the terms of reference of the sub-committee which were to examine the effect on the science base of nature conservancy of the Government's proposals and to make recommendations about it on the assumption that the reorganisation in its general principles would go ahead.
The principal objects of our concern were first, that the quality of the science supporting nature conservancy should be maintained; secondly, that the strength of the effort to conserve nature should not be weakened and should be enhanced; thirdly, that the reorganisation should not result in disintegration. Although we heard some strong Scottish views that the fauna, flora, and geology of Scotland were distinct from those in England and
502
Wales and Northern Ireland, we were quite clear that the British Isles form a bio-geographical entity, and that the science needed to support its natural features is one science.
For those reasons, we were much concerned to see that the scientific back-up for the separate country agencies should be adequate, and that the joint committee, charged under Clause 123 of the Bill with the discharge of functions which applied to the whole of Great Britain, should be so composed and have the powers and the staff to enable it to do so effectively. I shall have more to say on those two aspects in a moment.
There can be no doubt that the Government's proposals, as originally put forward in July last year, were seriously flawed and their presentation appallingly badly handled. However, as time passed and while our committee was taking evidence, the Government have improved them, although that is not reflected in the Bill as it now stands. Their first and most important concession was the agreement to the appointment of an independent chairman to the joint committee.
Yesterday, as your Lordships know, we received the Government's response to our report. Some of it has been reflected in the Minister's speech this morning. We welcome the fact that most of our recommendations have been accepted. We particularly welcome the Government's agreement to our recommendations about how the independent scientific members of the joint committee should be appointed and especially that they should have votes. So would the chairman of the Countryside Commission for England whose membership of the committee we recommended, as we did that of an independent, non-voting assessor from Northern Ireland. We also welcomed the Government's confirmation that although the funds available to the joint committee for the discharge of its functions derive from the three country councils, they will be ring fenced by their respective Secretaries of State so that the joint committee is not financially at the mercy of the country councils.
Although almost all our recommendations have been accepted, and the Government have said that they will introduce amendments to give effect to them at the Committee stage, there remain some significant differences between their views and those of the committee. The first is over the cost. From the evidence we received, we concluded that the extra costs would be significant. For instance, the Royal Society of Edinburgh estimated that at least one-third of the staff at the headquaters of the Nature Conservancy Council at Peterborough would be needed to transfer to the new Scottish agency. The Scottish conservation office of the Worldwide Fund for Nature has produced a detailed paper which estimates the total permanent staff for Scotland at 557 and an annual budget of £28 million. This applies only to the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland, before the intended merger with the Countryside Commission of Scotland.
In their response to us, the Government state that although they are committed to provide the necessary resources for each separate council,

503
"it does not necessarily follow that the new arrangements need be considerably more expensive than present arrangements, although there will inevitably be some additional costs arising from reorganisation".
We remain sceptical about that.
The other main point on which we differ is over the power of the joint committee to give a final and decisive verdict, if there is a dispute between it and one or more of the country councils as to whether or not a subject comes under Clause 123—that is one that is the responsibility of the joint committee. In their response, the Government take a rather rosy view about the unlikelihood of such disputes and give a legalistic answer as to why our recommendation could not be accepted. I admit that their agreement that the independent members should have votes and the independent chairman a casting vote has made a considerable difference to the importance we attach to that power.
The Government have also turned down our recommendation that the joint committee should make a separate report to Government from the country councils to their respective Secretaries of State. It seems to us obvious that although the wording of the Act is that the country councils, acting through the joint committee, are responsible both for international representation subjects and for a subject which applies to the whole of Great Britain, the latter is one where they should make a separate report.
We considered that it would be anomalous that once the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission in Scotland had been merged, as is intended, the joint committee should only be empowered to discuss nature convervancy matters.
We also thought it illogical that when the two organisations were merged in Scotland and Wales, they should remain separate in England. However, we recognised that there were difficulties with a merger in England. The arguments produced by the Government as to why such a merger was not suitable seemed to me to be arguments as to why it should take place. If conflict both in number and extent between the interests of the Countryside Commission and those of nature conservancy are much greater in England, it is an argument for merging them and not keeping them separate.
The argument of the Government on the first point was that the presence of the chairman of the Countryside Commission for England on the joint committee should be adequate and that to give the committee the wide remit of considering Countryside Commission matters would overburden it. The Government say that both aspects of the matter would be best served by retaining two separate organisations. However, if the last sentence of their reply to our recommendation 4.22 means that they will consider the matter further in the context of the forthcoming environment White Paper that is something which we welcome. The sentence states:
"But the options for institutional change across the whole range of bodies concerned with the environment are being considered in
504
the context of the Environment White Paper, and the Government will consider the question further in that context."
I should like to make two further comments. The first concerns a point that has already been made. The evidence we have received from all the voluntary bodies, including those in Scotland, who play such a vital and essential part in every aspect of nature conservancy, is that they oppose the reorganisation. Some suggested that Part VII should be deleted from the Bill and that the whole issue should be deferred for consideration in the context of the White Paper.
We did not support a deferment, principally because we thought that it would cause even further uncertainty to staff of the Nature Conservancy Council, with the result that they might drift away, as the new chief scientist has already done. I admit that not all of the staff share that view. The trade union side certainly does not. Some say that as there is so much uncertainty at present, a few more months of uncertainty would make little difference.
If the sentence that I have quoted from the government response means that the whole question of reorganisation will again be thrown into the melting pot, I am sure that the committee would have supported the view that Part VII should be taken out of the Bill and considered in the context of the environment White Paper. I hope that the Minister will clarify what that sentence is intended to mean.
I express no opinion on the merits of the reorganisation, as the committee did not. We welcome the Government's acceptance of most of our recommendations. We thank them for the compliment that they have paid us in doing so and hope that they will again consider the issues on which we differ.
1.12 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I feel very privileged to be seeking your Lordships' indulgence in this important debate on the environment. At the same time I am somewhat intimidated by the excellence of the speeches not least that of the noble Viscount whose maiden speech preceded mine. I should like at the outset to declare a specific interest as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea and as a member of a number of other environmental organisations.
I recognise that I should be uncontroversial. That is a little difficult in my case. Within relatively few minutes of my coming into this House I committed an act of the utmost provocation by participating in a Division which the Government lost by one vote.
For four years I was the European Commissioner charged with the responsibility for transport, environment and nuclear safety. I was able to witness first-hand the utterly remarkable changes affecting the development of environment policy. Back in 1985 environment was still regarded as something of an add-on extra—largely the interest of the slightly eccentric, the sandalled and the hirsute. Happily, that is no longer the case. There has been a massive change in perception. The driving force for change has not been governments but the public throughout the European Community—a public which has

505
become more aware, more concerned and more determined that the environment should be defended. That public, let it be admitted, is much more sceptical of experts, some of whom have been extraordinarily patronising and yet, on so many occasions, have been proved wrong.
Chernobyl illustrated tragically and vividly that pollution does not stop at frontiers and that international action is required on an increasing scale to deal with regional and global environmental problem;. Therefore, the environment is today at the very top of the political agenda: it is right that it should be.
Environmental policies go to the heart of what today's European Community is all about. It is not only about market refining; it is about society improving. It involves some intervention and planning. It is about 12 nations coming together to reduce pollution when that pollution may not affect individual countries or communities. It is about pooling national resources to obtain benefits that will be shared internationally. And it is about taking decisions in common where advantages may accrue elsewhere or to generations yet to come.
The Single European Act, including the environmental chapter introduced for the first time into the Treaty of Rome, will help to promote progress, I am pleased to see ideas emerging which will ensure that environmental legislation, like that relating to the completion of the Common Market, will be subject to qualified majority voting rather than to unanimity.
A very useful check list for all environmental legislation, this Bill included, should be the principles laid down in the European Community's Fourth Environmental Action Programme, adopted by ministers in 1987, together with the principles adumbrated in the Single European Act. The question for your Lordships is whether and to what extent the Bill will help to translate those principles into practice. I shall not be critical of the Bill today; that is not permitted of me. However, I should like to reflect shortly on some of the principles.
The first is the principle designed to prevent irreversible damage to the environmental heritage of our Community of 329 million people. That principle: involves tackling pollution at source. It underlines how much more desirable is the anticipation of problems rather than crisis management, and it appreciates how costly that is. For too long so many countries, including those of the Community, engaged in a policy of progress by catastrophe, if one could deign that to be a policy at all. Governments reticent about making progress in the field of environment would use every and any excuse to frustrate progress. Even when a clear majority of scientists supported remedial action, as in the case of atmospheric pollution and acid deposition, we would hear the plea that more research was required as though that excluded taking any action in the interim. Environmental ministers tended to argue that scientific evidence to establish cause and effect needed to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas a far more logical test would be to act on the basis of scientific probability. Therefore, on issues which were of immense moment
506
to the protection of all our citizens, ministers from a number of European countries seemed all too often to hone inertia into a fine art.
I believe that things are changing. However, I find it infinitely depressing that in the negotiations currently taking place in Bergen concerning the cutting of emissions of CO-the Bush Administration is repeating the plea for more research rather than for action.
Secondly, the polluter pays principle is rightly being reviewed by the European Commission. In the past it has more closely resembled the "consumer pays" principle. We shall have to put that right and make it far more relevant to the needs of ordinary people.
Thirdly, there is the inelegantly titled—to use Euro-jargon—"subsidiary principle". That really means that the European Community is an area of considerable diversity with different local needs. It is essential to give member states the maximum flexibility in choosing how to meet environmental standards and also the freedom to impose higher environmental standards than the European Community norm provided they are compatible with the terms of the treaty.
Fourthly, there is the principle of economic efficiency and cost-effectiveness. That involves making a choice of relevant economic incentives to attain environmental protection objectives at the lowest possible cost to the economy but at the same time affording permanent incentives to pursue necessary improvements. It is a principle which needs to be reinforced, as I believe it will be, by the burgeoning concept of strict liability for environmental damage. We shall want to hear much more from the Government about that matter in due course.
The fifth principle is that of legal enforcement. When we recall that for the most part environmental legislation has been adopted by ministers acting unanimously, the 400 or so breaches of environmental law which have been identified by the European Commission represent a very serious reflection on member states. Indeed, it is perhaps the worst example that one could point to of the so-called "democratic deficit" that governments themselves refuse to enforce laws which they have made. All governments are guilty to a lesser or greater degree. No society can operate effectively unless the rule of law is honoured. A distinguished American jurist, Mae West, once declared:
"There ain't too much harm if you crack a few laws now and then, as long as you don't break too many!".
There is far too much cracking and breaking of environmental law and good practice. We have to be sure that law enforcement becomes more effective. That means that we cannot skimp on the necessary resources, especially those affecting local authorities which, according to the Minister, will play a key role.
Sixthly, there is the principle enshrined in the Single European Act that environmental requirements must be an essential component of all other policies. My noble friend Lord McIntosh had

507
a good deal to say, very trenchantly, about that, and in particular about energy conservation, transport and similar matters.
I am glad that ministers have reached agreement on the question of the draft directive concerning access to environmental information because I had the privilege to take that through the Commission.
Policy makers face daunting challenges. There is a need to strike that often elusive balance between sustaining—or indeed building, in the case of the developing countries—an industrial society while at the same time preserving an environment rendered all the more fragile by that very process. There is a place for sensible regulations, tight enough to guarantee conservation and flexible enough to permit growth.
I hope to be a little more controversial as the Bill wends its way through your Lordship's House. I wish to conclude today on this note. Good environmental management is an imperative. It is a good investment. I am emboldened in that belief by a contemporary scriptural commentary which I came across recently:
"We waste what we have—our food, our fuel, our wealth, our gifts. Then we watch in surprise the destruction of our world. What we do not explode or gouge out of the earth we pollute; what we do not pollute, we kill. We do not see, or wish to see, the damage we do. Later, we regret".
Action to protect our environment gives us the opportunity not to go on just regretting. I hope that we shall, all of us together, seize that opportunity.
1.28 p.m.
Viscount Blakenham: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to have the privilege of congratulating him on behalf of the whole House on his brilliant speech. No amount of modesty could hide the fact that it was a brilliant speech. The noble Lord will contribute a tremendous amount of knowledge on European and environmental matters to our debates in the future. I should also like to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, on his important contribution to the debate. When three maiden speeches are made on a Friday afternoon that is a sign of the importance of this debate.
While I welcome many parts of the Bill, I intend to concentrate my remarks on Part VII. It concerns an area which I know something about, and as it stands I believe it lacks merit.
I have been actively involved in environmental work for the past 15 years. That involvement has included 12 years as a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, including five years as its chairman; seven years as president of one of the Royal Society for Nature Conservation's local wildlife trusts—the Sussex Wildlife Trust; and in March I completed a three-year stint on the Nature Conservancy Council. Therefore I have had plenty of opportunity to understand how conservation is currently delivered in this country, through both government and non-government organisations, and how those organisations interact.
508
There are many other Members of this House who have had similar experience and who may not agree with me. However, I am clear—and I believe that this will be supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ross—that what I shall say has the support of most of the voluntary conservation movements and the majority of the staff of the NCC. It also has the strong support of my noble friend Lord Buxton, who recently resigned from the council of the NCC in protest against what is proposed in the Bill. He was most anxious to speak today, but was already committed to being in Washington when the date of this Second Reading was fixed.
The case against the splitting up of the NCC which is proposed in the Bill is straightforward. It would weaken the scientific base; it would cost more to deliver the same amount of conservation; it would make it harder to provide a Great Britain overview; and it would weaken our conservation voice in international affairs. It is illogical and it is ill thought through.
That the proposals could do the job at all is thanks to the presence of the joint committee. It should be remembered that the joint committee was an afterthought. It will function through co-operation; and long may that last. It has no executive role. For constitutional reasons, according to the Government, it cannot be given binding powers for they lie with three (or is it five?) national bodies, with their serveral different remits, reporting to three different Secretaries of State.
Wait a moment. We understand since last night that the Government are to introduce amendments to establish that the joint committee can give advice to country councils and require them to have regard to it. Any disagreement between the councils about the division of functions will be subject, in the final analysis, to the arbitrament of the Secretary of State. One wonders which Secretary of State.
That the situation is a muddle is evident to anybody who has listened to the anguished arguments of the voluntary bodies and of the chairman and staff of the NCC, who has read between the lines of the Carver Report, and to anyone who listens to the arguments in the debate today. So why has it happened and what can be done about it? When the split was announced last July, all three Secretaries of State put out press announcements to stress the insensitivity of the NCC in carrying out the work on the ground. The contention was that the new arrangements would deliver better conservation because they would be better in tune with the needs of local committees.
Perhaps the NCC has not been as sensitive as it might have been in all cases. However, being entrusted by Parliament to designate large numbers of sites of scientific interest, some of which are already being damaged and destroyed, and having to tell the landowners concerned that they cannot undertake certain activities on their own land, is not an intrinsically popular job. I believe that, on the whole, it has been well done. What worries me is that, although greater sensitivity is a seductive argument and sounds admirable, it is likely to mean that more sensitivity will equal more scientific compromise which, in turn, will equal less effective conservation.

509
The Ministers concerned have shown great insensitivity. Perhaps the time has come for a new look at the role of the NCC. Ministers knew that the NCC iteself was working on a federal framework in which a much greater measure of devolution would have been possible. In the past, matters that profoundly affect the national heritage have been introduced only after widespread consultation and submission of written reports. In that case, no consultation took place with the Government's own conservation advisers, the scientific community or the voluntary bodies which, it must be realised—this point was made earlier—now play a vital financial as well as managerial role in the country's conservation strategy. A long-established constitutional convention has been abused, and as a result we end up with a highly unsatisfactory situation.
I have great respect for the science and technology Select Committee and for the Carver Report, which has done its best to show how the present proposals could be made to work; but it does not pretend that they are the right proposals. I also have considerable sympathy for the present Secretary of State for the Environment who inherited what appeared to be a fait accompli. However, I ask him: need it be a fait accompli? The Secretary of State himself pointed out in an interview in October that he regarded it as a priority that the scientific base of the Nature Conservancy Council's work should be safeguarded. In the same interview, he said:
"It certainly won't be simple when we get to the House of Lords because they will take these matters profoundly".
It is right that we should take those matters profoundly. I suggest that, despite what my noble friend the Minister said at the beginning of the debate, the proper way forward is for the Government to withdraw Part VII from the Bill, to postpone any restructuring of the NCC, to consult widely and appropriately and to come up with better thought cut proposals in the comprehensive White Paper in the autumn.
1.34 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House for my maiden speech. I should like to start by saying how much I welcome this timely Bill. I shall spend part of my speech on what I believe might have been included in the Bill.
First, I should like to mention Clause 7(4), to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. It has acquired the acronym "BATNEEC" and it states:
"Subject to subsections (5) and (6) below, there is implied in every authorisation a general condition that, in carrying on the process to which the authorisation applies, the person carrying it on must use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost".
The purpose of imposing conditions as part of an authorisation seems to me to be largely nullified by the phrase " not entailing excessive cost". Who is to say what is excessive? By whose criteria is the matter to be judged? Would it be those of the organisation or would it be those of the individuals who risk being harmed? Would the cost in terms of the degree of nuisance or danger be taken into account as well as the monetary cost?
510
That brings me to an important point about which I feel strongly. The definition of the word "environment" given on page 2 of the Bill differs markedly from the two definitions given in the dictionary. I am not sure why that should be. I appreciate that, when framing legislation, the Government must make enforceable law, but I am sure that that would still have been possible with a more comprehensive definition of "environment".
There are many existing environments that few of us would seek to protect. I think particularly of living conditions in parts of many of our cities. I should have preferred the word "ecological" which contains the idea of a system, originally in a state of balance to which it could be restored, or rather where a new equilibrium could be achieved. However, if we are stuck with the word "environmental", could we perhaps think in terms of enhancement rather than protection?
Returning to my earlier point concerning Clause 7(4) about whose criteria we consider in deciding on the question of excessive cost, perhaps we may also look at the origins of the words "economy" and "ecology". Many noble Lords are far better schooled in the classics than I, but my dictionary tells me that the root "eco comes from the Greek word "oikos", meaning house, and that economy originally meant household management, not simply money not just the monetary cost of something. In that context, I believe that household management puts a duty of care on all members of the household, for all members of the household, including those not yet born.
There are short-term costs which affect the person or organisation doing whatever is being done and which they can see; in other words, costs that affect short-term self interest. There are also costs that affect others directly and in the short term, such as the dangerous practice of discarding loops of plastic and metal strapping. There are many costs which it is difficult to quantify in isolation, but whose effects can be cumulative, drastic and long-lasting. I am not a Luddite; we cannot nor should we try to unlearn knowledge and techniques, but, as I said earlier, we all have a duty of care.
We are now able to have an enormous effect on the world around us, as was illustrated in our recent debate on the disappearing peat bogs. A farmer and his family digging enough peat for their own needs is one thing; a large commercial undertaking with sophisticated machinery and an aggressive approach to marketing is quite another.
It may well be that our climate is changing and that the world is getting warmer. I have read a suggestion that the rainfall in East Anglia may become less even than it is now. If that change were coupled with periods of high wind, such as we have experienced in the past 12 months, I fear that, with the removal of hedges and the creation of almost prairie-like conditions, the fertile topsoil of that region could end up in the North Sea. A small change in the climate coupled with intensive agriculture could possibly create an East Anglian dust-bowl, so we could go from a surplus of grain to a shortage which would mean importing grain from a reduced world supply at higher cost than before with an adverse effect on our balance of payments.

511
The point I am making is that everything is a process. To start from such a limited definition of "environmental" is to exclude from consideration activities which have at least as powerful an effect on our ecological balance as individual prescribed processes.
I also regret that there is no mention in the Bill of the pumping of sewage into the sea at whatever distance from the shore. I am convinced that the processing of human waste should be a prescribed process. Certainly, the uncontrolled decomposition of such wastes releases large quantities of methane, one of the more pernicious of the greenhouse gases, and also gives rise to the excessive growth of algae.
That material should be regarded as a resource, and, if ways can be found of separating out heavy metal and other industrial residues from organic matter, processing results in a continuous supply of bottled methane and a completely sterile, high nitrogren, organic fertiliser. That is already done in many parts of the world. Adoption of that practice would have several other benefits. Sea bathers would enjoy safer and better swimming; we would comply with EC directives in that matter; our natural gas supplies would last a little longer; marine life would benefit; and we would need less oil to produce fertiliser.
I regret also that the Bill does not contain provisions to encourage a substantial reafforestation programme. I must declare an interest. My woodcraft business, making tent-pegs, consumes about 50 tonnes of indigenous hardwood each year, consisting of ash thinnings which are replaced by regeneration or replanting. As a tree grows it absorbs carbon dioxide and gives out oxygen. That carbon dioxide is stored until the tree dies and decays when the stored carbon dioxide is released along with the heat energy stored in the timber. When the same tree is burned, the carbon dioxide and the heat are simply released much more rapidly.
When coal, oil or natural gas are burnt, the carbon dioxide which they contain is also released. The difference is that the carbon dioxide in the tree would have been released sooner or later anyway, whereas that in the fossil fuels remains locked in for ever unless we burn them. In the late 19th century a scientist stated that oil was too valuable a resource to burn and that it should be used instead for other purposes. During the 18th and 18th centuries the Forest of Dean and probably other areas had thriving wood-based chemical industries. It would be interesting to know whether any of those processes or their products would have any usefulness today.
I should like to make a plea for a massive reafforestation programme in this country, preferably of our very beautiful indigenous hardwood species and other useful introduced trees such as the relatively fast-growing southern beech. In time this would provide a valuable renewable fuel source, a means of soaking up large quantities of carbon dioxide without adding to the total quantity, considerable amenity value and a good example to third world countries whose deforestation is taking place a few hundred years after our own.
1.41 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it has been my good fortune to congratulate a number of noble Lords on their maiden speeches when they arrived in this House. I am constantly amazed at the variety of new Peers, whether they take their place by succession or are created—Peers such as my noble friend who made such an excellent speech, or the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, the biologist, who sits on the other side of the Chamber. The noble Lord who has just spoken has brought to the subject a knowledge, expertise and intellectual quality which do not surprise us. We all knew his father who was a popular Member, and I am glad to see his son sitting on his father's Benches. He gave a speech which contained a great deal of information, including his own personal activity in the field of wood, making tent-pegs, and told us of his interest and study. He then branched off into a subject which I should have loved to debate for the rest of the afternoon; namely, the meaning of environment and ecology.
As a past classicist, I have long been bothered by the misuse of the word "ecology". I went on an ecological expedition—to an area where the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is at the moment; in Sarawak—at a time when ecologists were not even known. I remember Julian Huxley writing to my friend Charles Elton asking, "Tell me what ecology is". The word is now being abused. It is quite clear that the noble Lord knows exactly what he is talking about. He is very much to be congratulated on an admirable speech. Traditionally we say that we want to hear a maiden speaker speak again. We certainly want to hear the noble Lord on this subject. He can be well pleased with his performance.
My chief contribution to this debate is to throw away my speech. Many noble Lords will speak and most of the big issues have now been brought out. I take part in this debate because I have been involved over many years both in another place and in this Chamber with the matter of conservation and particularly the Nature Conservancy Council. The father of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I together with a number of other noble Lords were responsible after the reorganisation and setting up of the Natural Environment Research Council, when the Nature Conservancy Council was deprived of any right to do any research at all, for managing to put that right, very largely through action in this House. We are now confronted with a worse threat. It is deeply worrying.
In his opening speech the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, touched lightly on the fact that there had been some criticism from certain sources and, he said, support from others. However, I do not believe that the Government can give us the name of any conservation body that believes in this reform—if the word is "reform". It is a backward move and a destruction, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, a member of the research council.
Nor am I happy about what the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, had to say about co-operation. There has been no co-operation by the Government on this matter. We know about their extraordinary performance. The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham,

513
and other noble Lords have referred to it. My noble friend who spoke from the Front Bench said that the Government took their decision the day before (or it may lave been the day after) some sort of agreement had already been reached between the Nature Conservancy Council and the chairmen of the regional advisory committees for a reform and a federal solution. I do not know why the Government paid no attention to that. Perhaps when he comes to reply the Minister will tell us what happened about talks between the Nature Conservancy Council, Ministers and officials. They were encouraged by officials to do their own thing.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said that the right place to think of this was in the Nature Conservancy Council. Then suddenly for reasons which an; not apparent unless they wished to get the credit for the decentralisation, which would not have been achieved if it were carried out as part of the general process, the Government made that decision. I think it is absolutely tragic that the Government should have played fast and loose with a system which, although it may not be perfect, should certainly not be destroyed.
I was not a member of the sub-committee which was chaired so very ably by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The noble and gallant Lord is a little sensitive about its being called the Carver Committee, but I have attended some of the meetings and I am bound to say that he is entitled to much of the credit for this report which the Government have praised so thoroughly.
However, as the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, there are points on which the Government have not been right. There is the item about which there was a recommendation that in the event of disagreement between the councils, where the functions; relating to nature conservancy fall within section so-and-so or special functions relating to Great Britain, the decision of the joint committee should be binding. The Government make a reply of astonishing futility. They say that there is a constitutional point at issue. It is absolute nonsense to make such a statement.
The Government and Parliament are perfectly capable of legislating in any way that they want. This is the last resort of those who do not have an argument. The truth of the matter is that they do not want the joint committee to be a really effective body. They say that they do, but it is deeply worrying that there is no reference in any of the Government's statements about the obligation on the Nature Conservancy Council under the Wildlife and Countryside Act as to whether an issue such as the future of the flow country in Scotland is a national or an international issue.
There is no provision for that in the Bill. It has been forgotten. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will comment on that point. The Government say:
"For the avoidance of doubt we shall introduce amendments to establish that the Joint Committee can give advice to the country councils and to require the country councils to have regard to it".
I can see that in the end this will become a kind of lawyers' fun. There will be great battles. A particular
514
regional council will support some development—for example, in the flow country—and the Nature Conservancy Council will take the view that this is a matter of international importance. Then what will happen? The Minister will have to intervene. There is no clear procedure. That is something that we shall have to look at in Committee.
The other point to which I wish to refer is the extraordinary statement made by the Government which is based, so far as we know, on no information at all, to the effect that each country council must have a strong scientific base. The Select Committee said that that would be considerably more expensive than the present arrangements. It has been stated:
"The Government has already committed itself to the point of principle. It does not necessarily follow that the new arrangements need be considerably more expensive".
I wish the Government would say that they accept that there will be a great deal of expense. I refer not only to the figures of the voluntary bodies but to those of the Nature Conservancy Council. Aided by consultants, it has already produced figures which show increased expenditure, in some cases of £10 million, £20 million or more, in different scenarios. I should like the Government to confirm the statement that they have committed themselves to ensuring that the new organisations are adequately resourced. That is the most important statement that I should like today from the Government.
We shall have much to do in Committee. My noble friend has summed up the attitude of the Opposition. When I speak as a member of the Select Committee I do not necessarily wear a party hat any more than did the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, and others. I beg the Government to answer some of the questions that noble Lords have asked. How will they handle issues of national and international importance without giving authority to the joint committee to do the job that the Nature Conservancy Council has done in the past?
1.51 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I too was rather disappointed at my noble friend Lord Hesketh's speech. However, I am glad that I heard the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, because he gave me hope. From the press and other media I was of the opinion that the Nature Conservancy Council was going to be abolished. That would have been appalling. One cannot foretell the future but it may not be abolished for a long time yet.
I should like to draw attention to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hesketh on Clause 6 regarding nuclear waste. My part of Scotland is favoured by the Government for the disposal of nuclear waste. A very big hill was tunnelled out. It is not on my land but it is not far from me. Local people have not been too happy about it for obvious reasons. Presumably when all the rock has been taken out it will be filled with nuclear waste. I know nothing about nuclear waste, but that situation is rather unsettling for the local population.
I refer to Clause 4. Now that I have heard some of the debate I am comforted, although I could be more so. I was comforted by the speech of the noble

515
Lord, Lord Shackleton. He was firmly of the opinion that it would be a very bad thing to downgrade the Nature Conservancy Council. I completely agree with him. It would be appalling to destroy the Nature Conservancy Council. It has existed for about 30 years. The people at its core are very experienced scientists as regard wildlife. It would be hard to replace them.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Blakenham, whose father was well known for his interest in wildlife. My noble friend takes the view that nothing more should be done about scrapping the Nature Conservancy Council until the new White Paper on the environment is published and then we should try to put the body together more sensibly.
There has always been slight friction between the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. From my experience the Countryside Commission does not always act in favour of wildlife and birds. Quite rightly, although protecting the countryside, it provides places which thousands of people can visit and enjoy themselves. That is very good but it sometimes encroaches on wildlife. I hope that it will take care that when providing places where people can walk they do not affect the wildlife too much. I am all for people enjoying beautiful countryside and the wildlife but if too many do so it can be spoilt. It is a very difficult problem. I do not know the answer.
I have been against planting the flow country in Caithness and Sutherland. I wrote about it to The Times. It is wrong that people should approach rather rich entertainers and others and say to them, "If you give us £50,000 or £100,000 we shall buy you some land in the Highlands and it won't cost you a penny. You can take it out of your tax. We'll plant it with sitka spruce or pinus contorta. You will do very well out of it financially." Such an approach is unsatisfactory because local people do not know who the landowner is. The purchasers never saw the land. The people did not have a landowner who took an interest in them. I hope that that has now ceased.
I am also interested in birds of prey. Some of my fellow landowners in the highlands are not so keen on them, especially the peregrine falcons and golden eagles. During the past eight or nine years 30 golden eagles have been poisoned. I have no idea by whom, but I believe that some were poisoned by keepers and others by crofters. The crofters can be excused to some extent because it is bad luck for them when a golden eagle occasionally takes a lamb. A golden eagle can be a nuisance on good grouse moor if it appears in a grouse drive. Grouse moors fetch a great deal of money from rents.
It is crazy that farmers, encouraged by government, plough up wetlands and then grow various crops. We have now reached the absurd position where the Government are paying farmers a minimum of £80 per acre not to cultivate their land. If the land is rich in nitrogen they will pay even more, which is quite mad.
I wish to emphasise that whatever happens we must not do away with the Nature Conservancy Council because it has done sterling work. I do not
516
object to Wales, Scotland and England being more independent in their regions but when we speak to the rest of the world we must do so on the basis of Britain as a whole. I have probably spoken for too long. I have rambled a little and I shall now sit down.
2.3 p.m.
Lord Lewis of Newnham: My Lords, I compliment the triumvirate of maiden speakers. The noble Viscount, Lord Mills, was most sensitive in recognising many of the problems that will arise in genetic engineering. We all look to the occasion when we shall have unmuzzled the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and he will be able to set forth his real feelings on many issues. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will lead the House with sensitivity through many of the problems which are part of the centre stage picture of pollution and pollution control.
I welcome many aspects of the Bill. During the past six years the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, of which I have the privilege to be chairman, has studied and reported on three aspects of the Bill. The first was waste management which was the subject of the 11th report produced under the chairmanship of my distinguished predecessor, Sir Richard Southwood. The second aspect was integrated pollution control. It was one of the thrusting points of the 12th report on the BPEO study. The third aspect was the release of genetically engineered organisms which was the subject of the 13th report of the Royal Commission. The Bill incorporates many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and we are pleased about that. A great deal of effort is involved in investigating such situations. It is consoling to see that the Government recognise the findings and that the matter is incorporated in the Bill.
Today I wish to address myself to two of these aspects. Part I of the Bill deals with integrated pollution control. For many years the Royal Commission has argued for a single pollution inspectorate. My noble friend Lord Flowers was chairman of one of the early commissions which generated that concept. The control of air, water and land as a unified concept is extremely important. Cross-control was an important feature of many of the early writings of the Royal Commission. Three years ago the Government created Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution to fulfil that remit. Essentially it is a new way of looking at pollution problems. I believe that it is right to give a leading role to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in England and Wales. However, I wish to emphasise a point that has already been made. It must be adequately resourced. Clearly, some of the problems which face the inspectorate in its present embryonic stage must relate to funding.
The important feature of the inspectorate is that it has a vast experience, particularly of process control. It is in a good position to decide whether protection of the environment would best be served by the transfer of pollution from one medium to another and whether changing a production process might prevent rather than remove pollution. It can

517
also deal with pollution equipment control, another important feature of the system.
It is most important to consult the National Rivers Authority. Polluting substances discharged into water must meet a standard whereby the water quality objective in receiving water courses is preserved. Under the imaginative and vigorous guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the NRA has quickly established itself as a firm champion of water quality in both England and Wales. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be damaging to the concept of integrated pollution control for the HMIP's responsibilities provided in the Bill to be diluted. It is important to emphasise the point. We must not allow our valid anxiety for water quality which I believe is very necessary to divert us from the importance of looking at the environment as a whole. For that reason, I regret that the proposed arrangements for the IPC in Scotland are not based on the same logic. Once again, there is a discontinuity.
I turn to my second point about the release of genetically modified organisms—GMOs—to the environment. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution reported on that topic last year. I believe that the Government have acted with commendable speed in bringing forward proposals for legislation so quickly. As yet, no environmental damage is known to have occurred but there are problems, as the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, recognised. The legislation is to be welcomed as an anticipatory move by the Government to guard against possible irreversible damage to the environment. It will help to provide the emerging biotechnology industry with a sound regulatory framework which is tremendously important. During the course of the Royal Commission's investigation, over and over again industry made it absolutely clear that it wanted to know what would be the rules of the game because the rules had not been stated in any other condition. I regard as important any help we can give to industry on this aspect.
However, I have a certain reservation. The Bill makes provision for releases and other activities not involved in releases to be the subject of one of three different levels of control. First, it involves specific consent of the authorities. That is very much a recommendation for the Beringer Committee which we are all very happy to see enforced. However, there are two other possibilities: namely, notifying the authorities in advance of a release or following a special procedure for risk assessment. I have no quarrel with those in principle. However, I am anxious as to whether the Government, when drawing up regulations under the Bill, may immediately allow certain classes of releases to be subject only to the second and third categories.
My belief—and it is also the belief of the Royal Commission—is that that would be premature. At present, every prospective release of a GMO should be subject to the full consultative procedure. I believe that to be very important not only for the safety of the community but also for the sensitivity of industry as a whole. We have not enough knowledge of the possible impact of such organisms on the
518
environment to allow exceptions to that rule. I merely reiterate what the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, emphasised so elegantly.
There are other points to which I could bring attention—public access to information and a need for a public register of those authorised to carry out releases. However, I hope that those points will be developed in Committee.
Finally, I turn to Part VII dealing with the NCC. On a previous occasion I have made my views felt on that point. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has presented a very good summary of what I feel to be a great danger; that is, the science base as a whole. I shall not amplify upon that now; I recognise that there are still many speakers to follow me. However, I worry about it and the over-view which the major committee will have together with the power which can extend to various divisional-type committees.
In many ways I am happy to welcome the Bill. During its consideration in another place it has been modified. There is little doubt in my mind that the measure will be further improved during its passage through your Lordships' House.
2.13 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I apologise to the House for missing the beginning of this debate, which I deeply regret, but I shall read it most carefully. Like other noble Lords I wish briefly to refer to Part VII. My only interest is a lifelong and amateur interest in anything concerning the natural history of these islands, from which I derive great pleasure and knowledge. I have nothing else to declare in that respect.
I strongly support the Government's intention to split the Nature Conservancy Council into three parts. If I may say so, it is time that somebody did so in this debate. I cannot agree that it will weaken nature conservation in Britain. The NCC has made a great contribution since it was formed, but time has moved on and things have changed considerably since that time. It could do a great deal more in the future if it is divided into three parts.
I must explain why I hold that belief. No country of comparable size contains more varied or diverse habitats. In no other area are there such extreme variations in climate, geology, vegetation or, for that matter, human pressures. The problems of nature conservation in England, Wales and Scotland are more often than not quite different from each other.
The bodies advising government on these matters need to be made up of those who have intimate knowledge of each country and whose opinions are respected in each country. To have a Scottish or Welsh sub-committee is not the same thing and is not good enough. Three new Nature Conservation Councils will give more room for more local residents to be appointed.
The present NCC has often been unpopular in Scotland because it was regarded as a remote English bureaucracy. It has often not succeeded in persuading those who earn their living in the countryside that it knew the full story of what it was doing. A Scottish Nature Conservancy Council will

519
have far greater respect and influence in Scotland. We must never forget that in the long run conservation policy is heavily dependent on carrying local opinion as far as possible along with it. If I were a Scotsman—which I am not—I would far rather have advice from Edinburgh than from Peterborough. I also believe that the problems associated with peat bogs in Islay or the planting of trees in the flow country of Caithness would have been solved more easily if there had been a Scottish NCC in existence at that time. Furthermore, sooner or later this country will need to address the concerns of devolution. In my view we shall need to consider a greater measure of devolution of power to Scotland and Wales. That is the kind of activity which could, with great advantage, be devolved straightaway.
I am sorry that the RSPB, for which I have the highest respect and which is a most powerful lobby, cannot see its way to support the Government's suggestion. Were it to do so, there would be many more ornithologists on all three bodies. I do not believe that any one person could be an expert on the needs, let us say, of the Dartford warbler in Dorset, at one end of the country, and the greenshank in Sutherland at the other end of the country. I am sorry that it does not see the increased possibilities which the Bill offers.
A good point was made regarding under-funding. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to that so ably that there is nothing more to be said beyond categorically stating that if the councils are not properly funded they will not work. However, that does not seem to be relevant to the debate.
The whole of the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which we only saw last night, seems to make a great difference and should have reassured those noble Lords who were unhappy about the Government's proposals. It is to be hoped, too, that even the twitchers in the RSPB, when they have read the debate, may think the same.
I welcome the proposed establishment of a joint co-ordinating committee which covers all three countries. That seems to be a very wise way of putting Great Britain's overview on all these matters. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to express my pleasure that Professor Holliday has been appointed to chair the committee. There can be no more experienced scientist; no better person could have been selected and we can have total confidence in his judgment. He is himself a former chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council and for 10 years has been vice-chancellor of an important university. I am sure that that will start the committee off in the best possible way.
We must also be careful at this stage to see that not all members of these new bodies—I understand some names were announced earlier this afternoon—are political nominees. The power of the councils will be greatly increased if all possible interests are represented. As I have already said, there is now room for many more. I hope that those who may at some time give unpalatable advice to governments will not always find that their
520
appointments are abruptly terminated at the first opportunity.
In England we should also be delighted that the Government chose the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, to chair the English committee. Those who have heard him speak and, like me, sat under his chairmanship will know that that is another very wise choice. He is a very distinguished scientist and experienced naturalist and England can at least be certain that the committee will set off in the right direction.
I conclude with a story which some time ago illustrated the difference between England and Scotland in the field of conservation. There is a bird called the goosander which at one time was rightly persecuted in Scotland as a voracious devourer of young salmon and trout. A bounty of half-a-crown was placed on its head. It was a very rare breeding bird in England so it was, again rightly, protected at that time. The story goes—I cannot vouch for its accuracy—that riparian owners on the south side of the Tweed would wave a flag to drive the bird over to the Scottish side of the Tweed. The Scottish riparian owners would shoot it and claim the half-a-crown, giving one shilling and threepence to the English.
2.20 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, in a debate with 35 speakers of whom we have heard only a dozen so far, and that without a sandwich break, one must be selective. We have had three admirable maiden speeches and I am sure we are all delighted to have three new colleagues who have shown by their speeches today that they will be of inestimable value to this House as a revising, debating Chamber. If I single out my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis it is because I have had the pleasure of working with him, first on ACOPS—the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea—and also when he was a commissioner in Brussels in charge of EC policy on the environment, among other matters.
I propose to concentrate on Part VII, as so many other noble Lords have done, but before doing so I cannot refrain from first mentioning the apprehensions expressed by my noble friend Lord McIntosh about Part I. As with so much of this Bill, Part I does not seem to have been fully thought through. We have had the benefit of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham. I was a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution when the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, was chairman and when we discussed the integrated inspectorate of pollution. Since then other events have prevailed. I am particularly anxious to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has to say. It appears to me that we are repeating in this Bill the confusion, to which we drew attention last year on the Water Bill, between the enforcement functions of the local authorities, those of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and those of the National Rivers Authority.
We all know of the lamentable position of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, despite belated departmental efforts to remedy it. We know that former senior members of staff resigned, and of the

521
lamentable suicide of the director. However, even if future recruitment on satisfactory terms succeeds it still does not, to my mind, remedy what I see as the functional confusion in regard to water-based pollution. I shall not elaborate on that aspect further but will listen, as we all will, with great attention to what the chairman of the National Rivers Authority has to say.
My particular interest in the Bill is, as I said, Part VII. It stems partly from the fact that, together with my noble friend Lord Shackleton, I can claim to have been one of the instigators of the inquiry which was carried out so effectively by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and his team on behalf of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House. The terms of reference, as we fully understand, were necessarily restricted to the science base.
However, the Government's response, at paragraph 4.2 of the paper which we received only yesterday afternoon, which claimed that the committee endorsed the official concept of the joint committee of the Nature Conservancy Council, should not be taken to imply that the Select Committee approved of all the details of the status and function of that joint committee, other than those commented upon directly in the Select Committee report. It could not rationally have approved them, in view of the comments made on Part VII of the Bill by the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council as recently as last week. Members who attended the all-party meeting with him and his colleagues have the details of their apprehensions and reservations in the document that was distributed. I am sure that most noble Lords who have taken part in this debate will have seen it.
The document emphasises the numerous uncertainties as to how the proposed joint committee will be able to function in practice. It is to be non-executive and it must depend on the country councils for its finance. It is by no means clear how effective the ring fencing, as it is called, will be. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh indicated, it is far from clear—to slightly change the metaphor—whether it is to provide a floor or a ceiling.
It was all very well for the departmental witness, the director of rural affairs at the Department of the Environment, who appeared before the Carver Committee, to give a smooth answer to Question 9 which was put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Daintor. The joint responsibilities proposed in the Bill are in many respects different from the ring fence position to which one is accustomed in public administration. That is because the responsibilities are divided not only between the three country councils but also between the three Secretaries of State, or at least, according to constitutional fiction, between the three manifestations of one being because, as we all know, the Secretaries of State are regarded as a single personage.
The joint committee will have the last word on which clause of the Bill is to be operative but it will not produce the cash. There are many apprehensions which we shall have to discuss later in our proceedings. They may possibly be misapprehensions about how effective the joint
522
committee will be in practice. It is disturbing that the Government themselves had almost to be coerced into setting up the joint committee. As regards the legislation now before us, it is far from clear how effectively it will be supported.
Our attention has also been drawn to various legal discrepancies between the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission—that particularly affects us in Wales where the two bodies are to be combined—about grant-making and other powers which again are not dealt with in the Bill as drafted. In fact, there are endless details which need attention if the practice for Wales is to be based on one pattern and that for England on another. I speak as one of several Members of this House who are former presidents of the Offa's Dyke Association. Its concerns proceed up the Border, sometimes in England and sometimes in Wales. To whom does the association turn for its advice, its technical support and its grant?
I am in favour of the Welsh pattern on the major issue provided that it is properly financed and staffed and that the Welsh Office staff is strengthened. I am not the only Welsh Member of this House or of another place to feel ashamed by the utterly inadequate showing of the Welsh Office at the Carver Committee inquiry. All that came from the Welsh voice at the sitting of the committee was one sentence only and that was of little account.
The discrepancies between the Government and the various organisations concerned with the estimated financial requirements of this new system are extremely worrying. The Government seem to think that about £1 million will be adequate for the early stages. That is ludicrous by comparison with some of the calculations which have been made, as far as one can understand, by people with reputable experience and resources. On this point one must be critical on many of the details. However, I side with the Select Committee that, for Wales, it is probably better on the whole to retain Part VII and do our utmost to improve it. If we were now to go right back to square one it would be regarded in the Principality as a damaging procedure. I believe therefore that, with all its defects, it is better on the whole to try to improve this part of the Bill than to turn it down altogether.
I am very much concerned about the position in England. Simply to shrug off the suggestion, which is what is done in the response that we received yesterday afternoon, that what is good for Scotland and Wales will not do for England is surely a completely inadequate argument. As the Select Committee pointed out, the English position is completely illogical. Clearly, it cannot be dealt with in the present Bill. It would involve a considerable degree of change as it is a complex situation. It is discouraging to know that there is to be no prospect of legislation emanating from the proposed White Paper until we do not know when. As the Government have suggested that they are not prepared to legislate on anything that is included in the White Paper, I very much hope that they will not on that account close their mind to a position which the Carver Committee itself designated as utterly illogical.

523
There is much to be said for combined consideration of the more specifically scientific aspects of nature conservation and those of landscape, access and so on. What meaning can one attach to the words in paragraph 4.11 of the response that the joint committee should be able to take account of considerations of landscape and of wider countryside matters? Those words "take account of are weasel words beloved of parliamentary draftsmen and of Ministers who cannot make up their minds. They have no real meaning.
I hope that before we conclude our deliberations on the Bill we shall probe very carefully what the Government really think and make it impossible for them to sit on the fence as concerns the English position. I shall take up no more of your Lordships' time, but I foresee a long and arduous Committee stage on the Bill.
2.33 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, because this important debate is being held on Friday I have to make an apology. I have interrupted long planned engagements to return to London but I am afraid that I will have to leave before the end of the debate—something which I always try to avoid. I shall of course read what is said.
Noble Lords will be aware that I am chairman of the National Rivers Authority. I have re-read the Addison rules. The rules indicate that experience acquired as a member of a public board can often be relevant to a general debate. I believe that that is the case on this occasion. I am also in the happy position of being able to congratulate an employee of the National Rivers Authority, my noble friend Lord Mills, on an outstanding maiden speech.
This is a much more important Bill than some critics have judged it to be. In a field as complex as this, it is unreasonable to think that we can do in one measure all the things that need to be done. There is much to be said for a step-by-step approach and this Bill takes very important steps forward. The Government have been criticised for the reorganisation of the countryside bodies. I fear that they have again been their own worst enemy because of their reluctance to consult responsible bodies before coming to decisions. Having said that, I make it clear that I support the Government in the changes they are making, particularly now that we are to have what I regard as substantially effective arrangements to safeguard the interests, especially the scientific interests, that go wider than those of a particular part of the United Kingdon.
My experience has led me quite firmly to the conclusion that there is a great deal to be said for structures that embrace a variety of responsibilities and which therefore help to reconcile desirable but often conflicting objectives. For that reason, and others, I welcome the proposed arrangements for Wales. I think that these will work well in achieving the best possible balance of environmental interests.
Many national park officers have written to me saying that that is also their view, while the Committee for Wales, the Countryside Commission
524
and the NCC Wales Advisory Committee have welcomed the proposed amalgamation. However, some of the critics have been almost insulting in their view that the Scottish and the Welsh cannot be trusted with such important matters. On a recent "Panorama" programme on television, Mr. Ian Prestt of the RSPB made remarks of that kind which would have certainly offended me if I had been a Scot. By a delicious stroke of irony, the very next shot on the programme featured the President of the RSPB, Sir Magnus Magnusson, saying that he was confident that the new arrangements would be very much better for the cause of nature conservation in Scotland. I think that he is right and I am sure that in his new post he will see that they work well.
I turn now to the central part of the Bill which introduces the system of integrated pollution control. I strongly favour the principle of IPC. However, it is a matter for regret and concern to me that the NRA, which quickly won wide public confidence as an independent agency, should, so soon after the assumption of its powers, see primary responsibility for the overwhelming majority of industrial discharges taken from it and transferred to HMIP working within the Department of the Environment.
My fear has been that the ability of the NRA to achieve its stated objective of improving the quality of the water environment might be undermined. IPC could have been achieved in a number of ways. I regret the fact that the Government did not choose a system which would have given HMIP the responsibility for dealing with an application and determining an IPC authorisation but which would have incorporated a consent for discharges to controlled waters in such a way that the NRA would retain primary responsibility for its monitoring and enforcement. I still think that that would have been possible. However, it was not done and we would do better now to look for other ways of ensuring that the NRA can continue to do its job effectively.
My second cause for concern has been the complexity of the arrangements, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady White, both for the regulators and for industry. It never seemed to me to be realistic to talk of one-stop shops or to assert that the system would not give rise to a great deal of confusion. If I were given more time than is available, I could explain these very considerable complexities. They are now increasingly recognised by industry.
As the Bill has proceeded through Parliament and amendments have been made, many of my fears have subsided. The Bill enables the NRA to set whatever conditions it considers necessary to protect the quality of the receiving waters and requires HMIP to include these conditions in any authorisation that it may grant for operating a prescribed process. That means that the NRA retains in effect the power to set conditions on all discharges to water. Further, the information on discharges to water obtained by both the NRA and HMIP, will be duplicated on the public registers of both bodies.
What is absolutely crucial is that the NRA should not be inhibited from carrying out such monitoring and enforcement proceedings as it thinks is necessary in order to protect the water environment. The

525
NRA's view of what is necessary may not always coincide with that of HMIP; but so long as it has the responsibility for the water environment it must be the judge of what measures should be taken. Nothing that I am arguing for is in conflict with the need pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lewis of Newnham, for HMIP to have overall responsibility for IPC.
I have been encouraged by the assurances that have been given by Ministers in correspondence that the NRA will be able to carry out such monitoring as it thinks necessary and will retain the right to initiate enforcement proceedings unilaterally. Noble Lords will, I dare say, wish to press for such assurances to be repeated in the House. They will also wish to examine the financial provisions which should enable expenditure incurred by the NRA in connection with applications for IPC authorisations for discharges to water, and any sampling and analyses of effluents or receding waters, to be recovered from dischargers through HMIP. The NRA should be able to charge or recover the costs by grant in aid for all the actions it needs to take.
It is no good having the power to do something if it cannot be financed. Clearly neither HMIP nor the NRA will want unnecessarily to duplicate each other's work although there may be disagreements about what is necessary. I have been encouraged by the practical progress that has been made by the two organisations with the object of arriving at a memorandum of agreement of their respective roles; but there are real, practical difficulties to be overcome. I can assure noble Lords that the NRA is determined to overcome those difficulties and make the system work.
There are detailed matters in the Bill to which I shall want to return in Committee. For example, there is (he new provision to enable local authorities to recover the cost of recovery and storage of supermarket trolleys which, in principle, is welcome. We shall need to probe the details of that proposal and make improvements. In Peterborough, in a recent clean-up, 100 supermarket trolleys were recovered from the River Nene. In an average year, 6,000 trolleys are recovered from rivers in the Thames region alone.
The Government's decision to require local authorities to compile and maintain registers of potentially contaminated land uses and to introduce an amendment in the House is welcome, although until I see it I cannot be sure that it goes far enough. I am concerned about closed and long dormant waste sites. We need to be sure that the waste regulation authorities keep the NRA informed of potential pollution. We need a code of practice for the redevelopment of contaminated land. Planning applications should incorporate a declaration of previous use, and the NRA needs powers to investigate and impose conditions. We may need to have another look at the provisions on GMOs to ensure that the NRA has adequate access to necessary information about consents.
Early in my speech I said that the Bill was an important step forward. I am clear that further steps will be needed. Like many others, I eagerly await the autumn White Paper. It is essential that HMIP is enlarged and strengthened.
526
I trust that my expressions of confidence that HMIP and the NRA will be adequately funded will in the event be justified. It is vital that they should be. Freedom may be as important as resources. I hope that we shall see HMIP taken out of the department to act independently like the NRA. That is a necessary step if public confidence is to be maintained. It is also necessary if we are to avoid possible conflict of interest problems where the Secretary of State has to settle appeals.
I have referred to the complexities and complications which I believe are inherent and unavoidable with the present structure. They will inevitably lead to a demand for further changes. I am sure that we do not want to copy the American version of an EPA. The Americans have not achieved an integrated system of pollution control.
It is also a waste of time talking in grandiloquent, generalised terms about environmental protection agencies without stopping to define objectives or to examine the nature of the organisations which might be incorporated in any such authority. The NRA, for example, is not simply a regulator. It is also manager of a major resource—water. I believe that it would be a profound mistake to dismember that organisation and separate its functions. Such considerations have led the NRA to make some suggestions to government about the way in which we might move to a simpler and more coherent arrangement for integrated pollution control and bring together the activities of those responsible for discharges to air, land and water.
There will be ample opportunity to debate all that when the White Paper is published. However, in the meantime this Bill is an important step forward. The House will, I hope, devote its usual skill and energy to its improvement, to make it a really effective and practical measure.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I propose to comment on only three aspects of the Bill.
I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has just said (which I shall study carefully), and to what my noble friend Lord Lewis of Newnham said earlier. One of the matters that worries me about the Bill is the impact of integrated pollution control—a good concept in itself—on the work of the National Rivers Authority in controlling river pollution. Last year the Government set up the NRA, to general applause, in order to clean up and regulate our rivers. It has been up and running for just over eight months. As chairman of its Fisheries Advisory Committee for Wales, I have seen a good deal of its work. It seems to me to have made an excellent start, with enthusiastic, highly motivated staff—6,000 of them throughout England and Wales—with expert knowledge and long experience.
In handling river pollution, it seems to me to have shown the right mixture of toughness and reasonableness. It has successfully prosecuted big polluters like Shell, Welsh Water and now Courtaulds. But now its responsibilities for controlling the release into water of all red list

527
materials—the worst polluting substances—and for prescribed processes—a huge list of some 5,000 of these that includes almost all important industrial and agricultural processes—is, as I understand it, to be taken away and given to another body. That is HM Inspectorate of Pollution, a tiny organisation with a minute staff which is not, like the NRA, independent but part of a government department, which has been beset by difficulties, cannot recruit enough staff and has not the same experience of monitoring discharges to water.
To do this seems to me the reverse of sensible. Surely the NRA should be left to get on with the job it is doing well. If HMIP has to be involved, cannot its small staff be merged with that of the NRA? I am sure that all who are concerned about our rivers, and all anglers, will be deeply worried if the Government persist in weakening the NRA's control functions in this way and creating duplication and confusion. The Government seem to have an unfortunate habit of setting up an organisation and then, if it turns out to be effective, hitting it over the head. I hope that they will put this right, as they surely must.
I turn briefly to litter. I welcome the Government's proposals to do something about this. As long ago as 1937 George Orwell wrote:
"In a crowded, dirty, little country like ours one takes defilement almost for granted … even in the depths of the country when you drive your fork into the ground you half expect to lever up a broken bottle or an empty can".
It is still true, both in our cities and in the country. Sometimes one is inclined to despair of one's fellow countrymen. As children, they throw away sweet papers and pop bottles; when they are grown up it is cigarette packets and beer bottles. I give a warm welcome, then, to ICI's new product, Biopol—a biodegradable plastic made from the fermentation of sugars. I have talked to ICI about this. Biopol is still expensive, but it is already in use and when thrown away it can be broken down by fungi and bacteria in a matter of weeks. ICI are to be congratulated. They hope that it will be the first of a whole family of biodegradable polymers. I hope that the Government will promote and encourage the use of totally biodegradable sacks, bottles and containers of all kinds so that the litter problem in the country can be made more manageable.
I must say a word about the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. Up till now, we have had two excellent organisations in this country. The NCC has earned a European reputation for its nature conservation work. It is to that organisation that one turns when one wants expert advice, as I found last week when I introduced a debate in the House on peat. The organisation is not perfect. There is, I think, substance in the criticism that it has been overcentralised and on occasion clumsy in its handling of landowners and farmers, and not only those in Wales and Scotland. And it has got across the Scots.
The Countryside Commission has done valuable work and has come forward with imaginative proposals, some of which I have referred to in your Lordships' House.
528
No doubt some changes are desirable, but there seems to be no case for what the Daily Telegraph called "ill-conceived surgery".
It is not easy to devise the best way to organise nature conservation and the care of the countryside in a country like ours. Various patterns have been tried over the years, none of which has been ideal.
Four former directors of the NCC told the Carver sub-committee that,
"speaking from direct experience … the two previous re-organisations, in 1965 and 1973, both set environmental conservation back by several years; and these were less drastic and conducted with much greater consultation than is the case with the present proposals."
Any major reorganisation surely then needs to be very carefully considered, with wide and thorough consultation, and to be based on a broad consensus of all those involved. Above all, there is a need in this field to carry the all-important non-governmental organisations with it; for example, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which I am privileged to be a council member, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and its constituent trusts, the Councils for the Protection of Rural England and Wales and many others. This is where much of the knowledge and dedication are concentrated.
All this is surely so obvious as scarcely to need saying. But the Government announced their proposals with no consultation of any kind. This way of proceeding was so extraordinary, so unprecedented and so shocking that it is not surprising that the proposals were greeted with outrage by virtually all the NGOs, including those in Wales and Scotland, and by most of the staff of the NCC. Nor is it surprising that the NGOs suspected that the Government were doing this largely to punish the NCC, a body they appointed and paid, for criticising them on matters such as the flow country in Scotland and the Cardiff Bay Barrage in Wales, while at the same time giving a sop to nationalist sentiment in Scotland and Wales. Those organisations were alarmed, too, when they saw that the editor of a magazine called Forestry and British Timber had to be firmly rebuked by the noble Lord on the Front Bench for writing that:
"One of the tasks of the new Scottish natural heritage agency will be to investifgate all SSSIs and sweep away the dross created by indiscriminate conservation,"
That seemed to them to be letting the cat out of the bag.
Many people hoped that a new Secretary of State for the Enviroment would drop this scheme and start again with a carefully though-out reorganisation. But instead, he has clearly been trying to give it an acceptable face by agreeing to an independent chairman of the joint committee and by making excellent appointments to its chairmanships and now to the committee. He has done his best, but he has not been able to secure anything like general agreement. The BGOs remain unreconciled.
Consequently it would seem better to drop Part VII of the Bill and to set out afresh, with, not against, those who really know about these matters, many of whom gave evidence to the Carver Committee. I am convinced that that would be the right thing to do.

529
The National Trust told the Carver Committee that,
"the present proposals for restructuring the NCC should be put in abeyarce"
until a full review had been conducted.
However, the Minister has made it clear that the Government are unlikely to change their course. If they an; determined to go ahead, the report of the Carver Committee shows the minimum that needs to be done in order to make the proposed arrangements work.
As a co-opted member of that committee I should like to thank our chairman, my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver, for allowing me to take part in this important inquiry in such distinguished company. I should like to pay a particualr tribute to our Clerk, Mr. Paul Hayter. Many have remarked upon the speed and skill with which a clear report was distilled out of a huge mass of evidence. The credit should be his.
Yesterday afternoon I found by chance in the Printed Paper Office the Government response to the Carver Report which has just been released. I have only had time to read it rapidly. It accepts many of our recommendations. But some things worry me; first and foremost the key question of resources. On that I entirely agree with what was said by my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Every expert we saw agreed that the reorganisation was bound to be expensive. I have seen estimates of a need for some 300 ex:ra posts and extra annual cost of anything from £.20 to £80 million.
Scotland and Wales may need a doubling of expenditure. I am not persuaded by the Government's statement that,
"it does not necessarily follow that the new arrangements need be considerably more expensive."
That may be the Treasury's view; but, if the Government insist on their reorganisation and nature conservation is not to suffer, there will have to be much more money. There is no escaping that.
Although I welcome the appointments announced today by the Minister, I am not altogether happy about the Government's concept, as defined in their response, of the relationship between the country agencies and the joint committee, with the independent chairman and independent assessors simply assisting—the Government's word—the country councils.
The Royal Society, which knows what it is talking about in the field of science, told the Carver Committee that:
"essential needs will be well served only by the creation of a strong, central, independently-funded science group responsible for coordinating advice and commissioning research. This will not be achieved through present proposals for separate agencies".
In my view the co-ordinating committee must be made strong enough to enforce common standards, enforce a Great Britain—and preferably a United Kingdom—perspective and speak with one United Kingdom voice overseas.
The Government reject our recommendation that the remit of the joint committee should extend to
530
countryside and landscape conservation, arguing that they have,
"seen it as being concerned solely with matters of nature conservation".
In that case, one must ask, why amalgamate the Countryside Commission with the NCC in Wales and Scotland? I also believe that we were right to argue that the joint committee itself should report annually to Parliament. The Government's reply on that point does not seem to me to be good enough. They are still being totally illogical, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, pointed out, in planning apparently to keep the Countryside Commission separate in England. I know that there are arguments for and against amalgamating the two very different functions, but it cannot be sensible to do one thing in Scotland and Wales and the opposite in England.
Finally, I should like to say a word about Wales. I hope that the Association of Welsh Wildlife Trusts is wrong in fearing that the Government's proposals will lead to,
"immense confusion, evasion of politically difficult issues and cost-cutting exercises that will be detrimental to wildlife conservation".
I myself believe that there is a strong case for Welsh autonomy, provided always that the joint committee is properly constituted.
When I joined the Carver Committee I found that it planned to visit Scotland. I urged the committee to spend just one day visiting Cardiff and offered to arrange a full series of meetings. The suggestion was dismissed. That brought home to me very forcibly how even the most distinguished Englishmen are apt to wave aside the concerns of those of us who live in Wales as peripheral and of little importance. At my request we subsequently obtained a great deal more evidence from Wales, but I began to understand why so many in Wales favour the reorganisation.
The worry is that a small local body will not find it easy to stand up and speak out as the NCC under Sir William Wilkinson has, to its credit and its cost, when it believes that the Government may be adopting policies which damage nature conservation. Provided it has the courage to do that, all may be well. If it comes to pass, all of us in Wales wish the Welsh countryside council and its shadow chairman, Mr. Michael Griffith, well in their enormously important task. It is also important, as the report of the Carver Committee makes clear, that the Welsh Office, which has done so much to promote development in Wales, should be substantially strengthened on the environmental side to undertake its new responsibilities in this field.
Although it has good things in it, this is in some ways a disappointing Bill. It is not the green Bill and the great leap forward on environmental matters that some of us had hoped for. Now that is perhaps put off until the proposed White Paper. We must hope that that will give us a new, strong environmental framework which will enable us to halt and reverse the damage that is being done to so many aspects of our environment. If it does not I am afraid that people will simply by-pass our Government and turn for action to Brussels.
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, we have heard most interesting maiden speeches. It is not for me to repeat the congratulations. However, perhaps I may just say how pleased we are to have my noble friend Lord McNair with us today with his keen interest not only in protecting the environment but in seeking to enhance it. We look forward to hearing him on many occasions, not least on this Bill. His father was a very good friend of mine and often gave me help and support until his tragic death last August.
Today we have speakers with considerable knowledge of and involvement in environmental matters. I speak just as a long-time supporter of the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and someone with a great love of my land. My interests are indeed British, and I spend holidays with pleasure in Scotland and Wales. I have also enjoyed the beauties of Northern Ireland, and I am not clear why the Province is not considered to need environmental protection.
I speak today because I am not easy in my mind about the way in which we treat our countries. I am worried at the kind of world we seem likely to leave to our children and the problems that they and their children in turn may have to face. I do not think that we are good trustees of the planet Earth.
The Duke of Edinburgh has said that he believes that environmental and population problems now pose a greater threat to the happiness of mankind in the years to come than nuclear warfare. I believe that he is right. I am not convinced that the Government have an effective and comprehensive policy on the environment, and that disturbs me. We look forward with anticipation to the green White Paper, if that is a correct description, in the autumn, but what action will it bring? We are now told that it will bring virtually none.
Obviously and inevitably, any environmental policies will have to radically change habits and attitudes, but, despite many good points, the Bill has many omissions. It does not tackle the problems of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse emissions. Nor does it relate to the need for much greater emphasis on public transport rather than private cars—a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ross as well as by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—with their disastrous contribution to pollution. I believe that my noble friend Lady Robson may also refer to that point.
When environmental matters are so vital today, I cannot see that it makes sense for the Secretary of State for the Environment to have to spend so much of his time trying to sort out the poll tax problems. Today, green issues are very much to the fore. I sometimes think that the Government lag behind when they should lead.
Disturbing statements are made which I find impossible just to brush aside. Perhaps I may recall a few from the past week or so; first:
"What was seen as the world's seemingly bottomless pit of natural resources is beginning to run out".
It cannot be disputed that oil is not in indefinite supply, nor are many minerals, and nor, over a longer timespan, is coal.
532
It has also been said:
"Our beautiful world is being spoiled and ruined".
There is much truth in that. We live in a convenient but generally ugly age. I acknowledge that people should be our prime concern, not the environment. However, paradoxically, the environment has a great influence on people and must merit our serious consideration. The two are simultaneously inter-active.
Finally, I quote as once before from an article by the Bishop of Dudley, assistant in the diocese of Worcester where I live. He writes:
"The fabric of this planet cannot sustain for much longer what we are doing to it … The nineties will be a crucial decade for global survival, the time when we nearly lose the world through greed … The world cannot be saved by scientists and governments, but only by a change in human wills, by a conversion of hearts and minds".
That was written by an intelligent and responsible man. I find it most disturbing, as have friends to whom I have shown it.
The proposed ban on stubble burning in the Bill appears sensible, but pales almost into insignificance if we see any truth in these words. I am tempted to use the expression that I have heard; namely, that the Government are busy peddling the poll tax while the world runs down.
Do the Government see any truth in the quotations that I have listed, or can they dispel all worry? There is certainly no sense in panic, but the situation is more grave than they accept. The title Environmental Protection Bill may give the impression that more action is being taken than the proposed series of somewhat isolated actions.
If he were in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, might not be surprised that I return to transport matters. That is a serious omission from an environmental Bill, as I have already mentioned. In the debate on the Queen's Speech, he virtually accused me of being "anti-car". That is quite untrue. I value the freedom that my car gives me as much as everyone else does. But we must accept that, both moving and parking, it can be a somewhat selfish method of transport and a nuisance to others.
Looking through the AA Book of Villages published by Drive Publications Ltd. in 1980, I was impressed by two things. First by the great beauty of all the illustrations, and secondly by the fact that in only one single photograph was there even a distant view of a car. From Abbots Bromley through the list to Zennor, it was only in the picture of Borth-y-Gest that, if one looked hard, one could detect a few cars behind a fine foreground of water and boats. That seems to be confirmation that it must be accepted that parked cars can be a nuisance and spoil the environment.
We believe that we cannot press the Government too often for a much greater concern for public transport and a considerably increased subsidy for British Rail. A massive road building programme would be disastrous for the environment. Virtually every week, even at present, we read of a threat from some proposed road building in a green belt, national park or area of exceptional beauty. Finding the right answer is not easy but while the car is a splendid servant it can be a tyrannical master.

533
Perhaps I might end by briefly declaring my strong support for a dog registration scheme—my noble friend Lord Ross also touched upon this matter—by which the owner of a dog can easily be traced and dog wardens funded. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, may have a lot to say about this matter at a later stage. The idea was defeated in the other place but by so narrow a margin that it should be considered in your Lordships' House and perhaps sent to the other place for a second thought.
A greater control of dog ownership would be valuable first to help check the danger of strays running onto roads and causing serious accidents and secondly to help prevent vicious assaults by ill cared for dogs on passers-by. Recently all too often we have read of vicious attacks being made, particularly on small children. Thirdly, it would act as a greater check on the unpleasant fouling of public places. I was particularly pleased to learn that a dog licensing scheme operates in Northern Ireland and that the chief environmental health officer of Belfast believes that it is useful, while admitting that all the problems following its introduction have not yet been solved.
I have referred to what I see as some of the omissions in this Bill, but I do not wish it to be thought that I do not appreciate the many good proposals also.
3.7 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, noble Lords will be delighted to know that my train goes in about 15 minutes. Those noble Lords who have to travel seven hours to reach this House do not appreciate business of great importance to Scotland being taken on Friday afternoon. I notice that the Bill seriously affects Scotland and in particular the provision for the future of the Nature Conservancy Council. I think that only two of my colleagues from the Scottish Peers Association are able to be present this afternoon.
In the few minutes at my disposal I shall be able to deal with only one specific issue, to which I hope we shall return in Committee. I mentioned earlier that in Scotland there are now 700,000 hectares under SSSIs designated by the Nature Conservancy Council. I am reliably informed that that figure will rise to 1 million hectares. It is a vast area in which there will be very little development. I suspect that the Scottish people have some interest in establishing an organisation which will have influence in the designation of those areas. They will not readily appreciate being directed from Peterborough. If the experience of the Nature Conservancy Council is anything to go by, noble Lords may understand the desire of the people of Scotland to have their own Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission combined in the new national heritage organisation.
The chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council called a press conference in London some time ago. He announced that there would be no more tree planting, in the flow country. He did so without consultation with the Highlands and Islands Development Board which is responsible for the
534
economy of that area, or consultation with the local authority in Sutherlandshire which is the elected representative of the people of that area. Such bureaucratic arrogance makes it necessary for the organisation to be decentralised. I had rather hoped that decentralisation would commend itself to the SLDP and the Labour Party. Both parties are on record as wanting a Scottish Parliament, presumably with substantial economic and political powers. At the same time there seems to be a degree of criticism about devolving matters concerning the countryside in Scotland. That suggests a certain inconsistency.
I hope that at Committee stage we shall be able to demonstrate that such decentralisation is desirable in the interests of good devolution and good government.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. The noble Lord asked on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was speaking. Is the noble Lord speaking for the Labour Party or the Liberal Party?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am speaking as an individual in this regard.
Lord Shackleton: So was the noble Lord, Lord Ross.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to proceed. There has been a suggestion that such a device will minimise or reduce the power or influence of the Nature Conservancy Council. I do not often speak in support of the Government. However, they are to be commended with regard to the Nature Conservancy Council. The expenditure on the Nature Conservancy Council in the past five years in grant and aid has increased from£11.6 million to £36.105 million last year. That suggests that the Government are not intent, as has been suggested in another place, in some way to diminish the Nature Conservancy Council. I believe that the Government's proposals are aimed at making the council more effective, more democratic and more acceptable to the people who are affected by its decisions. Having said those few words, I shall run for my train.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before my noble friend departs, I must detain him for one moment. He must accept that in speaking for the Labour Party I was not arguing against devolution but for a stronger international voice and for a stronger joint committee. I hope that we shall have his support.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am quite sure that the Labour Party is committed to a policy of devolution. However, perhaps we should see how far we can apply those devolution devices with regard to the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I apologise to the House because, owing to exigencies with which I

535
shall not bother your Lordships, I was unable to attend the House until after lunch. I find it particularly felicitous to be following my noble friend Lord Taylor—although protocol demands that I should say my friend the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. On many occasions he and I have discussed Scotland and we see it eye to eye. I wish to follow up briefly many of the remarks that he made.
There are many eyes upon what your Lordships will do with this extremely important and compendious Bill. I hope that it is not inopportune to congratulate the Government on the Bill's most careful preparation in the interests of environmental concern in this country and throughout the world. Despite what many people say, we lead many nations in concern over practical measures in good and positive directions.
I wish to focus on Clause 118 et sequentes relating to the re-organisation of the Nature Conservancy Council. It has attracted vociferous criticisms from a number of quarters, mainly of an English base. With a name indicative of Somersetshire connections, I nevertheless wish to urge upon your Lordships the fact that the merits of the proposed NCC for Scotland are great. Why, with an English name like mine, do I venture to express any such opinion? It is because for about six years I was a member of the NCC's Scottish Advisory Committee. I am proud to say that, when it looked in danger of giving up, I managed to persuade it to continue with the introduction of the white-tailed sea eagle from Norway which was once a native of Scotland. I claim to have won the day and noble Lords will know of the success of the white-tailed sea eagles in breeding naturally in this country.
For 20 years I directed the affairs of a large Highland estate over which the NCC had certain rights. It gave me some experience of an NCC directed from Peterborough, which I was unable to applaud. Decisions were taken which were inapplicable to the Scottish scene and circumstances. Incidentally, today I am wearing my Lovat Scouts tie which has an early connection with Scotland.
I can also claim to have received recognition for services to wildlife and conservation. More importantly, I am in touch with a large number of eminent conservationists in Scotland, all of whom are strongly in favour of the Government's plans for a Scottish NCC.
It is difficult to choose from among a number of distinguished names, but I wish to mention two. One is Professor Fred Last, the recently-retired chairman of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology in Scotland. He is indeed an eminent man. I have been in touch with him and he thoroughly and emphatically endorses the sentiments to which I have tried to give expression. The other is Magnus Magnusson, KBE, an Icelander who has given such service to this country. He has willingly accepted the chair of the proposed NCC in Scotland. He was an eminent president of the RSPB, which has been rather critical of him. However, he is quite definite in his belief that that is the right course and he is prepared to chair the Scottish NCC.
536
Magnusson says to me in a recent letter:
"I am totally convinced … that the Government's proposals for a devolved NCC in Scotland, followed by a merged agency, is far and away the best approach".
He goes on in that same vein.
With such Scottish and wildlife connections as I can claim, I hope that your Lordships in England—and there are not many here today—will give the measure to which I refer the welcome which I feel sure it deserves.
The final and unconnected point which I make is that I fervently hope that at a later stage of this Bill noble Lords will raise again for consideration a national dog registration scheme, as the noble Lord opposite said a few moments ago. That is greatly desired by many people and many eminently respectable bodies which know about dogs. It was so narrowly rejected in recent days in another place to the dismay of many intelligent citizens.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. For 10 years from 1979 to 1989 I had the privilege of serving as a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. During that period we published reports on matters which are reflected in Parts I, 11 and VI of the Bill. It is a matter of great satisfaction that at long last those matters are before Parliament for consideration.
However, I feel some anxiety as to whether the main provisions of the Bill will be brought into force. I am very mindful, as will be your Lordships, of the grave delay of many years in bringing into force certain provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 for one reason or another. Last year there was an amendment Bill which passed through both Houses and became an Act. The Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act was primarily concerned with the registration of transporters of waste. It is not currently, effectively, in force because the regulations have not been made. In broad terms therefore this is a good Bill. But it is essential that after all the time and trouble taken here and in the other place, it should be brought into force.
One provision which has not been mentioned a great deal is the establishment, for the first time, within Part II, of a duty of care in relation to the management of waste. The purpose is to ensure the security of the waste stream, to provide an audit trail and an unbroken chain of responsibility and accountability from the stage of production to disposal. That is a matter of great importance: it is very timely that it should be introduced now. The disposal of waste will become increasingly expensive as standards are improved to meet public pressure. With the likelihood of the abandonment of disposal of waste to the sea in accordance with the North Sea conference decisions and the increasing shortage of landfill space, incineration wi1l become more popular. The temptation to dispose of waste in unauthorised ways, particularly by fly tipping which is now so prevalent, will therefore increase. These measures are needed to combat such practices. And the need is urgent.

537
One point which is not made clear in the Bill can perhaps be considered in Committee. It is whether, despite references being solely to criminal liability—the creation of an offence—civil liability in fact arises where a claim is made on grounds of breach of statutory duty. The point needs to be clarified; otherwise it will lead to much litigation and confusion. A draft directive recently issued by the Community for consideration related to strict civil liability for damage to the environment by waste. Consideration might be given to integrating the two elements of liability. I believe it to be practical.
Duty of care is also dealt with in Part VI of the Bill relating to genetic engineering. My noble friend Lord Lewis who chaired the Royal Commission with such distinction has already spoken. I merely want to refer to the fact that the Royal Commission considered that the duty of care should be put quite simply. There should be a statutory duty of care obliging those responsible for the release of GMOs—whether for experimental or commercial purposes—to take all reasonable steps for the protection not only of human health and safety, but also of the environment. We recommended that, in addition to existing liability for damage, any person, or the directors of any company responsible for carrying out a release of GMOs without the necessary licence, should be subject to strict liability for any damage arising.
This part of the Bill—quite separate from Part II—contains elaborate and circumscribed provisions relating to the duty of care. I believe we would do well to look at that and attempt to simplify it. Again, there is the question of civil liability and of liability for damage to the environment.
I wish to comment from a slightly different angle on certain points covered by my noble friend Lord Lewis. There is widespread concern among the public about the development of genetic engineering. This has much potential for improvements in medicine, industry and agriculture. But there are risks. There is public anxiety concerning the manipulation of natural processes. The only prospect of ensuring that a fast developing technique is not stultified by public opposition is to put in place effective regulation which has public confidence coupled with the maximum public availability of information. There is a need to balance that with industrial requirements of commercial viability which may tend toward confidentiality.
However, my discussions with industrialists indicate a full understanding of the need to give priority to the availability of information to the public to avoid the stultification of the whole process coupled with some adaptation of intellectual property protection to which we referred in the Royal Commission report. A very affirmative approach was evidenced by the Patent Office in that context.
A related matter is the necessity, in my view, to introduce authorisation of people to release genetically engineered organisms. There is no such provision in this Bill. It would be odd (would it not?) that the release of genetically engineered organisms should be controlled to a lesser degree than the
538
spraying of insecticides for agricultural purposes, which is now subject to quite stringent controls. It seems to me that the whole question of registration and approval of those involved in releases should be put on the agenda for consideration.
Finally, I refer to our recommendations about public access to information in which there are no provisions in the Bill other than for the advertisement of applications for consent. As I said, the potential benefits which are likely to arise from the exploitation of genetic engineering could be, and I fear will be, frustrated by public opposition motivated by fear of the unknown unless that information is available. Relevant information relating to releases of genetically engineered organisms should therefore be made available to the public before the release takes place. That information must be open to examination and assessment by qualified scientists, perhaps engaged by public interest groups. By those means I hope that we shall prevent the sort of opposition to genetic engineering which, for good or ill reasons, has developed so effectively in relation to nuclear power and atomic energy. I regard this as a matter of the very first importance and I hope that we are able to consider it at a later stage of the Bill.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, the Bill before us is a rather strange creature. Much of its content is useful and important in strengthening control over pollution and nuisances; though it could go considerably further in addressing the significant global threats now facing us and in integrating environmental regulation and assessment more fully. On the other hand, it raises an issue which I feel should have been given much more careful and deliberate consideration. I refer, of course, to the proposed re-organisation of the statutory conservation bodies: the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commissions.
I shall turn first, and briefly, to Part IV which deals with litter. This country has many tough problems to deal with, but litter should not really be one of them. If we cannot deal with litter what can we deal with? It is a serious issue; it defaces our towns and cities, our railways and roads as well as our open spaces and countryside. Litter attracts litter. There are only two ways to tackle it: not to drop it, and to pick it up.
At last we have a Bill that imposes the necessary obligations. It should have happened years ago. There is, however, one further aspect which I suspect would be difficult to put in an environmental protection Bill, but which is nevertheless important. This point was mentioned by the Minister. Our children should be taught at school that to throw down litter is the antithesis of good citizenship. Indeed, they should be encouraged to act as our guardians by objecting to litter louts, and that lesson should be a clear priority in our schools. I hope the Secretary of State for Education will take note of it.
One of the most important parts of the litter provisions in the Bill is the duty imposed on statutory authorities to clear it up. One can only hope that this duty will impinge on the railways,

539
whose record in allowing litter to remain on the track for months and sometimes years without being cleared is little short of a disgrace. The obligations of Clause 86 on local authorities will be immense and clearly if the anti-litter campaign commands general support—and I believe it does—it should have a high priority in calls upon public funds. In addition, of course, local residents themselves can act as litter collectors.
I commend to the Government the example of the tiny Suffolk village of Marlesford. It is a beautiful village and is designated as a conservation area. Marlesford parish council decided that it would have to employ a part-time litter collector or call for volunteers. It chose the latter and there are already 18 parishioners who are prepared to keep the village clean on a regular basis. Their example should be followed elsewhere.
Industry as well as the general public have an important role to play both in investing in recycling and in less wasteful packaging. Both can help to reduce the wasteful use of raw materials and the contribution of such packaging to the litter problem. Perhaps that can be best encouraged by a resource tax which would discourage the use of raw materials and favour improved resource efficiency and the use of recycled materials.
I now turn to the vexing question of Part VII of the Bill which sets out to reorganise the NCC and the Countryside Commission. As I said earlier, this part does not sit comfortably among the other welcome provisions of the Bill. Being very involved with the voluntary conservation movement, I share their dismay at these proposals. It is not just that there was no consultation before these proposals were announced, but that, more importantly, the conservation world is of the firm belief that conservation on the ground will be considerably weakened by this reorganisation.
I am at a loss to understand the Government's haste for this reorganisation and their insistence against all the opinion from the conservation bodies. They would have found the passage of their proposals so much smoother if they had consulted with all the interested organisations and parties before embarking on such a restructuring of these important institutions.
I am pleased that the Government have responded so positively to the recommendations of the Carver Committee. However, that deals with some of the detail. The concerns of the conservationists go much deeper than that and are much more fundamental. I must stress that the voluntary bodies are not opposed to reorganisation; far from it. Many are very excited by the possibilities that reorganisation can create. However, they have been given no opportunity to have an input to these proposals and neither have the Government's own statutory advisers, the NCC and the Countryside Commission, been consulted. That hardly befits such a major institutional reorganisation.
I share the anxieties of the many voluntary bodies including Wildlife and Countryside Links, CPRE, RSPB, RSNG and the recreational users of the
540
countryside such as the Ramblers' Association and other members of the Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR). All of these organisations would like to see reform properly addressed in the forthcoming White Paper and within a positive and constructive framework of consultation.
The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV) with which I am very much concerned, among many other conservation bodies, is extremely anxious that the extra resources needed to pay for the inevitable triplication of administration by the country bodies will mean less money available for grants to voluntary conservation projects. That is a very real concern, despite the Government's prediction that the new arrangements will not need to be considerably more expensive than the present arrangements.
When we look at the other parts of the Bill before us we see many good initiatives for dealing with pollution, nuisances and, as I have already mentioned, litter. All these proposals were the subject of considerable consultation beforehand. It was only Part VII which was brought forward without any consultation or hint of what was to come. Is it any wonder therefore that the voluntary bodies are dismayed by these proposals? On top of that the proposals were announced on the very day that the NCC had agreed to move forward with its own federal structure for administration.
Recreational users of the countryside such as campers, hikers, canoeists and anglers want to see the best mechanisms imposed to conserve, enhance and rehabilitate our natural surroundings. They believe that the preservation of a beautiful landscape cannot be separated from scientific understanding of the ecology of plants or animal life.
This Bill as proposed will disrupt scientific research and conservation for as much as two years while introducing a reduced and impoverished system. I wish now to address the findings of the Carver Committee which are clearly so important in this debate. The Government have at last responded to the Carver Report. I welcome the mainly positive reaction to the committee's recommendations. At the same time we must remember that its remit was very narrow. Its remit was to examine the science base of the NCC.
The committee stated at the outset that it did not take up a position on the merits of the Government's proposals. So it neither endorsed nor dismissed the proposals laid out in Part VII of the Bill. It was not its place to do so. The Government have taken on board much of what the Carver Committee recommended, though not I am afraid the countryside integration. Of course, in accepting many of the recommendations, the Government also recognise the deeply flawed nature of their original proposals.
However, even the Carver Committee—again because of its limited remit—was not able to follow through the logic of its recommendations. Particularly in countryside matters, the committee, while recognising the importance of including countryside conservation in the remit of the new councils for each country, and also in the joint

541
committee, was unable to elaborate on the detailed countryside functions of the joint committee or the councils, or on how full integration would actually be brought about.
The committee was also in some difficulty in believing that the joint committee could be improved to the extent that it had sufficient stature, clout, staff and resources without effectively creating a United Kingdom-Great Britain quango. I would dismiss the arguments for not creating a United Kingdom-Great Britain quango as misleading and diversionary. The number of quangos created should surely be a secondary consideration to getting the administrative structure right. If a United Kingdom-Great Britain quango is the best solution, so be it.
For all the need for devolution of powers and responsibilities there must still be a United Kingdom-Great Britain structure which can direct the country bodies where national and international priorities should take precedence over more parochial country-based opinions. The joint committee as proposed, even as amended by the Carver recommendations, will have real difficulties in taking decisions on controversial issues, and the recourse to the English Secretary of State for the Environment, or even the Secretaries of State collectively, does not inspire confidence.
The Carver Committee recommended the full integration of countryside and nature conservation. The Council for the Protection of Rural England, for instance, also attaches great importance to the principle of thorough and careful integration of countryside and nature conservation. However, it stresses that this must be done with the utmost care and within a positive framework of all the interested bodies and the Government working together. I still believe, as do the vast majority of conservation and recreational organisations, that these proposals should be removed from the Bill to allow a more relaxed and less antagonistic scrutiny of the best way of delivering nature and countryside conservation in the United Kingdom. The White Paper is clearly the place to start since the Government have already made it clear that they will consider institutional reform in the environmental field as part of that process.
Why preclude the possible establishment of more effective environmental agencies through the White Paper process by putting in place now an array of different bodies in different countries? The arrangements for the evolution of the separate agencies in England, Scotland and Wales are disjointed and contradictory. The delay would not be significant; and surely we are actually interested in achieving the best structures for conservation, not merely the quickest.
The practical problems of marrying the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission functions demand proper consideration and consultation. The cobbling together of an array of amendments to something this important is not the way that such institutional change should be brought about, especially in what is normally the non-partisan field of conservation. Integration requires a new and better mandate for
542
the new bodies, arrived at after very careful consideration. What we have in these proposals is frankly a rushed job.
The functions of the NCC and the Countryside Commission cannot simply be spatchcocked together. The term "spatchcock" is, I feel, a particularly appropriate one here. It is of course a culinary term which refers to the splitting open and flattening out of a chicken or a game bird, which is then grilled. The NCC and the Countryside Commission cannot just be split apart and cooked together under intense political heat. One always has to be careful when spatchcocking that the finished article does not fall apart and that none of the limbs is burnt or disjointed.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, despite the criticisms which have been levelled at this Bill, very much of it is to be welcomed. Waste products created by the human race are threatening to destroy the planet. Every country must learn to accept that fact and must accept its responsibility to deal with the problem to the best of its ability. We may not be among the worst, but we have still a long way to go before we can equal the best.
The aim must be to reduce input to the waste stream at all stages of our activities and to ensure that our consumption of resources is no more than is needed for our comfort. I say "our comfort" at this stage because unless we take that consideration on board it will cease to be for our comfort and will become for our existence. One step in reducing unnecessary waste is to ensure that the cost of waste disposal reflects the seriousness of the problem it causes and thus becomes an important element in the cost of the goods or services provided. The Bill seems to provide a framework for such an evaluation.
However, we must avoid a situation where any form of pollution is acceptable if the polluter is prepared to pay. That was a point made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey at the beginning of the debate. The BATNEEC principle—that is, the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—which has been referred to by two other speakers, could prove to be a dangerous loophole. I have yet to hear anyone explain what "excessive cost" means. I wonder whether the Minister who is to reply to the debate can give us some idea of how that formula is applied.
I welcome the establishment of a system of integrated pollution control. I appreciate the fact that other speakers feel that it is incomplete. Although they have criticised the present structure, there is the potential for coherent control which must be an improvement. However, we need to look carefully at those proposals which affect our fledgling NRA which seems to be in danger of having its wings clipped before it has even left the nest. In spite of the brave words of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I think that that is something we must watch carefully. It is no secret that there are severe difficulties in manning our present inspection services. We need to be convinced that the new

543
service is properly resourced. We have not yet heard very much about that from the Government.
It is encouraging that both the Confederation of British Industry and the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors support the new proposals. But their support assumes that the new regime will make life difficult for unscrupulous operators. It would be most unjust if proper policing allowed the cowboys to get away with lower standards. Legislation which is not backed by proper policing is useless—in fact, it is worse than useless.
Of course, I welcome the proposal to ban straw and stubble burning. It will receive much support in this House. However, the exemptions should not be too freely available and should not be given unless there is no alternative. I hope that the existence of that ban will not prevent the Government encouraging, to whatever extent is necessary, the search for alternative uses for straw. In my view, we owe it to our agricultural industry to give it every support in the need to dispose usefully of the 6 million tonnes of straw which we produce annually.
Extra powers to deal with litter have been welcomed by many speakers. However, they are only useful if local authorities are given the resources to deal with them. There is little point in legislation which creates a situation where local authorities can be blamed for not dealing with litter when government policies starve them of the resources to deal with this and many other vital services.
I support noble Lords who have spoken in support of a dog registration scheme. I trust that this issue will return to the House and that it will receive support as it has done in the past. Not only does such a scheme have the support of responsible organisations such as the National Farmers' Union and the RSPCA; it also has general public support. I do not think that I have spoken to anyone who does not feel that some kind of registration scheme is now essential.
I now turn to Part VII of the Bill about which we have heard so much today. I shall try not to rehearse the facts again because your Lordships have heard them over and over again. I have two things to say about the debate so far. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said—I hope that I understood him aright; perhaps he will correct me if I did not—that the funding of those organisations was not appropriate to the debate. It is absolutely fundamental to the debate. I was astonished that he should make such a remark. I see that he is not in his place so perhaps I shall hear from him later.
In his opening remarks the Minister described the Bill as being designed to achieve a cleaner and safer environment. I should feel a great deal happier if he had also said that it was designed to achieve better nature conservation, but he left that out of his aims for the Bill.
As a member of the Carver Committee, I have naturally read the Government's response with great care. It is encouraging that they were prepared to accept so much of the advice offered. However, the committee was at pains to point out—I do not believe that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver,
544
has said anything to contradict that view today—that its scrutiny was limited. The general feeling appearing to anyone who has read the entire report is that the committee "would not have chosen to start from there". In other words, it set out to solve the problem as it found it. I have to remind your Lordships that that problem was not the one originally addressed by the Secretary of State; it was the one created by him. It is obvious to anyone reading the report that the committee took that view.
A great deal has been made of the personalities of the chairman and the members of the new joint committee. They are all admirable men, and I am sure that they will do an excellent job. We should not rely on the personalities of the chairman or the members of the committee as the structure upon which we should entrust our nature conservation. The structure must be capable of standing on its own, irrespective of the chairman's personality.
I am intrigued by the Government's commitment to devolving powers to Scotland and Wales. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it was not their policy during the passage of the Water Bill only last year when valiant efforts made by my honourable friends in another place to create an NRA for Wales were dismissed by the Government as creating duplication of effort and unnecessary bureaucracy. Those are the accusations that have been levelled at the present NCC system. There seems to be some inconsistency. In that case the Government were removing powers which Wales had enjoyed under previous water legislation.
It is now being suggested that those who wish to remove Part VII of the Bill are opposed to giving more responsibility to Wales and Scotland. That is not true. Here I must take issue with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who has left the Chamber. I was concerned to hear him at Question Time today refer to the 700,000 or so hectares of land which had been protected in Scotland as land that had been sterilised. If that is the view of the new body in Scotland, we are right to be a little anxious. I hope that it is not its view.
It is accepted that some aspects of conservation can be better delivered locally. Indeed the NCC, as we have heard from so many speakers, had started discussions to that end. I understand that it had almost completed its plans, but as far as I know the Government were not prepared to listen. Despite the matter being raised in previous debates on several occasions and in Questions, to my knowledge the Government have never commented on the NCC's proposals and why they are unacceptable. I wonder whether we might have that comment today.
I feel strongly that as we are to have an environment White Paper this year, which is to look at the whole nature conservation scheme, it is ludicrous to press ahead with these proposals. That is the unanimous view of all the major NGOs, as we have heard so many times. I should perhaps declare an interest at this stage as a member of the council of the RSPB. Without those NGOs and their dedicated work, nature conservation in the United Kingdom would be in a sorry state. Their advice and co-operation is vital to the Government's proclaimed aims, yet they were not consulted before

545
these hasty plans were made. The Government's response to the Carver Report was published only yesterday. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to it, but I am not sure that he read out for the record the following extract from paragraph 4.22. I now propose to do so. It says:
"the opinions for institutional change across the whole range of bodies concerned with the environment are being considered in the context of the Environment White Paper, and the Government will consider the question further in that context".
Does this mean that the structure we are now asked to approve is to be reviewed yet again in a year's time? Or do the country bodies—the English Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission—not rank as,
"bodies concerned with the environment"?
Either way, madness lies.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, shares my view that despite the valiant efforts of the Carver Committee to make the best of a bad job, there is only one sane answer: forget the whole thing and start again. Then the legitimate aspirations of Wales and Scotland can be met on the basis of proper consultation with and the support of all those involved in the struggle to reconcile the conflicting pressures on our countryside.
3.54 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I start by apologising to the House if I have to leave early. I am due in Yorkshire tonight for a dinner and I apologise to my noble friends on the Front Bench if I am not present to hear what they have to say on the Bill.
I am a member of the Nature Conservancy Council and I welcome the Bill. I am tempted to expound my theories on many aspects of it, but it will not surprise your Lordships to know that I intend to refer in my remarks to Part VII, as many other noble Lords have done. I cannot share the extreme pessimism that has been expressed by so many individuals and organisations about the proposed changes to the Nature Conservancy Council. Similar feelings were expressed by my noble friend Lord Norrie. To me, these proposals seem logical. Admittedly, there are and will be many uncertainties which will need clarification. However, I feel certain that as with any major legislation the proposals will take time to work through and we shall find a more effective and efficient operation at the end of the day.
I cannot help wondering what the reaction would have seen from those who criticise the Bill as severely as they do if the country councils were the status quo. If the Government were proposing a Bill to centralise nature conservation in Peterborough, I am certain that the criticisms and cries that we have heard would be considerably louder than they are. There would be cries that the new administration was out of touch with people on the ground. How could the Government possibly conceive creating such a large, unwieldy and unmanageable quango? It is precisely for these reasons that the Government have taken the initiative to put nature conservation on a more localised and practical basis. I congratulate them.
I move on to the Bill. More specifically, it seems to me that the crux of Part VII revolves around the
546
realationship between the country councils and the joint committee and their various responsibilities. As I see it, the joint committee will oversee the science base by setting the common standards for the implementation of nature conservation, including the standards for SSSIs and NNRs, the database and so on. The country councils will then implement those responsibilities. I hope that they will develop their own priorities and their own style, which would be a very healthy situation.
However, there remains one important safeguard. Should a country begin to move away from an important principle or standard that has been agreed by the committee, it could be prevented from doing so by the composition of the joint committee. That is a very important matter.
Voting on the council of the NCC is a very rare occurrence. Generally, decisions are carried out on a consensus basis. I am sure that that will continue to be the case with the joint committee. However, there is an important fallback. I agree that the joint committee should have an overriding power to control the country councils. It is imperative that the joint committee should remain the servant of the countries, as expressed in the Bill. However, I notice that the Government in their response to the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, state that they will introduce a clause proposing that country councils should take note. I welcome that proposal but I believe and sincerely hope that that is as far as one can take the matter.
Many questions that have been posed in regard to the Bill have been answered in the Government's reaction to the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I join other noble Lords in saying that it is a pity that we did not have an opportunity of seeing the response a little earlier than we did. I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord and his committee for having produced the report in a clear and succinct manner, which has made the tasks of all of us considerably easier.
I should like to ask my noble friend a little more about the subject of ring fencing and the financial contributions from the country councils to the joint committee. Is it just the staffing and the technical support that will be ring fenced or will it also be a percentage of the full grant and research? I hope that that will not be the case. I look forward to receiving an answer from my noble friend.
On a more general note, it is important that we do not at this stage enter into the question of specific staff numbers for the joint committee. It seems to me that it is for that committee to decide, as it evolves under the new regime, how many staff it will require. Obviously, there will be key staff which must fit into such a joint committee, but I hope that senior management will evolve as time goes on.
Regardless of the details that we may discuss, at the end of the day success must be judged by results. The 1981 Act and the voluntary system were severely criticised by many people, myself included. I made my maiden speech during the passage of that Bill. I was critical of the Government, but I think that I and others have been proved wrong: it has worked

547
remarkably effectively. I believe that the new structure that is proposed in the Bill will be equally successful.
One absolute, straightforward fact is that it will cost more money. I hope that the Government will be fully committed to making sure that the three new country councils can carry out nature conservation in an effective and responsible way, because there is no question but that without proper resources it will not work. I therefore ask for that commitment. There have been many different assessments of what it will cost, ranging from £60 million to £80 million. It will cost a lot, but so be it.
Obviously, the standards of science, the monitoring of change, the collation of facts and the database are intrinsic ingredients of effective nature conservation. If conservation is to work effectively on the ground it requires the constant understanding and diligence of NCC staff. It depends on their ability to creat dialogue and to communicate with farmers and landowners. The NCC has been particularly successful in that field. The voluntary system revolves around that work.
I believe that there is a geniune shortage of NCC staff on the ground. They are struggling even to complete their statutory duties as regards SSSIs. If that work suffers then dialogue, contacts and the whole message of conservation will suffer. I hope very much that the problem can be addressed because I believe that it is at the root of the success of nature conservation in this country.
As many noble Lords will know, 7 per cent, of the land mass of this country is under SSSIs or NNRs. One noble Lord considered that a rather large proportion. It may be, but I am worried that we are developing a nature conservation strategy in this country which will be based on ring fencing. I do not believe that that is the way forward. I believe that we have to consider the wider countryside. I believe that that is self-evident. We need to look more closely at integrating nature conservation and the farming community on a larger scale than at present. That goes back to the need to have people on the ground to be able to implement that policy effectively.
In that connection, there are two amendments to the Bill which I hope that the Government will consider. I believe that it would be very advantagous if there were management agreements in the wider countryside, initiated by the NCC. At present such agreements are restricted to SSSIs. I am talking about management agreements and annual payments rather than grants. That may not require very much money but the fact that such a scheme existed—with the odd sweetener here or there—might bring about a wider involvment of the NCC in the wider countryside.
Regarding common land, I believe that there is a need for the Nature Conservancy Council to be able to enter into management agreements with grazing commoners who are not, in terms of the law, classed as occupiers. That would give the Nature Conservancy Council the opportuntity to resolve
548
many of the problems regarding SSSIs on common land.
I do wish to say much on my final point, particularly as I am standing next to my noble friend Lord Swinton, who is a member of the Countryside Commission. However, I believe that we ought to swallow him up. I believe that the Nature Conservancy Council should merge with the Countryside Commission. For all the reasons given, it makes total sense.
4.0 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in order to redress somewhat the balance of the debate so far, I do not propose to refer to Part VII. I should like to concentrate instead on Part II, dealing with the important subject of waste, and Part IV, dealing with the important subject of litter.
However, before turning to those topics, I should like to take up the point raised early in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and reiterated by my noble friends, Lord Ross and Lord Hampton about some of the omissions. Frankly, I was surprised that there was no reference to energy. In my opinion, there should have been a part related to energy. Of all the factors affecting the environment today, the combustion of energy is probably one of the most important. There are available ways in which that can be minimised. During the debates on the Electricity Bill, we spoke at length about the need to promote the use of combined heat and power. There are renewable resources which could also be developed. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, when he replies, to tell us the Government's intentions in that regard. Will they deal with that subject in the awaited White Paper and, if so, will that be followed by appropriate legislation? If not, that will leave a wide gap in environmental protection.
Turning to the subject of waste, the Government are taking an important step forward in the positive treatment of the subject. The imposition of a duty of care under Clause 33 is to be much commended. It is a more comprehensive approach to the matter than has been tried so far. However, there are one or two aspects that cause concern. One aspect which causes me concern and which has been commented upon in another place is the large number of waste regulation authorities which will be created under the Bill. There will be 173 in Great Britain and another 26 in Northern Ireleand, making a total of 199. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply why the Government did not pay greater attention to the recommendation of the committee chaired so effectively by Sir Hugh Rossi in another place that there should be 10 regional authorities based on the successful London Waste Regulation Authority. That would put us on all-fours with Continental countries and would simplify the whole operation. We shall be interested to hear the Minister's response on that matter.
I am much concerned about another aspect of the question of waste, particularly so as I am president of the UK Reclamation Council. We should do nothing which inhibits reclamation and recycling, but some aspects of the Bill do that very thing.

549
Among the members of the UK Reclamation Council is the British Secondary Metals Association whose task is to recycle secondary metals; in other words, non-ferrous metals. It is concerned with the definition in the Bill of waste, under which the association would be included among those who would have to be licensed as dealers in waste, whereas it considers that it deals in and reconverts a recoverable material.
It might be helpful if I were to remind your Lordships of the valuable work done by that secondary metals industry. For example, in the past year it recycled some 1.6 million tonnes of metal and, in so doing, provided this country with £1.5 billion in imports saved or exports made. Reclaimed metal accounted for almost three-quarters of Britain's needs for lead, almost half our tin, copper and nickel supplies and a quarter of our aluminium supplies. From the statement of those figures, it must be clear that nothing should be done to inhibit that development. Yet the current definition of waste classifies recyclers as waste handlers and means that they would have imposed upon them restrictive licensing regulations.
When the matter was debated in another place at Report stage, there were hints from the Government that something might be done about the matter. The EC is also considering the matter. One of my concerns about Part II in respect of waste is that it is more negative than positive. It imposes perfectly proper regulation, but there is insufficient incentive. That point was brought out in our recent debate so ably initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. So I hope that nothing will be done to discourage people from making better use of waste.
There is also the case of the Borough of Richmond upon Thames which has developed a successful operation in recycling. Under these new rules it would be unable to continue in that direction. That is rather sad. Here is a local authority which has shown great initiative but which can be prevented from going ahead in the direction in which that initiative was launched. That point too was raised in another place.
I fully support the proposals made in connection with litter. For many years I have been active in the Keep Britain Tidy Campaign. I am pleased to note that the work of that group figures largely in the legislation and the supporting documentation. It is timely that we should now approach the problem of litter on a more structured basis than hitherto. The Bill tries to do that.
However, among other things I am concerned about one aspect of the Bill, to which many noble Lords have referred; namely, the question of resourcing. I should like to know whether these admirable propositions, for example in the case of litter, which will devolve more responsibilities on local authorities, will be adequately resourced. Just as noble Lords asked in connection with HM Inspectorate of Pollution under Part I of the Bill, whether it would be adequately resourced, will the new waste responsibilities imposed on local authorities be adequately resourced? I said that I would not refer to Part VII and I only refer to it in
550
this context; namely, the question of the resources required under the reorganisation.
I end by saying that there are some very positive moves in this Bill which need encouragement. In my opinion there is at least one major omission and there is the big question mark on resourcing. If we intend to do these things, we need absolute assurance from the Government that they will provide the necessary funds. If the funds should not be available, it would be far better for us to cut down the amount of regulation and the number of measures that are proposed.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I declare what I now hope is my widely known interest on behalf of British Rail. In the context of this Bill I have also consulted my friends in Tyne and Wear. Noble Lords will know that I am a national judge of the Best Kept Station contest run by British Rail and Tidy Britain. I am therefore aware of the litter problem which British Rail sometimes creates of its own accord but which frequently, as I shall show, has thrust upon it. I am interested in particular in the proposals contained in Part IV of the Bill.
The litter problem for railway undertakings is of two kinds: on stations and on trackside land. In respect of stations, litter stems primarily from passengers—the customers. To a certain extent it can be dealt with by education, which was a theme touched on by my noble friend Lord Hesketh in his introductory remarks. Tyne and Wear have certainly been successful in demonstrating that creating local pride in the underground railway contributes to a solution of the litter problem by pre-empting it. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in his excellent maiden speech, one is trying to tackle the problem at source rather than deal with it by crisis management.
When education fails, the provision of litter bins, regular cleaning gangs and even a degree of nudging of one's fellow travellers from time to time can contribute to a solution of the problem. British Rail and most of the transport undertakings of which I am aware are getting on top of the problem. But I feel also that they are a party to the creation of litter in that particular environment. It is therefore fair that its customers should make a contribution to the cost of tidying up.
However, a much more difficult problem is posed by trackside litter. That material is often nothing to do with British Rail or its customers but is third party refuse. In my travels last week I have seen a number of supermarket trolleys—presumably those which have not fallen into NRA rivers—a car, a bedstead, a fridge and more traffic cones than ever graced the M.4 in its heyday. Whatever British Rail does, it does not use traffic cones. The material is usually scattered at random, and is inaccessible on cutting sides or embankments. It cannot readily or immediately be dealt with largely because the safety requirements are such that one must close the railway to get at it.
Hence I foresee problems in particular with the abatement orders which the Bill makes available to individuals and to litter authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, I am anxious to take advantage of his expertise. Does not "relevant land" under Part IV of the Bill refer, in the case of British Rail, only to land to which the public has access? Am I not right in thinking that the cuttings, embankments and so on to which he refers, and which are visible from the train, are not available for public access and are therefore not covered by the abatement orders?
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I shall have to look at that further. If the public do not have access there is a matter called trespass. My reading of the Bill was that the abatement orders could be applied to any British Rail land, even land cleared by the property board but not developed over a period of five or six years.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord should talk to his friends in British Rail. I take the view that if it is not covered in the Bill it should be. British Rail may support that view.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend who has officials there will, in the short term, act as a referee as regards the dispute.
I believe that the abatement procedures can reasonably be applied to railway stations but I should like to see all lineside areas specifically excluded. That is contrary to the view of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. If that is unacceptable, I suggest that the cost of clearing this third party refuse—and those costs are a reflection on the community rather than on British Rail—should be shared. I should also like to be certain that the code of practice that will govern these matters will favour periodic cleaning by agreement rather than emergency shut-down procedures under certain very restricted timescales. I very much look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say on this dimension of the Bill.
I conclude with two questions. One is minor and the other merits a speech or an Unstarred Question in its own right. Clause 76(2) exempts steam locomotives from the smoke emission restrictions. Should we not apply those exemptions to preserved road steam engines and to the small number of preserved steamboats that are around the country?
The other issue is much greater. The Bill sets out to deal with environmental pollution. I believe that grafitti are the most widespread and growing forms of environmental pollution. I am very sad that the Bill does not address the problem.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I ought to be frank with your Lordships and confess that unfortunately I have not been able to give this very substantial Bill the detailed scrutiny that it deserves. The reason—not an excuse—is that I have been busy all week trying to get legislation passed to enable women to be ordained to the priesthood and episcopacy of the Church of Ireland. Interestingly enough, it was the female laity who were in the lead in opposing it. However, we made it—so let no one say again that
552
the Church of Ireland is the most conservative province of the Anglican Communion.
Turning from the ecclesiastical environment to the protection of the secular environment, I welcome the Bill. However, perhaps I may confine myself to the subject of exhaust emissions. In my view, commercial diesel vehicles present the greatest hazard in terms of atmospheric pollution and noise nuisance. Perhaps I have missed something in the Bill but I have seen nothing to satisfy me that it will impose sufficient control on that hazard.
I turn to a point which I have mentioned before in this House. I continue to adhere to the view that Her Majesty's Government should do all that they can to encourage as much freight and passenger traffic as possible to go by rail rather than road.
In contrast, there is the importance of preserving in working order examples of historic machinery. There is a vast amount of traffic on the roads and, I am glad to say, on the railways, but the contribution of historic machinery towards pollution control is minimal. I well remember the 1950s when the majority of rail working were steam hauled. I welcome the fact that there are now more steam workings than there were 20 years ago. However, they are so limited that their contribution towards pollution control is insignificant.
I welcome Clause 76(2)(3) because as originally drafted in another place it referred only to emissions of steam. Smoke from railway locomotives has been added and that is to be welcomed. I hope that the provision covers all exhaust emissions including ash and various sulphurous gases. I wonder whether the term "exhaust emissions" would better cover the entire point.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, that logically the provision should apply to traction engines, steamrollers and the few coal-fired steamships which now exist. I suggest that it should also apply to stationary engines in which there is an increasing interest; that is, steam, gas and oil. Being at a constant speed they are clean running and their owners take a pride in the fact that they are so. Their owners do not wish to be embarrassed by seeing clouds of black or blue smoke belching out of the engines. Perhaps there is a case for tabling an amendment to the Bill. I do not know whether the Minister wishes me to deal with the point now or to table an amendment. I believe that traction engines, steam-rollers, steamships and stationary engines should be included if that clause in the Bill is to be logical.
At the risk of being considered opportunist and of wearying noble Lords who already know about it, I wish to refer briefly to leaded and unleaded petrol. Lead was introduced as an additive to petrol in the 1920s. At that time maximum revolutions per minute for most engines did not much exceed 3,500. However, by the late 1930s they had risen to a great extent and therefore lead became more essential for engines revving up to about 5,000 per minute in order to prevent exhaust valve seat recession. That can be a very serious problem in the case of cast iron cylinder heads and, in the case of side valve, cylinder blocks.

553
Even more necessary is lead in petrol for the post-war classic cars such as the C-type and D-type Jaguar, the Cooper-Bristols, the Fraser-Nashes, Aston Martins and so on. The aluminum heads are not quite as subject to the same problem. However, with the absence of lead in petrol, many of those cars could find that the cylinder heads would be so eroded that they would become scrap. Unfortunately, new cylinder heads are not available for them.
Therefore, in view of the fact that the additives so far on the market have not proved entirely successful, although they help to a certain extent, I ask that there should be a concession on the use of leaded petrol for cars built before a certain date. That date should be fairly recent because it is only recently that manufacturers have been consciously designing cars to take unleaded petrol. I believe that there should be a concession and that leaded petrol should continue to be allowed to be used for cars which are part of our heritage and part of the transport collection in this country, which is something of which we can be proud.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, tempts me into discussing with him the emissions of diesel and other engines and the use of leaded and unleaded petrol. We may debate that as we proceed through the various stages of the Bill. However, I shall resist that temptation this afternoon save to say to him that the motor and oil industries have taken on board over recent years much of what he said and have been driven to some extent by the European Commission directive on fuel emissions.
While the use of the catalytic converter in three years' time on all new cars will only make a small contribution to the problem of motor vehicle emissions, it will make that small contribution while further work continues by the industry, in particular on the design of engines and so on.
Having said that, I want to say a few brief words on Part:; I and II of the Bill particularly because I believe that there is a conflict of interest between Parts I and II. Part I makes certain provisions for waste and yet Part II puts the responsibility for its disposal into another area altogether. That seems to me to cause confusion both for the polluter and for the disposer of such waste.
Part II sets out provisions for the control of waste management. In fact, it provides that the licensing enforcement of the complex system remains a function of local authorities. On 9th May the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said to your Lordships:
"voluntary co-operation will lead to greater consistency in waste regulations".
He argued:
"We must not disrupt local authorities just at the time when they are being given the tools to do the job".—[Official Report, 9/5/90; col. 1394.]
I find it rather difficult to reconcile that statement with the fact that some 173 authorities, each with the enabling power to produce its own rules and regulations, will provide for the kind of consistency
554
for which I am quite sure we are looking. We shall undoubtedly return to that topic at a later stage.
I turn now to two elements in Part IV of the Bill, and in particular to those provisions which deal with the general subject of litter; that is, Clauses 87, 90 and 91. I totally accept the work that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has done through his involvement in and leadership of the Keep Britain tidy campaign. I also accept what he said regarding resources because the Bill provides that retailers, in common with occupiers and owners of commercial land—a point made in greater detail by my noble friend Lord Mountevans when speaking of British Rail—have a duty to keep their land clear of litter.
That will undoubtedly place a heavy financial burden on the business community. We should remember that, with the introduction of the uniform business rate, there is an additional burden. It has long been thought that the rates should look after that element of our local environment. Additionally, business pays yet another fee for the clearance of certain types and quantities of normal trade refuse. We need therefore to look carefully at how the work is to be resourced.
When the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, opened his remarks he was fairly complimentary in his first paragraph, as I am sure we will see when we read Hansard tomorrow. He then went on to say, "From now on I shall have to be somewhat critical". I am not concerned about that because I am sure he will accept that it is the duty of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to oppose, criticise and put forward alternative suggestions. I do not mind that.
In his discussion of street and general litter, the clearance of which was to be the responsibility of the local authority, he said, "I am a little worried that the local authority de facto will become a police force without the necessary powers", or words to that effect. I share his concern in that regard but I have a wider concern. I believe that there is already too great a proliferation of uniformed personnel on our streets. They come from house detectives in big stores in uniforms with badges, whistles and numbers on their epaulettes; they come from the security services; they come from wardens. Westminster council has now developed its own traffic warden system. We do not know who has authority and power and who has not. Before we know where we are the entire streets will be covered with uniformed personnel, and I do not like that idea at all. I shall want to consider that aspect when we come to that part of the Bill in Committee.
My noble friend the Minister described the changes in penalties for infringement by businesses. The proposed law would contain an increase in penalty from £2,000 to £20,000. He said that that would provide some incentive to comply with the law. He then described how the fine for an individual would be substantially enhanced from £400. He said that by hitting the wallet we may make people more responsive to the proper requirements of society. I am sorry that my noble friend should place that kind of emphasis on the punitive side rather than the other side; that is, the encouragement that business already gives to the collection of refuse and refuse

555
thrown down by other people. We should have another look at some of those penalties.
Finally, Clause 93 provides for the control and return of shopping and luggage trolleys. It is sad that we find them scattered all over the place. Clause 93(1) provides that a local authority may resolve that Schedule 4 is to apply. The subsection continues:
"and if a local authority does so resolve, that Schedule shall come into force",
and so on. However, subsection (3) goes on to say:
"It shall be the duty of a local authority from time to time to consult about the operation of Schedule 4".
Those two subsections do not sit happily together because the implication is that the authority shall consult about the control of trolleys, and so on, but subsection (3) does not say that the authorities must consult before they resolve to do that which is provided for in the earlier subsection. That seems to me to be grossly unfair.
Similarly, paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 states:
"The local authority, in fixing the charge to be paid … shall secure that the charges so payable by claimants",
and so on. There is no suggestion of guidelines or a code as to what such charges should be. We have debated in this House on many occasions the rights of local authorities in making charges. Therefore, we shall need to look further at that provision.
I am sorry, in general terms, that the Bill attempts to cover so many issues. There is a proliferation of regulation-making powers through the Secretary of State, local authorities, and so on. In common with other noble Lords, I am fearful that there will not be adequate resources to implement the law and that the law will then fall into disrepute as so many laws in the area of pollution control and litter have done. That would make a nonsense of even your Lordships' very best endeavours over the next few weeks.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the scene in our planetary environment is that of a sea infested by sharks. This Bill would suggest that the Government are fishing for them with a bent pin. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey and others have pointed out, the Bill is much more noteworthy for its omissions than for what is included in it.
The Bill is supposed to be an environmental protection Bill. Can we protect the environment without doing anything about global warming, about the import of toxic waste—on which I had a Question earlier today—or about dumping in the North Sea? As my noble friend, and others, have said, can we do anything serious about the threat to the environment without including measures concerning energy and transport? Can we do anything serious about the environment without even mentioning CFCs?
I point out to the noble Lord who is to reply that a Bill, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, to outlaw CFCs and other gases by certain specific dates, has passed through all its stages in this House. No doubt that Bill will be buried in another place. We hope to use it as the basis for
556
relevant and direct amendments of the Bill that has been introduced.
I know that certain measures have been taken to introduce what is known as a comprehensive, integrated pollution control. However, as has been asked constantly throughout the debate, when will the Government tell us whether they are going to provide the essential resources for the implementation of a genuine integrated pollution control? Even if they do, the philosophy is that you regulate pollution, you do not prevent it. That philosophy is not accepted by any genuine environmentalist.
An apt description of the Bill was given by a spokesman for Greenpeace, Mr. Colin Hines, who said:
"The United Kingdom is home to the largest source of deliberate radioactive pollution in the world, Sellafield; produces more ozone-destroying chemicals than any other country in Europe and it is the only country dumping chemical and sewage sludge waste in the North Sea. Fining the litter louts will not solve these problems".
Earlier today I asked the appropriate Minister about the future of THORP which directly comes under the question of waste. He told me that THORP at Sellafield would be dependent for two-thirds of its input on imports mainly from Germany and Japan. In Germany, particularly in Bavaria, local public opinion has forced the government to abandon plans for reprocessing nuclear waste. It will be sent to Britain. The British Government's excuse is that it will help our balance of payments.
We are bolstering our revenue and our treasury at the cost of the health of people in the Sellafield area where, as I hope the noble Lord knows, the incidence and degree of leukaemia, particularly among children, is much higher than in any other part of the country. Below the surface of the Bill there flows a continuous stream of Conservative dogma and ideology. That can be see in the emphasis on the free market; the antipathy to local democratically-elected authorities and spending for the public interest; and the protection of powerful vested interests. Conservative dogma and ideology can be seen particularly in the clauses concerning commercial confidentiality and, as has been mentioned by numerous speakers, in what is meant by excessive costs.
Those are precisely the policies, the measures and the actions which have caused the environmental pollution and the menace to our planet that we see today. The dependence on the free market, the search at all costs for profit and the philosophy which puts cost above safety are the policies which have produced the dangers that we now face. If the Bill continues to be based on that philosophy, not only will it not succeed in even its minor role but it will contribute to that public opinion which, unfortunately, over the past 10 years, has come to put money and money issues before social health.
Various responsibilities are placed on local authorities. How can they find resources for inspectorates and for the various measures they are expected to put into practice—not least on litter, waste and so on—when at the same time the Government are capping the poll tax? It does not

557
make sense. From where will they get the resources? The Government say that local authorities cannot get them above a certain limit from the local community. From where will they get them? Will the Government provide them? We are entitled to an answer today.
The Bill is nothing more than a ragbag of measures camouflaged to deceive the public that the Government are genuinely concerned with the environment, despite the number of times the Government have blocked environmentally benign measures at international conferences. Indeed, they have continued to do so over the past few weeks. At its very best the Bill is peripheral to the real and accelerating menace to our planet. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will accept the principle laid down by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, when introducing the debate on his report. It has become known as the precautionary principle—giving the environment the benefit of any doubt and not using the argument that we cannot do anything until it is absolutely established.
I have no doubt that the Government will say that a good many of the things mentioned by noble Lords will come out in the White Paper. I want to ask one direct question. When will the White Paper be produced? Is it the case that it will be produced in time for the Conservative Party conference, or will it be produced in time for inclusion in the next Queen's Speech of legislation which will come before Parliament during the 1990–91 Session? I think, I believe, and I am certain, that we have a right to a direct answer today. If it is the case, as has been suggested, that the Government intend to prepare the White Paper and to launch it at the Conservative Party conference, it would be a scandal and a disgrace. We are entitled to know whether we can expect legislation from the Government in the next Session of Parliament.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Layton: My Lords, as usual in any debate on the environment, I have to declare an interest. I am a director of a small company concerned with research and development into a container for the transport and storage of toxic waste. I am also a director of an environmental consultancy.
It was with some sadness that I listened to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, during the debate tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, on 9th May on the case for a national environmental waste policy. He said:
"I do not believe that the Bill is very important … and the subject must be treated as a high priority by the Labour Government which will be elected at the next election".—[Official Report, 9/5/90; col. 1387.]
I am saddened that the common cause of the preservation of the environment may be degraded by partisan wrangling and also that the noble Lord could consider any environmental legislation unimportant. It is the function of this House to ensure that the weaknesses of the Bill which are apparent to all sides, as indicated in this and previous debates on the environment, should be firmly
558
addressed and rectified in the Bill's progress through the oncoming Committee and Report stages.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, also said in that speech (at col. 1387 of Hansard):
"the Government will be surrounded by well-informed and very able critics … I do not mean faced … I mean surrounded in the sense of the Cross-Benchers and the Minister's own Benchers".
That has been very ably shown by the quality of the debate today.
There is a great deal of work to be done on the Bill and much has already been done in Committee in another place. There are 27 new clauses and five new schedules in the Bill before us today. The Bill has increased from its original length of 147 pages to its present total of 207 pages. There are still considerable problems to overcome. Problems to which we must put our very best efforts to correcting in this place.
This is a framework Bill and an enabling Bill. In many ways it is also a strategy Bill, though at times the strategy is vague and disseminated. What the Bill lacks or is most unclear about are tactics and logistics, to continue the military metaphor.
I should like now to consider some of those problem areas, although they have all been mentioned at some length during the debate. They are areas which have also received the most prominence in every briefing which I, and I am sure many other noble Lords on all sides of the House, have received from such bodies as the Chemical Industries Association, the National Association for Waste Disposal Contractors and the Commission for the Preservation of Rural England, to mention but a few. They are also anxieties which have been widely voiced in private discussions that I have had with well-informed and concerned individuals. The main thrust of everything that I have to say is about resources.
The concept, the strategy of integrated pollution control, has been widely praised from all directions. As the Government have said on many occasions, it is a step forward that other countries can look to as the best direction that their own policies should take.
But that is where the praise stops. I shall now outline the problems of IPC which are not sufficiently dealt with, or dealt with at all, by the Bill. As I said before, they are problems which have already been covered to some extent during today's debate. I refer to resources both in finance and in manpower.
How can you have IPC, or a system of IPC, for the licensing and enforcement of the most complex system, which covers the whole waste management cycle, rather than a simple focusing on disposal, as it is under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, where licensing and enforcement remain functions of local authorities (the waste regulation authorities of this Bill) of which there are 199 in Great Britain each operating a system in its own small area? As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, pointed out, among other things, how will they have any consistency?
A production of 199 district disposal plans will simply not be able to deal with the problem on either a regional or a national level. How are they to deal

559
with the need for national or regional facilities? Not every district needs an incinerator, for instance, which means that movements of waste are necessary to fill varying capacities. What happens to the Government's concept of self-sufficiency? There will be as much, if not more, NIMBYism than ever before. For example, in Scotland and Wales where district councils will be the WRAs, the range of scientific, technical and legal skills necessary to operate the new system will not be available to every authority. Does that burden then pass to HMIP? Let me quote some eminent reports on the subject. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the April 1989 report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology states:
"Local authorities lack two essential tools for carrying out their duties: staff resources and information".
It continues:
"The decision to split disposal and regulation functions is also going to exacerbate the situation. Unless the number of competing authorities is reduced, many will have inadequate staff (both inspectors and scientific support staff) in small departments with low status and poor career prospects".
Paragraph 123 of the second report of the Environment Committee of another place in February 1989 had the following comments to make on staffing and resources:
"The Institute of Wastes Management provided us with evidence of the resources available in a number of authorities in relation to the size of the waste management task. It is clear that the majority of DWAs have very small teams of staff; and some are extremely small. These very small authorities cannot possibly have access, in-house, to the range of disciplines necessary for effective waste management. Of the 39 English DWAs for which the IWM provide information, 18 employ 4 or fewer waste disposal officers. Only 5 employ 10 or more staff. The LWRA, whose professional competence was universally applauded and whose Chairman and officers were impressive witnesses, operates in a completely different league with a staff of 86, of whom 58 are qualified waste management officers".
One solution is to put a regional basis for controls on the face of the Bill. The Government have rejected that form of integration at every opportunity, feeling that waste management is a local issue, and to achieve self-sufficiency should be left at that level. The way that the system is structured at the moment, it is almost inoperable.
My noble friend Lord Hesketh has talked about that regional question. In his speech on 9th May in the debate introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, he said:
"Running alongside all those measures to raise standards, there will also be encouragement for authorities to co-operate in voluntary joint arrangements for waste regulation…. I am convinced that the associations will play their full part in formulating voluntary regional arrangements. Indeed there has already been some co-operation between authorities".—[Official Report, 9/5/90: col. 1394.]
I hate to say it, but the evidence would seem to indicate that such voluntary associations are anything but popular with HMIP or the authorities themselves. South Yorkshire, Sheffield and Doncaster are considering withdrawal from their group. Who is to stop them? Experience with the Welsh regional groups demonstrates that individual authorities may well also refuse to accept advice from their regional group. That is not a great confidence booster for the concept of voluntary regionalisation.
560
Every authoritative document on waste management has come to the same conclusion. The responsibility must be national, regional and local and contained in legislation. The idea that waste management can be standardised by the application of voluntary principles has been proved to be inadequate again and again, and no amount of hoping will change that.
I should like to ask about the relationship of Parts I and II of the Bill, as once again the indication is that the Government have not considered the logistics deeply enough, and it would once again seem to be a resourcing problem at the end of the day. It is a situation that has been talked about previously; but I should like to emphasise it again as a problem that has to be resolved. I shall quote the brief I received from NAWDC as it puts the problem most succinctly:
"Part I introduces integrated pollution control (IPC) for prescribed processes and prescribed substances, applied by authorisations granted by a Chief Inspector … or, in cases to be designated in respect of air emissions only, by a local authority. IPC is intended to control pollution caused by the release of substances into air, water or land. But, most substances released into land are likely to be waste materials—which are to be dealt with under Part II of the Bill".
In the other place the Government have made clear that certain waste disposal facilities, such as incinerators above a specified capacity, will become prescribed processes. They would not require waste management licences under Part II of the Bill. That was a helpful clarification, but there are still likely to be anomalies arising from the interface of Part I and Part II. For example, special waste may be produced by one authorised activity controlled under Part I; it will be notified, and will travel under Part II controls, in order to be disposed of by another authorised activity controlled under Part I. This all adds up to more manpower, more work, more money, none of which I am opposed to. However, why are the Government so adamant that the financial provisions and personnel commitments contained in the Bill are adequate when it is patently obvious that they are not?
The effectiveness of the powerful controls introduced by the Bill will depend crucially upon the financial and manpower resources available to HMIP, the Department of the Environment and the waste regulation authorities. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum estimates that for HMIP an additional 15 posts are necessary for IPC; and 70 to 75 per cent, of the budget is to be covered by charging for IPC authorisations. No additional staff are envisaged for HMIP duties under Part II—auditing WRAs, preparing technical guidance—although three are proposed for the hazardous waste inspectorate in Scotland. For the Department of the Environment, an additional 10 posts will be needed to deal with appeals under Parts I and II. For WRAs, extra regulation costs will be covered by charges. There is no reference to staff numbers.
I view the estimates with considerable scepticism. The difficulties which HMIP has had in obtaining and retaining staff have been well publicised. The Sunday Correspondent of 10th December 1989 had the banner headlines:

561
"Crisis grips green watchdog … Pollution agency in chaos as staff quit".
There is no indication that the Bill will improve the situation, especially in light of the additional tasks that will be undertaken by HMIP, the DoE and the WRAs.
No additional staff are envisaged for the audit role under which HMIP will examine the performance of WRAs to enable the Secretary of State to carry out his functions under Clause 65(1)—to keep under review the discharge by the WRAs of their functions. Similarly, no additional resources will apparently be available to prepare guidance in the form of waste management papers for the purpose of Clause 34(8)—the discharge of the WRAs' functions in relation 1o licences.
The additional 10 posts for the Department of the Environment to handle appeals will undoubtedly be necessary. However, Part II alone contains 16 regulation-making powers: 13 powers to give directions, and three powers to give guidance. The enabling nature of the Bill is necessary in view of the continual development of knowledge about the nature, causes and consequences of environmental pollution. However, no allowance has been made for the preparation and production of the secondary legislation which is envisaged and which will call for significant technical, administrative and legal resources within the DoE.
The assumption that the WRAs have adequate staff already is simply not valid. If each of the WRAs were to seek to employ the full range of skills necessary, it is doubtful whether the supply exists anyway.
The implication of all this is clear. There has been a long-standing shortage of manpower at a local and national level to enforce the existing regulations. Under the Environmental Protection Bill the whole business becomes much more complicated, both at a local and a national level. In addition, under the Environmental Protection Bill three authorities—the waste disposal authority, the waste regulatory authority and the local authority waste disposal authority—will be created; there is now one: the waste disposal authority. It would be naive to assume that there will be a tripling of manpower requirements to service these, but it is inevitable that significantly more manpower is required—perhaps even a doubling of requirements.
In addition, the concept of integrated pollution control will impose a significantly increased burden on Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. Included in that responsibility may be such matters as monitoring the prenotification and manifest documents which accompany shipments of special wastes. On a reasonable assumption that major waste disposal facilities receive more than 1,000 notifications each year, a considerably increased resource would be necessary within HMIP simply to take over that function from the waste disposal authorities—for those are the major waste management facilities which fall under IPC.
We are all anxious to ensure that waste management, which is an environmental protection service, is properly regulated and controlled. The
562
provisions of the Bill, if fully and effectively implemented, should do so. But I have serious reservations about whether the organisation and resourcing in finance and manpower will be capable of carrying out the task.
The Government talk a great deal about market forces in the waste management business. I tend to talk about what the Government have to say about market forces. Market forces over the years, combined with a lack of knowledge and direction, have created the current problems. The only way in which market forces can be constructively used for environmental improvement is within a strong framework of regulation, monitoring and enforcement.
I am very glad that the duty of care, the cradle to grave principle, appears in the Bill, as outlined in the second report on toxic waste of the Environment Committee of another place. There is no assumption of voluntary commitment, although there are many associations which have that responsibility in mind. The duty of care is an essential part of the framework in which the constructive operation of market forces can go forward. The implementation of regulations, monitoring and enforcement, are other tasks for the already swamped HMIP, WRAs, and the Department of the Environment.
The Bill, when it becomes an Act, will go nowhere if there is not a serious reconciliation of the jobs to be done and the resources that are necessary to attract personnel of the required standard.
5.11 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, the Bill demonstrates three sentiments: the chiding of the offender, the brutalising of the vulnerable, and the politic of slamming the door after the horse has bolted.
Statistics speak for themselves. Officials of the United Nations environment programme state that approximately 2,500 million tonnes of waste are disposed of every year in countries of the EC. Hazadous waste represents 20 to 30 per cent, of the world's manufacturing waste. British business and the manufacturing industry produce approximately 50 million tonnes of solid and drummed waste. To that figure must be added some 2 billion tonnes of liquid effluent, wastage of raw material, water and energy. However, those are only the most obvious figures.
These horrific tablets of conservatively estimated waste production lead me to say that in no schedule, clause or sub-paragraph in the Bill am I able to glean one positive cohesive response to the desperate pleas of the Bergen conference for governments to put politics and vested interests aside for the sake of the environment. I say that because a senior official of Directorate General XI of the EC states:
"Waste is now the priority environmental issue for the foreseeable future from any point of view".
The same official added:
"Self-sufficiency, in operational terms, means that the problem is not transferable and that a solution to the problem cannot be found at somebody else's expense".

563
The plea of the Bergen conference and the thought-provoking comments made by the EC official were central themes in my short debate on 9th May last when, with me, other noble Lords considered my call for a national environmental waste policy.
The shortcomings of the Environmental Protection Bill and the appalling abuse of natural resources in this country persuade us all to reconsider the depth of meaning of the Prime Minister's Royal Society address when she referred to experimenting with the systems of this planet earth. I hope that the directors of Britain's 850,000 waste-producing companies are mindful of what the Prime Minister said to all, and that the same directors will remember the words of the European Commission spokesman and the spirit of the Bergan conference.
On 23rd April, shortly before my debate, it was my privilege to host a conference here on the theme of the need for a national environmental waste policy. That theme was the same as that of my debate, to which I have just referred and during which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and other noble Lords kindly made encouraging references to that conference. I am glad to hear that the report of the conference is being published jointly by the research association of the paper and board, printing and packaging industry (PIRA) and Strategy Europe Limited. The conference was attended by distinguished guests and eminent speakers from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the European Commission and the Government among many other specialist and scientific contributors.
Out of that conference, and also out of an important survey of the waste industry which I had requested, came a clear call for a national environmental waste policy, to be developed through a new proposed and potentially effective organisation to be called the National Council for Environmental Waste Policy.
The Minister, the noble Lord. Lord Hesketh. wondered whether there was a need for such a new body. He believed:
"The CBI and the CIA … already produce excellent guidance on waste management for their members"— [Official Report. 9/5/90; cols. 1397–1398.]
I assure the Minister that there is a need for the proposed new council as, unlike the CBI and the CIA, it would not have vested business interests and would represent all quarters with the public's health and well-being at the forefront of its concerns. I say that while fully recognising the purposeful endeavours of those organisations.
Those attending my conference have already had some encouragement from the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside, Mr. David Trippier. At the conference he said, in response to a request for his support for the proposed National Council for Environmental Waste Policy:
"Providing there is a high local government consultation, the concept of the new council would be 'moving in the right direction'".
564
In my short debate the Minister also agreed with me, saying that there is a need for a national strategy.
I am mindful of the encouragement given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in that same short debate. He said that my initiative was welcome to him and that he agreed with a very large part of what I had to say.
The national survey to which I referred earlier received responses from many leading companies in this country, together with waste management companies, local and waste disposal authorities, waste trade associations, environmental research organisations, universities, polytechnics, professional bodies and Members of both Houses of Parliament. The responses revealed considerable support for a national environmental waste policy. There was also support for the involvement of manufacturing industry and the public in the development of a policy for waste. Strong responses were given by industry as well as by others for a statutory direction of industry's own policies towards the environment.
The proposed National Council for Environmental Waste Policy would evolve an integrated environmental waste policy related to waste minimisation, re-use, recycling and disposal. That policy would be based on consultations with local authorities, industry and the business community, both directly and through trade and employer groups. Trade unions, public and consumer pressure groups and specialists in the waste sector would also be consulted.
Other responsibilities of the council would include ensuring that manufacturing companies committed themselves to using raw materials which were conducive to environmental criteria laid down by the council. Environmental audits leading to acceptable corporate environmental strategies would also be monitored by the council and, where waste-producing businesses did not meet an accepted environmental criterion laid down by the council, a notification would be posted to shareholders and investors involved with that company. The appropriate government departments would also be informed. Too few companies have such strategies at present, although some have taken the initiative.
The council would have its own corporate investigative arm. The method of investigation would be best compared with the quality systems procedures employed by leading companies such as Shell UK, which are checked by independent third parties against the requirements of the British Standard for quality systems, BS 5750. The investigations of a company's environmental audit and corporate environmental strategy by the new council's quality systems-type investigators would be paid for by that company and that company should be obliged to co-operate by law.
Earlier, I drew attention to the public reaction to the politico-economic exploitation of our environment related to waste issues. Like the United States group Environmental Strategies, I believe that matters would be dramatically improved if the following conditions were fulfilled: first, when industry, government and the public co-operate in

565
addressing environmental issues; secondly, when voluntary disclosure of information relating to the environment is common practice, company by company; and, thirdly, when we have compliance with effective legislation providing for strict liability. The public would then have peace of mind, knowing that resources were being directed to resolve environmental problems rather than being diverted to litigation and transactional costs, as has been the case in the United States. However, at the moment, the public sees no ideal world and lacks confidence in the ability of national and local government to solve environmental problems. That view is endorsed by many experts in the field.
Those behind the setting up of the new council, and myself, believe that there should be regional waste management authorities, as local councils will not have the resources or specialist skills that the Government hope for.
In terms of the investigative aspects of the proposed National Council for Environmental Waste Policy, we believe that that proposal should be welcomed by the Minister, particularly when one bears in mind the substance of the MINIS 11 report now circulating in the Department of the Environment. The report graphically points out the hopeless staffing problems of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and the limited effect the body would have in that field because of the enormous areas of abuse of our natural resources. I am mindful of the fact that air pollution inspections have dropped by half during the past five years and that HMIP failed even to reach its reduced target of 6,000 inspections of potentially serious polluting factories. Those alarming facts are reported against the background of the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment:
"It is vital that there is an adequately resourced pollution inspectorate providing clear and consistent enforcement".
I believe that the working of the proposed National Council for Environmental Waste Policy should demonstrate to the Government the vital need to establish an environmental protection agency, for which there is widespread support. Clearly, such an agency has proved in many respects to be in the public's interest in the United States. I must also stress that the proposed new council will not follow the Government's lead in that it will not tackle its task in a piecemeal manner; nor will it adopt "fire-fighting" measures.
The council will not be reactive but proactive and will not wait for the media to fan public opinion, as with the case of imported toxic waste and gas leaking out from abandoned waste disposal sites. It will go to the heart of waste environmental problems, the boardrooms of waste producers, by invitation or no.
I hope that today the Minister will remain other than disappointed by this contribution. Meanwhile, I should like to quote from the final report by the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, on the Responsibilities of the British Public Company published by the CBI council on 19th September 1973:
"A company should, as is indeed the practice of the best companies, pay proper regard to the environmental and social consequences of its business activities, and should not sacrifice
566
the safety or efficiency of goods and services in the interests of expediency and competitiveness. In environmental matters it is usually the company that is the first to know of a potential hazard or critical situation; it has a duty in such circumstances not only to take all possible remedial measures but also to inform the responsible authorities".
That report, at the instigation of Mr. Peter Thompson, as a member of the CBI-ICC multinational affairs panel, some three years ago, was reassessed and became a main theme of a subseqent CBI national conference. I should like to remind noble Lords that the sentiments of that report are as valid today as they were in 1973, when one considers the obligations of large waste producing businesses in terms of public well-being and the environment.
5.29 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it seems hours ago and indeed it is hours ago that my noble friend Lord Hesketh introduced this Bill. Like some great maître d', he produced a menu with many choice items on it, and like many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, I shall start with litter and move on to Part VII.
I was delighted to hear and read that the Government are to attack litter. They have a very hard job on their hands. The litter problem arises not just in the urban areas but also in the rural areas. On my estate we are lucky enough to have what I suppose would be described as a beauty spot and we have put there some fairly moderate facilities for the public to use. We produced small picnic areas and that kind of thing. We found that litter problems arose. We consulted with our local district council which said that if we produced a litter bin it would empty it. We did that. We built it ourselves out of timber. It looked rather rustic and I thought rather nasty, but everyone said it looked nice. The moment we put the bin in the area it overflowed with litter. We therefore put in another one; and that also overflowed. We wondered what was going on and found that once we produced the litter bins people came long distances from the towns with their car boots full of litter which they tipped into the litter bins. When people came for picnics they found the litter bins full.
That situation may have arisen because the local authorities in these areas were failing to produce the necessary litter clearance; I do not know. But that is what happened. However, it is not simply people coming from the towns despoiling the countryside that worries me. My concern relates to the local population. I do not believe that there is a great problem in the small towns and villages especially in that wonderful season of the best kept village competition. Every piece of rubbish is swept up by the Boy Scouts or members of the Women's Institute. One never sees any litter there. At other times the scene is not so attractive.
However, young men take their young ladies out in cars and park in gateways in the surrounding countryside. In the morning one finds cans of Carlsberg and Coca Cola, and much nastier things that they seem to consider essential to their evening's activities.

567
One also finds, I am afraid, that the farmers are not good at controlling their own litter. One sees paper bags that have had seeds in them, and plastic fertiliser bags which have blown across a field ending up in the wood or against a fence. I am also ashamed to say that I and some of my friends—some noble and some not so noble—very often spoil the countryside by leaving empty cartridge cases lying around.
The British public are thoroughly amoral with regard to litter collection. It is not only necessary to increase the fines. Our police should be advised to bring far more prosecutions. Our magistrates should also be much tougher when they impose penalties.
I pass to Part VII. We have debates from people with many different views on this Part of the Bill. That is only natural. As my noble friend Lord Peel said, I am fortunate enough to be a countryside commissioner. I am also a Member of your Lordships' House. However, I do not speak in this House as a representative of the Countryside Commission. These are very much my own ideas. However, without infuriating any fellow countryside commissioners, I believe that what I say is fairly well echoed by the commission and by my fellow commissioners. We took the same view when the Government's proposals came out, as did the committee of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that we should consider the proposals that the Government have put forward, and as their advisers we should not criticise or suggest other proposals. We therefore tried to ensure that events occurred as best they could in Wales.
There are two Countryside Commissions. One is for England and Wales; and one for Scotland. Both are concerned with wildlife but not at quite the level and detail of the NCC. The Countryside Commissions have the responsibility of ensuring that the public has the opportunity to enjoy the conserved beauty of Britain. I hope that I dare say this in front of so many distinguished scientists and members of the NCC. It worries me that there is a danger from the new body of a surplus of "SSSI-itis". We have duties not only to produce the SSSIs, but also to allow the public to appreciate the beauty of the countryside.
I suppose that my noble friend Lord Peel was making a joke when he said that he would swallow me up. He might find me a rather large mouthful. But in fact I thought that it was a joke in rather bad taste. I know that in Wales it is not a question of the NCC swallowing up the Countryside Commission. There will be help and co-operation. I hope that the new body will succeed.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it is right to go ahead with Part VII and to try to improve it. Matters have gone too far in Scotland and Wales to try to postpone the events until the publication of the White Paper. I hope that that will not happen. The Countryside Commission tried to help with the new body in Wales and has been successful. The change may bring advantages in England but there are none whatever in the NCC swallowing up the Countryside Commission. There
568
must be a partnership. It is important that we do not proceed along those lines in the Bill but wait for the White Paper. The matter should be argued out and talked through, but whatever happens there must be a merger and not a takeover bid.
There is one issue which worries me about Wales. It would help to have a mandate setting out the situation of the new body. The proposal was supported by the committee chaired by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. We are gratified that the Secretary of State for Wales has issued a draft consultation document which will form the basis of the Government's understanding with the new council as regards the balance of its responsibilities. However, that is no substitute for a mandate written into the Bill. I was disappointed to see at paragraph 4.21 of the Government's response to the Carver Committee report that they still believe that a statement of draft policy is better than a mandate. I am sure that in this House I need not stress the importance of having provisions written into law and not left as an undertaking of goodwill. I hope that with all-party support I shall return to the matter in Committee. I draw the attention of my noble friend and others around the House to an excellent draft mandate on page 71 of the noble and gallant Lord's report.
It would be churlish of me not to thank the Government for their other response which is of extreme importance; it is to make the chairman of the Countryside Commission an ex officio member on the joint committee. There must have been an oversight in not doing so originally and we were grateful that the Carver Committee drew the Government's attention to it.
I congratulate the three maiden speakers. They have shown a marvellous "stickability", as have all noble Lords today. Does that not bode something for the Committee and Report stages of the Bill? Some of us remember the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill through this House. I have an awful feeling that this Bill will be the same but with brass knobs on. I wish my noble friends on the Front Bench and the Chief Whip the best of luck, but I believe that we are in for some very long nights.
5.37 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I endorse the last sentiment because, remembering the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, I am sure that the noble Earl is right. Its passage was a mammoth exercise as I expect this Bill's will be.
We have had a long and interesting debate about a Bill, certain parts of which are controversial. No one has been entirely uncritical. The Bill is long. But, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, it is not the wide-ranging environmental measure long awaited since the Prime Minister's commitment to her party on environmental issues. I regret that there is no mention of environmental education.
The Bill contains an assortment of measures collected from numerous consultation papers and reports that have appeared over the past few years. The exception is Part VII: it is a big exception. There was no consultation paper nor any consultation. The

569
chairman was informed in confidence only a week before the announcement of the break-up of the NCC and it was made in answer to a planted question. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has told me that had he been hen; he would have queried the constitutional propriety of two Ministers plotting together in a plan to overthrow an established part of the constitution. The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, referred to the matter in his speech.
I propose to concentrate on Part VII but I should like also to say a few words about the other parts of the Bill. One can welcome some aspects of Parts I to VI; namely, integrated pollution and air pollution which is controlled in Part I. At the same time I have reservations amounting on occasion to grave doubts about whether the crisis in the manning and the morale of the inspectorate will enable the provisions to be carried out. I doubt whether the resources will be adequate. As Geoffrey Lean said in an article in the Observer last Sunday, the crisis threatens to make a mockery of the Bill. Will the Minister please tell us what are the Government's plans to overcome that crisis?
On waste, the duty of care is welcome. But the Bill's provisions on planning for waste management are haphazard. I feel strongly that there should be a national plan and proper incentives if real progress is to be made on recycling.
I welcome Part II dealing with statutory nuisances, particularly noise and clean air, and Clause 135 on the burning of straw and stubble. However, Part VII is different. The Government have still not thought through the matter and much remains unresolved even after the belated response to the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. In the light of the uncertainty, the inadequacy of planning, the very grave doubts in the minds of dedicated conservationists and the strong opposition of voluntary bodies on which so much depends, I hope that we can persuade the House to force the withdrawal of Part VII so that there can be real discussion on the White Paper promised for September.
At the meeting chaired by the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, last week, I was encouraged to hear that Sir William Wilkinson favoured that course as did the noble Viscount himself. Sir William told us that the spokesman for the two main unions involved also preferred that course and that 80 per cent, of the staff in all three countries opposed the present plans—not because they were anxious about job security, which is guaranteed, but because of their doubts as to the effectiveness of the new plans for conservation which they care about.
It is significant that in a letter on 12th April to Mr. Rifkind from the chairman of the Scottish wildlife and countryside link, it was clearly stated that the very sincere and well informed anxieties of the great majority of people directly involved in conservation are failing to be met. The chairman repeats there an earlier plea that the Government should withdraw Part VII and that, in the interests of the joint support of voluntary bodies, the Government's plans and ideas should be exposed to wider debate within the context of the White Paper. That is a very clear message from Scotland.
570
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in mentioning the Welsh response, did not refer to the Association of the Welsh Wildlife Trust. The association states that while in principle a complicated organisational structure in Wales could be evolved to cater for the anomalies, it feels that in practice it would lead to immense confusion, evasion of difficult political issues and cost cutting exercises detrimental to wildlife conservation. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is not in his usual place.
The costs and the manpower involved in what is a radical change have been grossly underestimated by the Government. We are no better informed as to the resources which will be provided even after the response to the Carver Committee. It seems strange that whereas control of public expenditure is usually the criterion by which every policy is judged, in this case obstinacy, pig-headedness and electoral or political advantage should have persuaded the Government to spend vastly more than the £45 million now granted to the NCC.
The World Wildlife Fund reckons that total expenditure will be £80 million. What will it be? In his reply the Minister must give a clear statement of the precise level of money and posts to be given to all the agencies including the JCC. Some estimates must surely have been made by now. I ask for some figures, as has almost every noble Lord who has spoken.
We know that the Carver Committee was not allowed to go into the merits of reorganising the NCC but concerned itself particularly with the scientific base. It is useless at this stage to go over the reasons, political of course, for the proposed split. However, it is all too often forgotten how much the NCC has delegated to the regions; there were separate committees and headquarters for Scotland in Edinburgh and for Wales in Bangor. Around 75 per cent, of the staff worked in the regions. It is ironic that in July the NCC was completing a plan for a more devolved structure of which the DoE officials and the Minister were well aware. We should like the Minister to explain that position, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, so eloquently asked when he spoke.
There have been complaints that the Secretary of State for the Environment based in London is responsible for Scottish conservation. However, that difficulty—if one wants to use that term—could be overcome in the same way as with the Forestry Commission. That is an undevolved Great Britain body with its headquarters in Edinburgh. It reports to the Secretary of State for Scotland as lead forestry Minister, but it also reports to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Wales as the forestry Minister for England and Wales. The alleged administrative anomaly could have been similarly solved.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has also left, but I should like to clarify one point that he raised regarding the Labour Party plan for devolution to Scotland and Wales. I should like to state that the Labour Party, when it planned that devolution Bill, did not plan to devolve the NCC. In the second annual report of the NCC, 1975–76, there is a brief statement which refers to the White Paper of

571
November 1975, entitled, Our Changing Democracy: Devolution to Scotland and Wales, Cmd. 6348. The report states that,
"The responsibility for the Nature Conservancy Council would not be devolved".
I hope that that clarifies that point.
The view that the devolution of the NCC would give the people of Scotland more democratic and accountable control of nature conservation is almost a confidence trick. Scotland in particular is notorious for the domination of rural affairs by a clique of feudal landowners. The appointments to non-departmental public bodies are a travesty of democracy, especially under the present Government. The increased politicisation of the NCC during the past year was described by Steve Barry in an article in the Guardian on 2nd February. The council had consisted of 12 or 13 members, mostly eminent nature conservationists—never more than 15 in the 1980s—until, in April last, five new members were appointed; not at the chairman's request. I rather feel that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was one of them. The council became much more typical of large landowners, farmers and country sportsmen.
If the House does not agree to postpone Part VII of the Bill until after the White Paper, there will be a need for many adjustments to be made to the Bill, which is full of gaps. The role, remit and finance of the JCC must be clarified. What does ring-fencing mean? Many people have asked and I hope that the Minister will explain when he replies.
The joint committee must be independent. The Government in their response to the Carver Report used many fine words and paid lip service to nature conservation, but in practical terms much is left uncertain. In my view the report did not go far enough. It did not ask for the committee to be independent, and I think that it should be. I could not disagree more with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who said that the JCC should be the servant of the country councils.
The response to paragraph 4.16 of the Carver Committee Report, which asked for the decisions of the joint committee to be binding, is not satisfactory. Amendments promised to establish that the joint committee can give advice to the country councils and to require the country councils to have regard to it will not solve the problems of disagreements. "Have regard to" is a useless phrase.
The Carver Report took the Government proposals as a skeleton on which to put some flesh, though not enough to bring it to life. The joint committee is still too much a creature of the new agencies. The report is too vague on some of the most crucial issues, such as how to preserve a broad UK perspective; what the necessary level of resources should be; how the committee will be strong enough to drive forward the cause of nature conservation at a national level; how it will integrate a remit for nature and landscape conservation; and how independent peer review will work. The response to paragraph 4.15 does not help. There is no clarity about how the crucial matter of UK scientific policy
572
for nature conservation will be maintained. The noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, emphasised its weakness.
The comments of the chairman of the NCC in the green pamphlet of 4th May—I do not know its title but it refers to Part VII of the Environmental Protection Bill—and the people who attended the meeting last week chaired by the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, are very clear. There are a number of proposals which will have to be followed up. They put some flesh on the skeleton. The real issues to be addressed—the omissions, the difficulties—are admirably set out, but I shall not take up the time of the House by going through them now.
The illogicality of merging the Countryside Commission with the NCC in Wales, proposing a merger in Scotland, and leaving England with separate councils has been referred to by many speakers. The merits of amalgamating both nature and landscape conservation without losing sight of the differences between the two forms of conservation are on the agenda of the Royal Society for Nature Conservation. The Council for the Protection of Rural England attaches great importance to the principle of thorough and careful integration of countryside and nature conservation. However, it states:
"This must be done only with the greatest care and within a positive framework of government, statutory and voluntary bodies working together".
The coming White Paper presents the opportunity for that to be done. Of course, one understands the national aspirations of the Scots and the Welsh but many of us believe that these could be satisfied in a different way from the drastic, ill thought-out action in the Bill, given proper time for consultation and discussion.
A great many of us are unhappy about Part VII. If not excised it will have to be substantially amended. I ask the Minister, in his reply, to answer the questions he has been asked and say that the Government will accept and take very seriously indeed the views expressed today by many noble Lords whose reputation in the field of nature conservation is very high. Indeed, in many cases it is unparalleled.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, it has been a great privilege to be present during this debate and to listen to three outstanding maiden speeches. I cannot remember attending a debate which had three maiden speakers, and very few debates when we had so many speeches on one subject. Perhaps that is an indication of the deep concern that is felt by all Members of the House, and by the population in general, on the subject of environmental protection.
Whatever we may think of the Bill, we are in many ways privileged to have the opportunity of legislating on environmental matters. I am sure that this opportunity is welcomed by all Members of your Lordships' House. It gives us an opportunity at later stages in the Bill, through the introduction of amendments, to strengthen and in some cases enlarge its scope.

573
I start by regretting, as did other noble Lords, that one or two matters are not included in the Bill. It will come as no surprise to the House that I very much regret that the Bill does not deal with the problems caused by carbon dioxide emissions and other gas emissions which can cause the greenhouse effect. In particular, I regret that there is nothing in the Bill to control and phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons and halons.
I am fully aware of the Government's response when I introduced my Bill: that nothing can be done until the meeting in November on the Montreal Protocol and that it does not pay for one nation to go it alone. I still do not agree with the government statement to that effect because there are other countries in the world that have gone it alone, such as West Germany and Sweden. I am still a believer that every little bit helps. It is no good waiting until the whole world, including China and India, agree and then we all act together.
I also very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he said that there is not a word about energy conservation in a Bill which is supposed to deal with environmental matters. I also regret that the Bill does not set targets, standards or codes of practice as all these matters are left to regulations. I believe that they should be published in conjunction with the Bill so that your Lordships' House has some idea of their content.
I agree with and generally welcome the proposals for the control of pollution in Parts I to VI of the Bill. However, their implementation depends largely on the implementing regulations to be published and, as has been mentioned by so many noble Lords, the provision of adequate resources. In the minds of many people there is deep concern at the adoption of the principle of best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. That concern has been mentioned by many noble Lords. I regret the replacement of that terminology by the term "best practicable means". Without a doubt that could place too much emphasis on the cost of implementing the regulations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, so ably told us, there is deep concern in the minds of many people about what appears to be the removal of the influence of the National Rivers Authority. That authority was fought hard for in both Houses and it has had such a short life. We regret that its influence seems to have been diminished under the regulations. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution is of concern to many people. I feel very strongly that it would be an enormous advantage, and it would give the inspectorate much greater freedom of action, if it were set up as an independent body and not staffed by employees of the Department of the Environment.
As he usually does, my noble friend Lord Ezra has adequately dealt with the questions of litter and waste, so I shall not add anything on that score. I also welcome the Government's proposals to regulate the possession and release of genetically modified organisms. It should be mandatory for the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to enforce the regulations and not just for him to appoint inspectors. They should monitor that the rules are
574
adhered to. In order to put people's minds at rest it is essential that an annual report is published.
We had a deeply knowledgeable and scientific speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Mills. We are privileged to have him in the House. I hope that we shall see him here at the Committee stage when we deal with that part of the Bill because we certainly need expert knowledge on the subject.
I should also like to support the welcome of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for the ban by 1993 on stubble burning and to re-emphasise her request that there should not be too many exceptions to the ban. We must also remember that the farming community faces problems. There are occasions when there is no alternative but to burn. I hope that the Government will maintain their support for research into economic uses of straw.
There is no doubt that by far the largest part of the debate has concentrated on Part VII of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, accused not only the Labour Front Bench but also our Benches of having a split mind on what we believe is devolution of authority. He forgets that devolution of authority does not necessarily mean the complete removal of any central organisation. If, for example, one devolves powers to the regions in local government, one does not expect to remove the power of the state to be responsible for defence and for all national matters. The same argument applies in regard to the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission.
We believe in devolution to the countries but it is essential that the central joint committee should retain certain powers of national importance. We very much welcome the Government's acceptance of the recommendations on this issue of the committee of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. However, it seems to me that if it is right to merge the NCC and the Countryside Commission in Wales and in Scotland, it ought to follow that it is right to do so in England as well.
I am concerned about what appears to be the Government's intention that, probably in a year or two, this will happen. Not to do it now and to have that hanging over the NCC and the Countryside Commission in England so that perhaps there will have to be further legislation in two or three years' time would be wrong. The Government should make up their minds. There should be a merger between the NCC and the Countryside Commission.
I completely subscribe to the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that there should not be a swallow-up. There should be a merger. Both organisations have much to give each other. What I find desperately important in the Countryside Commission's remit is that its responsibilities involve enhancing as well as conserving the countryside. We must not lose sight of the fact that, much as we need strong powers to conserve endangered parts of the countryside, we live in this countryside and enhancement is equally important.
I very much look forward to the Committee stage, though I know that it will be lengthy. The House can make enormous improvements to the Bill and I hope that we shall achieve that.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I know that I shall make the most popular speech of the day because it is the one immediately preceding that of the Minister who will reply to the debate and who will, we hope, give us many answers. As with other noble Lords, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson said, it is for me a privilege to take part in the debate. However, I also look upon it as a pleasure and an educational exercise. I say that because one of the things which has emerged from the debate, in which 34 people will have spoken, is the fact that I have been able to listen to many fellow Peers for the first time. I have appreciated, as we often do, the enormous width of interests which are represented in your Lordships' House.
When we reflect that by the time the Minister sits down we shall certainly have had more than seven hours of debate, I think it can be said that seven hours on a Friday are the equivalent of at least 12 hours on a Tuesday. The Minister and his colleagues can look forward to the "stickability" that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said was one of the characteristics of today's debate.
Certainly the overwhelming majority of the 34 speakers in today's debate have not only given up their time on a Friday—and none of us likes to do so—but they have also been willing to do so because they had something important to say. As has been said more than once, they are looking forward to trying to improve the Bill.
In my view, the Minister should take on board the fact that this is not an issue about which there is immediately a party or a partisan cleavage. It is not as if he is putting forward a proposal which will be opposed root and branch. I believe that I speak for the whole House when I say that we want to finish the proceedings with a better Bill and one which contains provisions which we will be able to recommend to our friends and to the country.
The Minister and his colleagues sometimes forget the enormous good will that exists in the voluntary bodies and among the professionals who take part in their activities. I very much hope that he listened in that spirit, and very carefully, to all that has been said. He knows that the Bill left the other place with 389 amendments. I can tell him that we on these Benches already have 100 groups of amendments; that is, not 100 amendments but 100 groups of amendments as regards the first five parts of the Bill. Those groupings do not even touch Part VII. We are determined to try to improve the Bill with, I hope, the aid of the Government.
Perhaps I may say a word from this Front Bench about the excellence of the three maiden speeches that were made today. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to them with real pride as one of the speeches we listened to came from her Benches. I should like to do the same. All three maiden speeches were of very high quality. They revealed that the speakers will all bring to the quality of debate in the House a dimension which we shall all enjoy.
We heard first from the noble Viscount, Lord Mills. His speech immediately revealed something
576
about which I was not aware; namely, his specialism as a fish biologist. Of course he will have noticed the number of red herrings that float about in this place! However, he should contain himself on that point because the Minister has not yet spoken. He will be able to help us more thereafter. It was certainly a joy and a pleasure to listen to what he said. I look forward to hearing from him often in the future.
The third maiden speech was made by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, who spoke in the context of his profession. I am sure that he will understand if I say to him that he sounded to me like a chip off the old block! All of us in this House knew and deeply loved his father. Moreover, if ever we cannot see the wood for the trees we shall know exactly where to go for some professional advice.
What does my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who is a personal friend, bring to the House? He brings the quality of authority. He brings to this subject a depth of experience, authority and knowledge as regards our Parliament and the European Parliament where he was a Commissioner. We are fortunate that all three of our colleagues chose this debate in which to make their maiden speeches.
There is not much that has not already been touched upon. I am anxious to leave the Minister with the maximum time in which to reply. The Bill does not address the major environmental problems today; for instance, global warming. It does not accept that local authorities have a role to play as partners in environmental protection and enhancement. It does not recognise the need for the extra financial and staffing resources which local authorities will require to carry out its provisions.
I wish to make only one reference to Part VII, because a great deal has already been said. I believe that the Minister has listened and taken on board the anxieties. In among the many briefs that I have, I received some advice from the Sports Council for Wales. It wrote to me because of my responsibilities in the House as the shadow Minister for Sport. It drew attention to its anxieties about the proposed changes. Noble Lords will want to see how the changes contained in Part VII, as they affect Wales, will be carried out.
I wish to focus on one special aspect of the matter. It is inevitable that the new body, if it is ever formed, will face many difficulties in its early years. It is also inevitable and understandable that most of its attention will be directed towards conservation. Yet, the beautiful Welsh countryside is not a forbidden zone. It is a place which those who are brought up in Wales wish to know, to enjoy and to treasure. Recreation of all types—walking, orienteering, cycling, canoeing, caving, climbing, rallying, surfing, and many other sports have had, and should continue to have, a place in the country. Those activities are not the enemies of conservation. They can help to build up a knowledge and love of the countryside.
In recent years the Sports Council for Wales has begun to develop a useful relationship with the Countryside Commission in finding a place for sport and recreation as part of the balanced life of the

577
Welsh countryside. I am told that the relationship is now at risk with the abolition of the commission and the formation of the new body. It is greatly regretted that no duty has been laid on the new body to consult the Sports Council for Wales about recreation in the valleys, hillsides, lakes and coasts. It is equally to be regretted that the Government have so far refused to guarantee a place on the council of the new body for voices representing access and open air recreation. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
I shall make a point which was mentioned by my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Clinton-Davis, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and many others. It relates to the sadness that they feel that the opportunity has been lost to pay attention in the Bill to energy matters and all that is related to them. Reference has been made to the conference at Bergen. Everyone knows that that conference was designed in the global context, and in the microcontext, to save energy. I wonder whether the Minister, perhaps not today but when we return with amendments, will say something about how the individual can help to save energy.
I represented Edmonton in the Commons, and I still live there. One of the largest employers of labour is the Thorn lighting company. The lighting industry has an important part to play in helping to reduce energy consumption and great improvements have been made in the technology of lighting. For instance, the chief scientists' group at Harwell has produced a report with remarkable figures demonstrating the amount of energy that can be saved if modern energy saving lighting equipment is introduced.
The report states that domestic, commercial and industrial users of electricity could, between them, achieve a 2 per cent, reduction in UK carbon dioxide emissions. That is the main gas contributing to the greenhouse effect. It can achieve an additional 5 per cent, cut in acid emissions if only we would use the new compact fluorescent lighting which is produced in Britain. The Bill will provide an opportunity for such aspects to be raised. I draw the matter to the Minister's attention because there is a great deal of waste, not least in the Palace of Westminster, in the use of energy. That too can be taken on board.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the problems and worries of retailers if the Bill remains as it is, and lays the responsibility for litter and waste on them. I took what he said as demonstrating that retailers are a responsible sector of the community. There are already placed upon them many burdens not of their choosing, certainly not voted for by me; I voted against most of the provisions that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested retailers do not like. I shall not say how he voted. Retailers are apprehensive about the additional responsibilities that will rest upon them. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also raised the problem of trolleys, as did the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I believe that we shall be able to return to these matters in later debates.
In reply the Minister has a major responsibility not necessarily to satisfy the House today but in the future and to state that he will listen carefully when
578
amendments are tabled. At the end of the day we all want a Bill that the people of the country can see is a used opportunity, not a missed opportunity. I do not believe that the Government should set about damping our enthusiasm; the Minister ought to strengthen it.
If I divide the total time used by the number of speakers today, the average time taken per speaker is 13 minutes. On this occasion I do not intend to go above the average.
6.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, first I wish to thank all speakers in the debate, and say how good it was to hear three excellent maiden speeches, all of great import, on the subjects with which they dealt. The knowledge of my noble friend Lord Mills in the area in which he operates is recognised in this House, and I look forward to hearing him take part in the Committee stage.
The eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was well known before he came into this House, and that reputation has been only too clearly demonstrated today. He compared the Bill with the principles set out in the European Commission fourth action programme. I am glad that the provisions of Part I of the Bill in particular not only follow the principles of prevention and waste minimisation set out in the action programme but do so in a manner which is in advance of the Commission's actions and those of other member states. The fourth action programme pledged the Community to take an integrated approach to pollution control. Part I of the Bill takes this integrated approach. So far the Community has not yet taken any significant practical steps towards integration. I hope that they will be inspired by the provision of IPC to do so in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, will be aware of my interests in forestry. I applaud the fact that somebody has entered this House who has such a great knowledge of afforestation. The noble Lord will agree with me, when he takes part in debates on forestry, that they are very lively affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, wondered about the meaning of BATNEEC (best available techniques not entailing excessive costs) and who should decide what they are. This is not the time to go into the detail of that interesting matter. However, I can refer your Lordships to a paper on the interpretation of BATNEEC which my noble friend Lord Hesketh deposited in the Library last month. That paper will allay many fears.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, criticised many parts of the Bill, which is only right; but I was grateful for the support given by the noble Lord for many measures in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked whether the Government would listen. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will listen as the Bill goes through its various stages in this House.

579
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, stated that we should be going a little bit faster. That view does not square with other utterances made during the course of the debate. This is a very difficult area which covers a wide spectrum, and I believe that step by step is the best approach. The White Paper will be forthcoming. The question of resources and spending permeated the discussion from all sides of the House. Spending by governments is always a contentious subject and I have no doubt that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Shadow Chancellor in another place will be contemplating that matter as he talks to those who run City affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, asked me a direct question concerning the White Paper. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced at the last Conservative Party Conference that we would publish a White Paper before the next party conference, and that is still our aim. If that is the case, publication will precede Her Majesty's Speech, but it would not be proper for me to speculate on the contents of the Gracious Speech at this stage. I can assure the noble Lord that the White Paper will set out a strategy of dealing with a wide range of environmental issues over the next decade. Some issues may require legislation.
Reference has been made by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton, Lord Ross of Newport and Lord Dulverton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, to the subject of dogs. I am well aware of the strongly-held opinions on both sides of the argument in regard to dog registration. Members of this House may have the opportunity to express their views at a later stage. It remains the view of the Government that a national registration scheme, as advocated by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Ross of Newport, is not the answer to the problems caused by irresponsible dog owners.
Much discussion centred around what was not in the Bill, in particular the subjects of energy and transport. I can assure all noble Lords that those topics will be fully addressed in the forthcoming White Paper. The Government have recently taken many measures to improve the environmental impact of energy and transport. In regard to energy, the Bill provides the means to implement our commitment to reduce the components of acid rain. As the Public Accounts Committee of another place reported yesterday, the Government's efforts to promote energy efficiency are on target to achieve annual savings of £7 billion by 1995.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked whether it was proposed to ban lead in petrol. That is not something that is proposed, but we have entered into commitments to apply new standards to cut car emissions by 1992 as part of a package of European Commission directives agreed in June 1989. That shows that this Government are very well aware of the problems in both energy and transport. While I accept what noble Lords have said about what is not in the Bill, from the length of the Bill they will realise that there is a lot in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked why we were
580
not addressing the greenhouse effect. The noble Baroness indicated what our answer would be. In the light of the emerging findings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the United Kingdom will be considering a national strategy for limiting CO emissions, as announced at the Bergen conference. As a key reform the second world climate conference in November will consider the IPCC report and take forward international action through the Convention on Climate Change. Part I of the Bill delivers a mechanism for controlling CO emissions from industry as and when appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, also asked about dumping in the North Sea. The Bill extends the Government's powers to control dumping in the North Sea, in Clause 133. The Bill also provides powers, in Clause 13, to control the import and export of wastes.
The question of straw burning arose. I detected agreement that the proposed measures were a popular move. I can tell the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady Robson, that the Government will mount publicity campaigns and fund research into alternatives to burning. The question of increased aid to farmers was mentioned. It is not the current policy to grant-aid the purchase of machinery on farms, but grants are currently available to assist with the supply and installation of straw-burning boilers and furnaces at a rate of 25 per cent, in LFAs and 15 per cent, in non-LFAs.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked about the Welsh situation. He mentioned a letter that he had recieved from the sports council in the Principality. With the announcement yesterday that the chairman of the Countryside Commission is to join the new joint committee, the noble Lord will be aware that that is designed to ensure that we do not lose sight of recreational interests. I am sure that that is a matter which will be taken up by the new chairman of the joint agency in Wales.
I turn now to Part I of the Bill, which deals with IPC. I welcome the strong support from the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, for the provision of the integrated pollution control regime and the role of HMIP. I know of his expertise in that area. We accept that a strong HMIP is essential to the implementation of IPC. I have repeated the assurance that the Government are committed to providing the resources that are needed to secure just that.
A general thread concerning resources ran through almost all of the speeches from all sides of the House. Under Part I the HMIP will have the resources it needs to do the job. We have raised the complement of HMIP staff in post from 148 to 250. Salaries were increased considerably last autumn. Numbers and salaries are both kept under review and we are commissioning consultants to look at non-pay issues that bear on recruitment policy and practice. I am sure that that is a matter to which we shall return again and again. I expect that to be the case at the Committee stage in particular.
The noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned the National Rivers Authority and how it fits in with

581
the new systems. The IPC gives the NRA full powers to set conditions relating to discharges to controlled waters within the authorisation to be given by the HMIP. We consulted widely on different models as to how conditions should be set. The results showed that most industrial and environmental interests alike wanted to see a fully integrated system with single authorisation for all aspects of the process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked about the IPC diminishing the role and power of the NRA. I do not see it that way, nor did my noble friend Lord Crickhowell who made it expressly clear that the NRA will retain responsibility for sustaining the quality of controlled waters and will have the powers to translate its requirements on discharges to water into the consents issued by the HMIP.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell also asked about the question of institutional arrangements for pollution control. They are being examined in the context of the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to local authorities, and he said that the resources in Parts I and II were inadequate. He was right to raise that subject, but I and the Government hope that the charging scheme will ensure that local authorities have the resources that they need to run the new regimes. That is the object of the exercise, and we hope that that will be the case
As regards Part II of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, asked about the question of civil and criminal liability. We need to distinguish criminal liability in this case from civil liability. The duty of care only concerns criminal liability. It makes every person who holds waste liable to criminal sanctions, if he does not act responsibly. That is much fairer and more effective than putting all the blame on the producer alone. Civil liability for damages is the subject of a draft EC directive. There is therefore no conflict between that and the duty of care; indeed, the two may well be complementary.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the recycling of waste. He will be interested to know that an amendment will be introduced in Committee to make the payment of recycling credits mandatory. We do not believe that it is sensible to distort markets for products by offering subsidies, but we wish to ensure that the savings made by a disposal authority are fully passed on to those who make the effort to segregate and recycle waste. The amendment will require disposal authorities to pass those savings to collection authorities and allow such payments to other bodies which may also collect waste for recycling.
My noble friend Lord Layton has a great knowledge of waste and I listened to his speech with great interest. There is a need for authorities to recruit and train more expert staff. They will be assisted in that when charges are introduced, as I said earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Layton referred to recycling and the regional waste authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked why the Government did not give more attention to the recommendation of the Environment Committee for 10 regional authorities for waste regulation. We have given a great deal of attention to the question of where that responsibility should
582
lie. The Government believe it is right that responsibility for waste regulation should stay with the local authorities which are close to the problem, have local knowledge and are closely connected with the planning process for waste disposal facilities. However, we have made it clear that we wish to see much greater co-operation between authorities at regional level, both for licensing and the preparation of regional strategies for the provision of disposal facilities. Discussions are taking place with local authority associations to take forward that proposal.
The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, was also interested in the subject of waste and asked about the strategy of the National Council for Environmental Waste. I listened with interest to his comments and his ideas about a national council which were debated in this House on 9th May. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Hesketh said that the Government were not convinced of the need for a national council to guide industry. Industry is itself taking the lead in producing guidance for manufacturing industry. Both the CBI and the Chemical Industries Association have excellent documents for their members which are available to a wider audience.
The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, asked about waste minimisation. He said that it was vital and that self-sufficiency in waste disposal should be a priority goal. Under Part I of the Bill there will be a requirement on the operators of scheduled processes to minimise polluting waste at source. That will provide a powerful impetus to waste minimisation.
With regard to other matters, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, on the subject of steam engines. I believe that many noble Lords are in agreement with the intentions of the Bill on the subject of litter but I shall look carefully to see whether there are any detailed points to which I need to reply.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, raised the question of litter and British Rail. On that point there was also an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I welcome the noble Lord's comments on British Rail's efforts to tackle litter. I recognise the particular problem of dealing with litter and other dumping alongside railway lines. However, in the case of BR and any statutory undertaking the land is included within the duty, even though the public does not have access to it. The provision in Clause 83 was specifically drafted with the problem of littered embankments in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Lewis, expressed some reservations about the application of the levels of control of GMOs provided in Part VI of the Bill. This matter will be dealt with in regulations. We shall consult widely and listen carefully to the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, and the Royal Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, while welcoming the move of the Government in that regard, raised the question of whether all releases should be subject to consent. The need is for a structure in the enabling legislation which would allow appropriate rigorous levels on control, risk assessment, notification and consent, depending on the particular circumstances of the case.
The level of control to be applied to different categories of release is for regulations on which we

583
shall consult very widely. There is also a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to release information. My honourable friend in another place, the Minister for the Environment, Mr. Trippier, has announced that we shall set up registers of information. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that answer.
I turn to the matter which obviously took up most of the time of the debate; namely, Part VII of the Bill and the Government's plans for the reorganisation of the NCC. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the attitude that he took and for saying that it is his intention in later stages of the Bill to examine most closely on their merits the proposals in Part VII.
The Government have given an undertaking that amendments will be made to reflect our response to the report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, which I too would like to endorse as being most welcome to the Government. We shall also deal with some other gaps that we have already identified. To give an example taken from the list of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, we shall bring forward an amendment to put the responsibility for the quinquennial review of species unequivocally with the joint committee.
The noble and gallant Lord wondered whether the Government's response to recommendation 4.22 of the committee's report meant that the reorganisation of the NCC and the two countryside commissions was back in the melting pot. My answer is that the proposals in Part VII—and I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that there is absolutely no question on the Government's part of withdrawing Part VII—remain firm government policy. We have agreed to look more closely at the links between the existing environmental protection agencies, especially in England, in the context of the forthcoming White Paper. I believe that your Lordships ought to read very carefully the whole of the answer to recommendation 4.22, not just part of it. If noble Lords read it as a whole they will see that what I have said reflects the Government's intentions.
I had a little difficulty in deciding what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, had in mind on the reorganisation. I am very grateful that the grand old man, if I may so call him, of the Liberal Party, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said, in Country Life of 16th March 1990:
"I welcome the proposals and I hope they will be a success."
I do not think that that coincides with or strikes the same note as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Newport.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Massereene that there is no question of wrapping up the NCC. I do not think that I need say more about that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, supported the changes that are proposed. I pass very quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who asked me to give two assurances today. The first was that the NCC's existing responsibilities for protecting wildlife in the GB and international context would be fully covered in Part VII. The second was that the new agencies and new joint committee would be adequately
584
resourced. I gladly do so. On the first point, I should emphasise that every single one of the NCC's existing duties including those for wildlife in the Great Britain and international context are being placed on the new agencies. We have undertaken to spell out the role of the joint committee in more detail in response to the good report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. On the second point, the Government deserve credibility when we say that adequate resources will be provided for the new agencies. After all, we have increased the NCC's grant in aid by more than 150 per cent, in real terms since 1979–80. I defy anyone to say that that is running away from the Government's obligations in that regard.
On the costings which have appeared from the World Wildlife Fund, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has written to the Worldwide Fund for Nature thanking it for the figures on resources and staffing. I would counsel your Lordships against accepting some of the wilder estimates which have emerged. I do not wish to criticise the World Wildlife Fund. Why should I? It is a very admirable organisation. But I am not sure that the Government or the NCC would consider that it had the expertise to advise on such budgeting matters. I wonder whether the World Wildlife Fund is in a position to advise the Government in that regard. The Government in co-operation with the NCC and the chairman designate are working out the details now. We shall announce them in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked about the annual report. He said that it was a recommendation. We want the annual reports of the countryside agencies which will be laid before this House to contain a common section covering the activities of the joint committee for which the chairman of that committee, Professor Holliday, will be responsible. I can assure your Lordships that the joint committee will be free to put the unvarnished truth before the House. We believe that a separate report is unnecessary and inconsistent with the status of the joint committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, also asked about the report in the Forestry and British Timber magazine. I shall have great pleasure in sending him my reply to that report. I shall not detain your Lordships with it at this moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, was also very interested to find out about the joint committee's budget. Ministers will have, and have to have, the last word about the joint committee's budget. That is only right because in the end it is Ministers who can be called to account, particularly on the question of our European and international commitments to wildlife.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hate to detain the House, but when the Minister talks about Ministers, is he talking about the Secretary of State for the Environment having an overriding responsibility, or is he saying that the responsibility for the budgets will be devolved between the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales as well as the Secretary of State for the Environment?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the normal practice within Government on matters of finance relates to those who have the responsibilities; that is, the various Secretaries of State in Scotland and Wales and for the environment as regards England. However, in such matters, as happens with the Forestry Commission, there is agreement between Ministers about the ring-fenced amount.
As regards budgets, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked about ring fencing in particular and I must give a fuller answer than I have given. The precise details are still to be worked out but the principle will be that the core costs, including staff and the costs of research on GB/UK and international issues, should be included in the ring-fenced budget of the committee. In addition, we envisage that county councils will spend a proportion of their budgets on work assembling species data and so forth which will be fed into the JC. We are looking at the accounting arrangements in detail but the latter category may well be best laid outside the ring fence. I do not wish to say more about the subject of funding, which I have adequately covered.
As regards Part VII of the Bill, I was interested to hear the variety of views expressed about the Government's intentions and the views from various parts of the country. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady David, we have no intention of withdrawing Part VII. I say to my noble friend Lord Norrie, no, we shall not proceed with the reorganisation on a reduced base. I was interested in remarks expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the views of the Labour Party on the future of the NCC. They do not accord with those of the right honourable
586
gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who has welcomed the proposals in respect of Wales. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, yes, of course the structure must be right but an organisation is only as good as the people in it.
We have had a long day debating the Bill. I know that there are many questions to be answered but I have covered as many as I can at this time. I shall look to see whether there are any detailed points that I have not answered and I shall write to the noble Lords concerned. The support for the Government's response to the excellent report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has come from many quarters—not least from Professor Holliday, the new chairman of the joint committee, and in a letter received today from Magnus Magnusson—and indicates that the future is assured for a better and sensible reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before seven o'clock.

  ECC STAFFING: BRITISH NATIONALS
  ECC STAFFING: BRITISH NATIONALS
  CROWN SUPPLIERS: TRADING RESULTS
  CROWN SUPPLIERS: TRADING RESULTS
  BSE CATTLE: GOVERNMENT MEASURES
  BSE CATTLE: GOVERNMENT MEASURES