Previous Section Home Page

Column 276

other way of controlling still photography. We do not seem to have much control over what is happening with television. The experiment started just with people's heads and torsos being shown, but now there are wider angle shots. I am in favour of that. I want the people whom I represent in the north-east, who get little opportunity to come to London, to see what Parliament is like--the good and the bad. We have an obligation to allow our constituents to see what is happening. Television may use wide-angle cameras, but let us have still photographs as well. That is all I ask.

I know that the deputy Prime Minister is sympathetic. I am not saying that he is supportive, but he has written me sympathetic letters on the matter. Perhaps the reactionaries on the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House, of which he is Chairman, are holding matters back, but I ask for some common sense. If people are enjoying the televised proceedings, let us have still photographs, taken by professionals from behind screens. Everyone in Parliament would benefit.

7.53 pm

Mr. David Porter (Waveney) : A few minutes ago the House heard a moving account from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) of the Towyn tragedy. It illustrates what I want to say. With winter behind us, I hope, I do not think that the House should adjourn for Easter without considering the coasts of Britain and without giving thanks in some cases. By the coasts, I mean the whole United Kingdom sea defence, coastal defence, coast protection and flood protection. Whatever name we give it, it is often all that stands between thousands of people, acres of land and millions of pounds' worth of property and total, irreversible oblivion under the sea.

When I say that we should give thanks, I mean that East Anglia should give thanks because the damage done to Towyn on 27 February, and to other parts of Britain in January and February, was not visited on East Anglia to the same degree, although it was bad enough. That was only because the wind was blowing in a particular direction. Had there been a different wind direction, half East Anglia would have gone. What I referred to in my first speech in the House in June 1987 would have come nearer. Then I said that unless we addressed the problem, the seaside resort of Birmingham would be a reality by the middle of the next century. As a sea-loving nation, we have to temper that love with respect and at times with fear. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), in a magnificent Adjournment speech only last Wednesday, spoke knowledgeably about the urgency of the problem and the need for a national solution. He pointed out that responsibility is shared by 240 different authorities and that 10 new regional coastal groups have not yet met. He cited 10 major Acts stretching over the last 120 years. He spoke of the spectre of global warming leading to rising sea levels and changing weather patterns, with no certainty of the amounts and levels involved. He credited the diverse and many research projects under way at universities and at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He estimated the costs to threatened land and property at £75 billion. He could not begin to estimate the amount of human life under threat. He stressed the need for more research into all aspects. He summarised the

Column 277

needs as co-ordination, research, urgent action and cash. He identified the overwhelming need for a single, responsible body to co-ordinate what is happening.

I support my hon. Friend's call and reinforce it. He recognised in that debate the major works in East Anglia which followed the disastrous floods in 1953. Not only is that work nearing the end of its life expectancy, but it was never total work. If we improve a piece of sea wall here, or put a new groyne in there, the effect is apparent further down the coast.

It is absurd that we do not have a national body in action on the job. The National Rivers Authority has general supervision of sea defences. Why is it not expanded and beefed up to do the job? The sea recognises no local authority boundaries. The wind does not give a toss whether it is an NRA- supervised scheme or a MAFF-approved scheme. The tide sweeps all before it- -house, field and human being. In my constituency there is a tiny settlement called Easton Bavents. It was once bigger but for some years about 12 ft a year have been sliding off the sand cliffs into the North sea. The rate advanced during the recent winter. At the weekend, when I last saw it, the cliff edge was as close to the nearest occupied dwelling as I am to the Front Bench on this side of the House. A modest scheme could be carried out, using blocks rather than a whole sea wall. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food my plea that, once the scheme hits his desk, it will be considered in hours, not months, as is normal. If it is not, Easton Bavents will not exist this time next year. If Easton Bavents goes, half of Southwold will go as well, and probably most of Reydon and all the surrounding farmland and marshland. Indeed, it was only luck in the wind direction recently which stopped the collapse of the weak north wall of Southwold harbour.

I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to use his best endeavours to ensure that there are no further delays in the Southwold harbour scheme, particularly as the other half of the harbour is the boundary of his constituency. We cannot go on relying on mild winters and luck. Corton cliffs, Lowestoft north and south beaches, Covehithe and Kessingland--in fact, the whole of the coastline of Waveney--are as much at risk as the rest of Suffolk and all of Norfolk.

It is not a problem for the local councils alone to tackle and fund, they must remain the first line of defence and proposal, but sea defence is a national issue which needs a national approach ; hence my request for a one -stop, buck-stop agency.

Having said that, I readily acknowledge the progress that has been made. We had the announcement that £161 million will be spent on coastal defence over the next three years. East Anglia will get the lion's share of that money. That is very necessary and welcome, too, although some estimates are that £5 billion would not begin to touch the problem. The maximum grant to local authorities will be raised from 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. Again, that is very necessary and welcome, but I wonder whether the 25 per cent. which remains as a local function is still out of proportion when we are talking about telephone number size amounts in sea defence spending.

Column 278

We need to consider a new dimension in coast protection. Are the groynes and the hard engineering, Victorian type sea walls the answer? Are there not other answers? Is there not a need for a national agency to consider the construction of ramps under the sea, further out, not to control the sea but to enable us to live with it? We might have management control of sea and land erosion by a soft engineering approach. Is not that what we want?

Erosion in one area leaves a build-up somewhere else. We need to stabilise natural beaches and to build submerged barriers, to change the rhythm of the waves. We need to take a strategic view. I do not claim that this phrase is original, but we need a national management agency for Britain's coasts to ascertain what should be saveable and what is saveable. Only a national view will do.

7.59 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : The motion proposes that we should have a break at Easter and for the spring May day bank holiday. As a life- long trade unionist, I shall not object to that.

It is a long time since the Adjournment of the House was considered against a political background as extraordinary as the present one. It must be a long time since a Government have looked forward to a recess with such relish and relief as this Government. They must be revelling in the prospect of having a few days when they do not have to come to the House to answer for the poll tax, the Health Service and the numerous other issues that have been raised. I imagine that the Prime Minister must be tremendously relieved that for a couple of Tuesdays and Thursdays she does not have to come here in front of 7 million people, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), to put up performances such as her recent ones--

Mr. David Nicholson : And my right hon. Friend wins every Question Time.

Mr. Grocott : I shall come to the little matter of winning in a moment.

We have known for a long time the opinion poll figures about the Government's collapsing authority and this weekend's figures show the Government being 18, 23, 27 or 28 per cent. behind us, with the gap increasing. It will be intriguing to see how the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, cope with electoral defeat. The Government and the Prime Minister have had a charmed life for so long, but the test comes when one is behind in the polls. Anyone can lead a political party when things are going well. The test is coming, and we shall have to see how the Government and the Prime Minister stand up to it.

I do not expect the House to take too much notice of opinion polls because we all know that they come and go. I prefer the real polls, such as the one that was held last Thursday in Mid-Staffordshire. I enormously enjoyed the three weeks' campaign there. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that an outstanding Member of Parliament has been introduced to the House. I have worked closely with her. I must also record the deeply sour and churlish way in which the Government prevented the admission to the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) until late this afternoon.

Column 279

That shows what bad losers they can be. My hon. Friend was required to wait around for two and a half hours until she could be introduced.

However, the sourness of the loser cannot detract from the significance of the victory. Like my hon. Friends, I like episodes such as this and we shall relish it. It would be difficult to overstate the significance of the by-election. I know that Conservative Members love hearing quoted pieces from that good newspaper, The Guardian, which reported :

"The Mid-Staffordshire byelection was an unqualified triumph for Labour, one of the greatest in the whole of the party's history The vital statistics of Labour's success can be swiftly summarised. This was the biggest swing in their favour in any byelection since March 1935

The turnout was high, not far short of general election proportions the increase in Labour support, by far the best of the post-war years".

I could go on--

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : Having sat through the debate since quarter past five--I appreciate the pressure on time, Mr. Deputy Speaker--I am in the House as proof positive that there is life after a by-election. What I have just been listening to is precisely what was said throughout the length and breadth of Britain after the defeat of the Conservative party in the Ryedale by-election at which a 16,000 Conservative majority was overturned. I am glad to say that the Conservative party now has a majority of nearly 10,000.

Mr. Grocott : The hon. Gentleman must draw whatever consolation he can during his remaining time in the House. That applies also to one or two of his hon. Friends. Conservative Members should be clear about the fact that, after the Mid-Staffordshire by-election, no seat is safe.

The only persistent theme that the Conservative party managed to string together in the by-election campaign was its constant criticism of the style of the Labour party's campaign. I am not churlish or sour and I am quite prepared to say in this public place that I have no criticisms whatsoever of the way in which the Conservative party conducted its campaign. I hope that the Conservatives have many more campaigns similar to it. We hope and expect that there will be many similar results.

Mr. David Nicholson : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the convention that Front-Bench speakers should attempt to reply to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : The motion lends itself to a wide debate.

Mr. Grocott : I shall not disappoint the hon. Gentleman. A recurring theme in the by-election--and in today's debate, wide-ranging though it has been--has been the poll tax. I do not doubt for a moment that the poll tax was one of the factors that led to our tremendous success, but I should like to say a few words about why it was considered so important by so many people. Surprisingly, that issue did not recur simply because people have to pay more. Characteristic of the views that were expressed by many of the people on whose doors I knocked during the campaign was that, of the few people who will not be worse off as a result of the poll tax, many could see the manifest injustice of that system and were not prepared to vote for it. That may be difficult for many Conservative Members to understand, but it is undoubtedly true.

Column 280

Implicit in all that is the fact that many people object to the style and methods of the Government who introduced the poll tax. I was amused to hear the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) complain that the Labour party is not spelling out its alternatives in enough detail. I refer him to the Conservative manifesto of 1987, which had a total of six lines on local government finance. I do not know what our next manifesto will be like, but I am sure that we shall be able to manage more than six lines on local government finance and to be a little more incisive and profound than stating simply :

"We will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer Community Charge."

That is not the most detailed analysis of local government finance that I have ever seen.

Like many of my hon. Friends, many Conservative Members have metioned the poll tax in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to the crucial fact that it is not related to the needs of local areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) also emphasised the injustice of the poll tax. Like other hon. Members, I associate myself with the tribute paid to Allan Roberts by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North. I know that it is echoed by many hon. Members. The Mid-Staffordshire by-election was not only about the poll tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to another issue repeatedly raised in the by-election--the Health Service. We were criticised many times during the by-election, and sometimes we were criticised for our candidate's campaign slogan, which was, "Vote for what you value." Many Conservatives and the brighter intellectual members of the press told us that that was not good enough and that "Vote for what you value" did not mean anything. It may not mean much to Conservative Members or to some newspaper correspondents, but it certainly meant a lot to the people of Mid-Staffordshire. They knew what they were voting for and what they valued. Conservative Members need not take my word for this--they can look at the ITN exit poll--but one of the things that the people of Mid- Staffordshire valued was the principle upon which the Health Service was founded. They also valued the principles behind the welfare state. They valued a Government who know the meaning of words such as "tolerance" and who believe in a fair system of taxation. They valued a Government who would listen when people criticised. They supported our values and rejected the values of Thatcherism. I use the word "Thatcherism" advisedly. I do not simply use the name of the Prime Minister but refer to the set of values with which she is associated.

In the next few months or even the next year pressure may be brought to bear on the Prime Minister and some moving statement may come from Downing street that she thinks it right to start spending more time with her family. That may be the reason for her going, but it is not a sufficient commentary on her terms of office or the way in which this experiment on our people should be closed. Everyone who has been associated with the Government every Minister and every hon. Member who has gone through the Lobby for the Government--is accountable for what has been done in their name. It cannot be put down entirely to the Prime Minister ; she

Column 281

cannot be held solely culpable. Those who have been associated with the Government cannot simply make a sacrifice of her and wipe the slate clean. The people of Mid-Staffordshire did not accept that and nor will the people of the rest of the country.

It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the by-election. It is increasingly fashionable for people to believe that our electoral system is not the best in the world. I am an unashamed supporter of the first-past -the-post system. I hope that it will long remain. One of its many benefits which is so often overlooked is that it provides for the priceless safety valve of by-elections. Many of the alternatives put forward do not offer a sensible way in which by-elections could take place. We all know about historic by-elections that have taken place over the years. No doubt the Mid-Staffordshire by-election will be rated as historic. If that safety valve and the capacity of people to respond in a particular area at a particular time to the built-up frustrations of the country--which is what happened in Mid-Staffordshire--did not exist we would lose something precious in our electoral system. In replying to the debate, it would be churlish of me not to mention that some Conservative Members who have spoken find the poll tax a particularly objectionable form of taxation. My neighbour the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) has spelt out his views plainly enough on that. Speeches to that effect were made by other Conservative Members. But still the Government are not listening, and still the Government will tinker.

It would also be churlish of me not to mention specific issues raised by several of my hon. Friends who have now left the Chamber. One such issue was that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who made a characteristically persuasive case for removing one area of patronage--the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury--from the hands of the Prime Minister. But my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), as ever, put forward an overwhelming and persuasive case, which was listened to by every hon. Member in the Chamber. Again, he is a person whom I would much rather have on my side than against me. If any cause in the world is looking for a champion, it could do worse than get hold of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West.

I return to the main theme of my speech, which is the state of politics in Britain as we head for the Easter Adjournment. You will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the enthusiasm of Labour Members for current political events. We understand the wholehearted desire of the Government to remove themselves from detailed scrutiny and examination, albeit for the short Easter Adjournment. However, they can dodge and weave from this crisis to that, but they must face the local elections in May and they will have other electoral tests to surmount. They may struggle on for another year, 18 months or two years, but sooner or later they must face a test greater than that of Mid-Staffordshire--the test of the whole country. For Labour Members, the sooner that test comes, the better.

Column 282

8.14 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe) : I begin by joining several hon. Memberwho have spoken in reaffirming our sadness at the death of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). In an equally uncontentious fashion, I extend congratulations to the new hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal). There was no sourness or obstructiveness in the way in which her admission to the House was arranged. The same has happened on other occasions. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) intervened to say that he arrived at a much later hour in the afternoon after his equally important victory at Ashfield. It is important to remember that just as opinion poll figures come and go, so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, do by-election victors. As I recollect, the majority at Ashfield was 21,000. It was swept away in an astonishing recount at an early hour in the morning. But Ashfield is not now a Conservative seat. Nor will Mid-Staffordshire be a Labour seat when the next election comes.

We are more than ready to abide by the advice of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that we are accountable to the nation. We shall, indeed, account for our record when the time comes. We shall do so with success, as we have done three times already.

Mr. Winnick : Will the Leader of the House give way on a matter of procedure?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, he is an inveterate interrupter. I have only 15 minutes to reply. The community charge featured in the speeches of Conservative and Opposition Members. The hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made sweeping and dismissive speeches about it and I shall say no more about them. However, I wish to respond to what the hon. Member for Walsall, North said about South Africa. He was right to draw attention to the tragic events at Sebokeng on Monday. We condemn violence from whatever source. Those events underline the urgent need for parties in South Africa to begin direct talks as soon as possible.

As well as talking about sea-launched cruise missiles and urban ski-slopes, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the position of war loans. I have to offer him the familiar reply on that. Were the Government to respond to his plea, the bulk of the money would simply provide windfall gains for those who purchased the stock after it had already fallen sharply in price. It would cost a great deal and set an unmanageable precedent.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) also spoke about the community charge. He was good enough at least to acknowledge forcefully the overwhelming case against the rating system. He commended a local income tax, which would be a most insensitive vehicle to manage. It has been dismissed for that reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) made some important points about planning and education. He also gave a robust defence of the principles and practice of the community charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) also made some interesting observations about it. He spoke about a dog registration system, which is not something for which I

Column 283

have great enthusiasm. It would cost about £20 million and would give rise to more complications than the collection of vehicle excise duty for rather smaller returns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) offered observations on the community charge from their great experience. I am delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend back from his desert island. Sadly, he does not come back to his antique home of Oswestry, which sounds much more distinguished than Shropshire, North.

My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South, who has apologised for his absence, offered the simple proposition of transferring the costs of education from local to central Government. I say simple because it would be accompanied by arithmetical changes that would make it quite valueless as a transaction. It would erode the effectiveness of local government education and would transfer a burden of some £15 billion from the ratepayer to the Exchequer. That seems a somewhat extravagant claim even for my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South and even with the alleged labour burden of £3 billion. It is simply a book-keeping transaction unrelated to the matter.

I have some sympathy with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North about the need to bring calm and reasoned judgment to bear in a speedy fashion or, in the words of the American Supreme Court, to approach the matter with "all deliberate speed". My right hon. Friend drew attention to the need to consider the ability to pay. When my right hon. Friend and I sat alongside each other in the Treasury some years ago even his brightest ideas, as well as mine, had to stand the test of affordability. The most compassionate approach that my right hon. Friend commends would still need to be tested against how much could be afforded from the central Exchequer.

The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) gave us a fascinating insight into the questions that arise out of the prospective appointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury and the movement towards increasing self- government for the Anglican Church. It was marvellous to behold that radical revolutionary looking back gently on the 450 years of progress in the right direction. He paid tribute to his heroes, Benn and Bradlaugh, who were figures of some distinction. The right hon. Gentleman spoke like an antique churchman as he offered us phrases such as, "I was brought up to believe this" and, "The time will come". His speech was an insight into the reverential, ecclesiastical style that has increasingly come to characterise the right hon. Gentleman. He emphasises that the Labour party is now becoming an extremely broad church.

I was interested in the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle).

Mr. David Nicholson : Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : Forgive me, but not even for my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle referred to his anxieties about the reaction of my right hon. Friends to the report on the House of Fraser case. I understand his argument and he is not alone in making it, but, fortunately, that case has many unique features. In

Column 284

many respects the law and practice has altered since that case surfaced. I doubt whether it will ever be repeated, and we should be careful not to draw too many conclusions from it.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) returned with characteristic vigour to the case that he makes effectively and continually on behalf of the African elephant and the part played by the Hong Kong ivory stock in the matter. The issues involved must be balanced carefully against each other. The Hong Kong Government are in the process of enacting legislation to ensure that the CITES ban is enforced when our reservation is withdrawn on 18 July this year. The legislative process is on schedule, but, in the meantime, the Hong Kong Government will continue to enforce strict licensing and monitoring arrangements to prevent any illegal trading in ivory. The 116 tonnes of ivory without documentation to which the hon. Gentleman referred will not be allowed to be exported.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), in what has already been described as a moving intervention, described the continued hardship faced by his constituents following the tragic events on the coastline of his constituency. He was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), who drew attention to the extent to which such events should be regarded as a national issue and who called for a different approach to their management. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made an important speech about this not long ago. I know that one of the answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West lies in the uneasy balance between insured and non-insured risks and, to that extent, there must be a limit to what the Exchequer can do. My hon. Friends' speeches underline the need for me to draw my right hon. Friends' attention to the need to examine on a more general basis the way in which we respond to such tragedies.

The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) rehearsed on the Floor of the House a conversation that we have had on a number of occasions on his photographic lust, which I share with him to some extent. The arrangements now made provide for what are known in the jargon of the trade as "freeze frames" from the eight television cameras to be made available. In one way or another, one or other of those cameras is, at this very moment, taking a sequence of potentially freezable frames of him and his elegant posture. We must leave the matter at that for now, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will not leave it there and we shall hear about it again. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) drew attention to a tragedy that occurred in her constituency today and the House sympathises with her in that respect. Obviously I cannot respond now to her general case about the Health Service, save to remind her that all considerations of the availability of resources for her constituency or mine must take into account the fact that there has been a 39 per cent. increase in real terms in the total resources going to the NHS. The torrent of demand always rises inexorably ahead of those resources, but somehow we must devise methods to balance both sides of the equation and that will always be difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) characteristically offered me three or four provocative questions before he wished me a happy holiday--I reciprocate that wish to him. I agree with my

Column 285

hon. Friend about the elusive quality of Treasury answers to some statistical questions. I have had some difficulty understanding them when affirming them myself and we must try to do better. As to membership of the exchange rate mechanism, when the time comes the case will be made plainly ; of that I have no doubt.

My hon Friend's general question, to which he returns frequently, related to the damaging impact of the common agricultural policy. My hon. Friend is right to direct attention to the continually damaging impact of surplus agricultural production generated by artificial means. It is not just the CAP that does that ; the United States and Japan create massive surpluses. If my hon. Friend looks at the OECD recommendations in relation to the producer-subsidy equivalent, he will note that Japan is a more extravagant subsidiser of agricultural protectionism than other countries. We do not embark upon such things out of sheer folly, but it is a course that does not commend itself to someone who has had the good fortune to represent the Gorbals and Southend. To others who represent constituencies with a slightly larger agricultural component the health of the countryside is important. It is extremely difficult to find methods of sustaining it, but let my hon Friend sustain the onslaught of criticism. The real question, however, is to work out how on earth one tackles the problem.

Mr. Teddy Taylor : The free market.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : That is part of it, but it is not the complete answer. I cannot indulge in a complete solution now.

My hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and for Taunton also drew attention to the trade gap. In all the shifting statistics about the impact of membership of the Community on our trading performance the most important thing is the extent to which our industrial performance, inside or outside the Community, still falls short of what we would like. There has been a dramatic improvement, but we still suffer from widespread deficiencies in our trading performance compared with other major performers around the world. Our world

Column 286

market penetration is one half or a third of that of France or Germany. We must do better--we are doing better and we shall continue to do so.

The hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) raised four issues. The hon. Member for North Down asked about electricity pricing. No subsidy has been necessary since 1986 and it appeared to my right hon. Friend inappropriate to tie the price of a public utility, Northern Ireland Electricity, to that of the privatised industry on the mainland. I believe that that is a reasonable case. The first point of the hon. Member for Belfast, South provokes the unsurprising answer from me that my right hon. Friend is ready and willing at any time to talk to him and his colleagues about procedures for handling legislation and to consider any constructive proposals. The hon. Gentleman's penultimate point related to the impact of the McGimpsey case on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The constitutionality of that agreement has been upheld in the Irish courts. The status of Northern Ireland in international law is clear : it is part of the United Kingdom. In article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, both Governments affirmed that the status of Northern Ireland would not be changed unless a majority of people living there wished it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the Under- Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, recently said in a debate, willingness to contemplate change carries with it de facto recognition of the position from which change might occur. The declaration on status in the Anglo-Irish Agreement is simply aligned with reality, which is that the status of Northern Ireland is British.

I echo the entirely justified concentration of the hon. Members for Belfast, South and for North Down on the recent vicious attacks by terrorists in Ballymena and Castlederg. Once again, we reaffirm that such attacks will not deflect the Government or the security forces from their absolute resolve to defeat terrorism from whichever side of the Northern Ireland community it comes. That is the position of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 5th April, do adjourn until Wednesday 18th April and, at its rising on Friday 4th May, do adjourn till Tuesday 8th May.

Column 287

Orders of the Day

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Patnick.]

Light Railways

8.33 pm

Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood) : It gives me great pleasure to be called first to speak in the Consolidated Fund debate because it gives me the opportunity to speak at 8.30 pm, whereas a large number of my colleagues will have to speak in the early hours of the morning.

I raise the subject of the operation of metro systems because it is appropriate to do so. There is a growing interest in their operation. It is fair to speculate that had we had this debate 10 years ago, its mover would almost certainly have been my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and nobody else would have been interested in the subject because they would have thought that it was of a past era. The debate would probably not have lasted long.

Now we already have approval for a Bill for a light railway system to run through Mr. Speaker's constituency. There are proposals, at various stages, before this and the other House, for light railway systems in Manchester, Sheffield, the midlands, Bristol and the south, around Southampton and in Croydon. Only this afternoon, in his statement on London Regional Transport, the Secretary of State for Transport said :

"LRT is appraising the extensions of the Docklands light railway to Lewisham and of the east London line northwards ... It is taking forward studies of the Croydon light rail system with the borough and BR."

That is a further and timely indication of the interest right across the nation in light railway or metro systems, as they are referred to.

When I first came to the House, I shared an office for a number of years with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), the Minister for Sport. I was well aware of his keen interest in metro systems. I am sure that he will be particularly pleased by the announcement made today.

In the almost seven years that I have been a Member of Parliament, there has been a dramatic growth in congestion on the roads leading into the city centre of Bristol. When I was first a Member of Parliament the rush hour lasted only about an hour and the backlog up the motorway, the M32, was only a mile and a half. The rush hour, on all the arterial roads, including the motorway, now lasts about two hours and stretches for several miles. Therefore, there is great need for action to be taken in the area.

Column 288

I am pleased that both the county and the Department of Transport are funding the largest bypass system currently under construction anywhere in the country. I hope that it will be completed, as scheduled, in 1994 and that the area will benefit.

There is no doubt that the proposal for a light railway system is to be welcomed and is generally welcomed by the vast majority of the population, not because it will suddenly resolve all our congestion problems--it will not. Anyone who believes that any form of transport policy will suddently resolve our congestion problems is being extremely naive, if not downright stupid. What a metro system in Bristol and other areas may well do is to ease the growth of the congestion. People's propensity to travel is becoming ever greater and, therefore, we must tackle the problems in a radical way. The metro is a radical proposal. The proposals put forward are environmentally friendly and will not add to the congestion on main roads or to the fumes in areas of dense urban population. Therefore, the metro system is to be welcomed provided it can be successfully negotiated between the local community, local councils and the proposed operator. I notice that my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and for Meriden (Mr. Mills) are present, and I am sure that they will talk about the midlands proposals.

In Bristol, parliamentary approval has already been received for one stage and two further stages have been lodged before the House. First, it is proposed that there should be a road link through the city centre towards Temple Meads. Secondly, it is proposed that there should be a two-armed link out to both Yate and Bradley Stoke. Negotiations have been taking place during the past two years and it has proved possible to achieve agreement with organisations such as Avon county council. In the west country we all welcome the completion of those negotiations. However, in the next stages of the legislative process there are objections from three categories--the blockers, the negotiators and the concerned.

Objections in the form of petitions have been placed by Kingswood council and other groups which believe that they can negotiate with Advanced Transport for Avon and other interested parties to achieve a working agreement in the same way that Avon county council has. Also, a large number of organisations and individuals are concerned because they do not understand the position, believe that the ATA has been unable to meet their objections and do not know where they will be left at the end of the day.

When I first started discussions with the ATA on the subject, it was talking about running the system through my own constituency, at Staple Hill, which at present has a cycleway running through it. It was proposed that the cycleway should be diverted through the centre of Staple Hill and back down on to the track where there is a tunnel. I said that that was utterly unacceptable because we could not require people to mount what is virtually a hillside,200 ft high, carrying their bikes, go along a congested high street and come back down the other side. We have managed to resolve that problem and agreed with the ATA that, instead of having a double track through a tunnel, we now have a single track and a protected walkway and cycleway.

Quite naturally, both cycling and pedestrian organisations are still concerned that their rights of way will be obstructed. However, I believe that the problem can be resolved and there should be further negotiations. At

Column 289

present, the ATA's proposals are that the cycle and pedestrian ways will be protected through the length of the cycle path and will be a minimum of 2.5 m wide. However, there are still safety way and fencing problems which must be dealt with. They could be resolved by further discussions.

Safety obviously concerns people because they are not sure of the regulations. I understand that all aspects of a metro's operation are covered by the rail inspectorate. I should like the Minister to confirm that when he replies because it is of substantial concern to local residents at any point along the railway.

The objective of a metro is to ease urban congestion. There has been concern that wherever there is a station there will be huge parking problems. Following discussions among myself and others, including my colleagues who represent other parts of the proposed rail system, it has emerged that there will be two extra stations and there will be a station every 800 yd. That should obviate the need for the vast majority of people to drive to stations and, therefore, the need for large areas of parking.

In many instances there should not be any requirement to provide parking. I understand from the ATA that it is determined that any decision on parking or on the subject of similar objections should be made as a result of negotiation with the local council. When talking about negotiations with councils, it should be understood that there is a need effectively to communicate. The proposers of a metro system must be conscious of the level of ignorance that is to be found among ordinary people and councillors about the general operation of such a system. I advocate strongly that the ATA talks more clearly and openly to local councillors in particular, who are the

representatives of the individuals who are most concerned. I have said already that in part of my constituency the metro will go through a tunnel. Local people are unsure of what that will mean in terms of noise or vibration. I understand that the Department of Transport has confirmed that a study is taking place on noise levels on railways, including light railways. I ask that the Department includes in the study, if possible, the impact of vibration. In my constituency the metro would pass through a tunnel for several hundred yards and many of the houses above the tunnel were built since the old railway system stopped operating, or the occupants of the houses have moved in since the ending of that operation. Therefore, they are unsure. Indeed, they are extremely concerned. They have presented a petition against the proposal because they do not know what impact vibration will have, if any. I am told by the operators that vibrations will not have any impact, but there is nowhere in Britain where a light railway system runs through a tunnel. I cannot confirm or deny what the proposed operators have told me and nor can the proposers. I should like some independent advice from the Department.

The other group which is negotiating on the metro and which finds it difficult to understand the system is one whose members have bought houses in the area since the light railway system has been proposed. I am critical of Bristol city council for not drawing clearly enough to the attention of proposed developers and home owners the ideas of the ATA.

Next Section

  Home Page