House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Apr 1990

Column 1358

must all hope and work for a solution that does not end in similar tragedies. President Gorbachev, of course, is cleverer than that. Surely the events of the past two years have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Baltic peoples have demonstrated, demanded and voted for nothing less than a return to independence. There is even evidence that their ethnic Russian populations would opt for the prospect of the greater prosperity that would result from being in control of their own destiny. Moreover, we know from their previous independence that they are capable of economic self-sufficiency and would--like Finland, whose economy was much weaker after the war--have become fully integrated into the western economy by now. Indeed, they argue that it is in the Soviet Union's interests for independent Baltic states to act, as Finland is now, as entrepots for trade and technology with the west.

It seems to me that the way is now open for Her Majesty's Government to take initiatives to resolve the future of the Baltic states in a way that should not threaten President Gorbachev's position. First, let us confirm that the secret protocol of 1939 and its implementation in 1940 was a clear breach of international law which determines the Baltic states as a special case. Secondly, it is no longer good enough to regard this matter as one for the Soviet Union as the de facto power and as one for negotiation between the parties concerned. The fact that we withhold de jure recognition of Soviet annexation implies that we will recognise, de facto, a return to independence. If Soviet occupation remains illegal, as it does, current events mean that we can no longer remain silent as to what we would regard as legal. To do so would encourage Moscow to intensify its intimidation.

Does not article 12 of the Soviet constitution as it stands allow for secession? Does not article 1 of both the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights proclaim the right of peoples to self-determination? Does not principle 8 of the Helsinki Final Act guarantee the right of people to self-determination and also their wish, in full freedom, to determine when and as they wish their internal and external status, with the Act itself providing for change in frontiers by peaceful means and agreement?

As they do, do not these international obligations, entered into by the Soviet Union, by us and by all other members of our European community, now require us to seek a solution to the Baltic problem in the wider framework of east-west relations and within that common European home to which President Gorbachev gives credence, which is the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe process? Let us now consult our council of Europe and CSCE colleagues to agree to raise the future of the Baltic states at the forthcoming summit under the Helsinki process, which is already planned to take account of the irreversible events in central and eastern Europe, including, in particular, the forthcoming unification of Germany and the signing of a peace treaty? To ignore the consequences of the secret protocol in seeking to resolve, once and for all, the consequences of the last war, would be a lie.

I accept that these consequences go beyond the Baltic states. They apply to the western Ukraine and Moldavia too, but we should not be put off by that. Any solution must be a freely negotiated one, but it must be on Europe's terms, not those of the Soviet Union. Since no referendum

Column 1359

was held in 1940 to determine the Baltic peoples' wish to nullify their independence, we certainly should not support any suggestion of a referendum to put right what international law has found to be illegal. The recent elections have confirmed the people's choice. As President Gorbachev said to the United Nations in December 1988 : "Freedom of choice is a universal principle which allows no exceptions."

The situation in the Baltic states today determines that these questions must be resolved, and resolved soon. The CSCE is the means. The forthcoming summit is the opportunity. Her Majesty's Government can be the initiator. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's response.

12.19 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave) : It give me genuine pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who has raised an extremely topical subject, and I congratulate him on his success in being able to introduce the debate. I shall comment on his extremely comprehensive and learned speech. My officials could find no fault with the history that he set out. I share with the House the fact that my hon. Friend did me the courtesy of showing me a copy of his speech in advance.

My principal points are in agreement with my hon. Friend. First, he is right to recognise that the progress that has already been made in the Baltic states must owe a great deal to perestroika and glasnost and to the much more liberal policy followed by Mr. Gorbachev and his colleagues in recent years. The response of previous Soviet regimes, let alone Stalin, was very different.

It is worth recognising that the fact that the Baltic people are now, we hope, on the way to recovering their legal rights of independence is another of the beneficial side effects of the general improvement and loosening up in the Soviet Union. That gives us and the Soviet Union the responsibility of doing nothing as any action would give such succour to the enemies of the process of liberalisation in the Soviet Union--and there are many of them--as to bring that process to an end. That is the tightrope which the Baltic peoples--with skill and restraint so far--are walking.

Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend that the danger is extremely close to the surface. It is easy to imagine incidents as a result of provocation or accident which could lead to disaster. The mature behaviour of people in Lithuania--of whom we have seen most in our newspapers and electronic media --in Estonia and in Latvia deserves tribute.

My hon. Friend gave an interesting account of the passage of history, making passing reference to the usual disasters that follow from proportional representation. He made a rather pregnant remark when he reminded us of the disasters in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968. Everyone of our generation remembers the poignant way in which the radio stations said, "Remember us," when they were closed down. That also reminds us of our responsibility.

The history books now show that many young people in 1956 and 1968 believed that in some impossible way the west would physically come to their rescue. Right until the end they were asking where were the American marines, the British and the French.

Column 1360

We should do nothing in any physical sense- -and I am sure that the passage of history has made the Baltic people much more aware of the truth--to raise any expectations that we cannot meet. I am not saying that we should not bring other pressures to bear and enter into the diplomatic process, but it is worth putting it clearly on record that the questions and propositions at the end of my hon. Friend's speech when he talked of the CSCE mechanisms and discussions and the process leading to independence. That is the path we must follow. However, I must correct my hon. Friend on one point. Britain does not regard the matter as an internal one for the Soviet Union. Our position, like that of most of the principal western countries, is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was illegal and that there has never been a legal incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is not pari passu with events in other parts of the Soviet Union ; it is important to make that distinction. That is one of the elements that may lead to a solution. Clearly there must be many in the Soviet Union who fear any movement on the Baltic states as leading to a precedent that would make things extremely difficult for the Soviet Union.

We do not believe that that issue has to be addressed in relation to the Baltic states. They already have a ring around them, given the fact that we and the Soviet Union now believe that the

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was illegal. There is a ring of legality and separateness around the Baltic states, and it is worth drawing attention to that.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put that clearly on record in the House on 27 March when she said :

"we have never recognised the annexation"

of the Baltic states

"to the Soviet Union as being legal."--[ Official Report, 27 March 1990 ; Vol. 170, c. 205.]

I should like to raise a number of points about what will happen next and what we should be seeking to do, which was how my hon. Friend finished his excellent speech. We have taken a number of steps to make it clear that, although we have been urging restraint on the people of the Baltic states and congratulating them on their exercise of that restraint, we should be urging the same restraint on the Soviet Union. We made that clear at the Dispatch Box yesterday. The European Community has twice made it clear in authoritative statements that we do not approve of the threats that have been made. That is not the way to solve the problem.

There has been sabre rattling--with modern technological means rather than with sabres--and, in a repeated statement by the Twelve issued yesterday, we have all deplored that. The Twelve stated that the situation remains difficult and that we are concerned about the potentially serious consequences which an aggravation of the situation might have on the improved climate prevailing in Europe and that the Twelve expressed the hope that a purposeful dialogue between Vilnius and Moscow--they were talking about Lithuania--will commence in the very near future. They call for good will on both sides and the maximum restraint on all sides so as not to aggravate an already delicate situation. Therefore, the message goes very clearly to both sides.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) : Does the Minister agree that it is important for the Twelve, as part of their common foreign policy process, to take that a little further and to take some firm initiatives directly with Moscow to facilitate those negotiations?

Column 1361

Mr. Waldegrave : That leads me to what steps Britain can take. There will be continuous discussions with our European partners and at the recent General Affairs Council meeting and other informal meetings it has been, and will continue to be, near the top of the agenda. We now have a series of high-level contacts starting with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary going to Moscow on Monday, followed not long after by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talked to Mr. Gorbachev at length on the telephone in the spirit in which I am now addressing the House. The Secretary of State had a meeting with the Soviet ambassador in London on 28 March. We shall be pressing for dialogue and discussion, and a peaceful solution to the problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East rightly pointed out, everyone seems agreed about the long-term goal. Mr. Gorbachev has implied that he does not rule out independence ; what concerns him is the legality of the process, and who are we to argue against legal processes? Nevertheless, we must be careful. I suspect that the Lithuanians would not fear any test of genuine opinion in their country. What worries us are the provisions in the new secession law agreed yesterday and published under article 72 of the Soviet constitution.

We can argue with some of the provisions concerning tests of opinion, but at least they are genuinely aimed at finding out what opinions are held in the Baltic states. The requirement for a two-thirds majority in the Congress of People's Deputies, however, is a different kind of hurdle, as it effectively gives two or three of the biggest republics a veto on secession, whatever the majority opinion in the Soviet Union--let alone that in the Baltic states, whose right to independence should be guaranteed by the legal background.

We shall discuss that problem with the Soviet leadership. Nothing could be worse than the development in the Baltic states of the idea that they will be tricked into a cul de sac ; it would be difficult to control the resulting frustration, and that would lead to dangers.

We should not concern ourselves too much with tests of opinion, or with the length of the transitional period. I suspect that we know what the opinion is, and a transitional period of some years may be necessary in any event to disentangle the economy. We must, however, try to ensure that an impossible hurdle is not placed before the people of the Baltic states in the guise of legality, thus vitiating the welcome guarantee from Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Gerasimov that independence--legally secured--is on the cards. That means concentrating on discussion and representation : we must not pre-empt the good will that can surely be engendered by the willingness to talk that the Soviets have expressed over the past few days. A disaster is easily possible. The Government urge restraint on the Soviet Union, and also on the people of the Baltic states. What we want is a dialogue about how they are to achieve their legal right to independence.

Column 1362

Rail Services (North-West)

12.31 pm

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : I have already pursued all the points that I wish to make with the Minister and with British Rail. Let me make it clear at the outset that I am not criticising or attacking British Rail. I do, however, criticise some aspects of Government policy : in my view, the Government fail to recognise the importance of public investment in the railway system--and, indeed, in public transport generally. There is a much better case for subsidising rail and bus services than they believe.

What I have to say is relevant not only to transport but to energy. Investment in public transport should commend itself to a Government who claim to be interested in the environment, as it is one of the best ways of dealing with some of our environmental problems. Let me deal first with rail connections with the Channel tunnel, and services to the north-west as a whole. The service on the west coast line, which was the first long- distance rail network in the country to be electrified, does not remotely match that on the east coast. Prior to electrification, the service from London to York took two hours, whereas the best service journey from London to Preston takes about two hours 40 minutes. I accept that that is partly because junctions and curves restrict speed, but investment is needed to achieve the standard of service that the north-west deserves. The north- west deserves not second best but the best. It has a large population and is a major manufacturing region. The Minister should take account of the important fact that since 1979 jobs in manufacturing in the north-west have declined by 30 per cent. Investment and output are also down by more than 30 per cent. in real terms. One of the reasons for that is that the north- west does not have the road and rail communications necessary to encourage investment.

The Channel tunnel offers British Rail one of the best opportunities for investment and improvement in services that it has had this century. However, it is restrained by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which restricts public investment in international services using the Channel tunnel. The Government should review that section.

There is a case for a link for passengers and freight that bypasses west London to the west coast main line and the Channel tunnel. The proposed links with Euston and King's Cross are second best and are not an acceptable solution.

Lancashire county council is concerned about those issues. In a letter dated 12 March, Brian Hill, its chief executive, said : "The passenger proposals underestimate the likely demand for Channel Tunnel services and, as a consequence, fail to provide the North West, and Lancashire in particular, with the level of service which is justified, and the freight proposals fail to acknowledge existing freight terminal facilities in the County and ignore the County Council's call for a freight depot in central Lancashire, and do not provide sufficient details about the services which will be provided when the Channel Tunnel opens."

That letter refers to British Rail's proposals under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act, which it had to publish last year. The county council's views are right, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about those important proposals.

Column 1363

The Channel tunnel offers us an opportunity to get freight off the roads and on to the railways. Even if rail freight were to increase by 50 per cent., road freight would decrease by only 5 per cent. The current growth in road freight is 5 per cent., so it will be extremely difficult even to stand still.

All people who use roads know that, even if the Government meet the proposed investment in the roads programme, there will still be major traffic problems well into the next century unless we get some of the long- distance freight back on the railways. If the north-west is to have jobs and a future as a manufacturing region, which is so important to the future of this nation, we need rail investment to encourage people to use railways.

I and many colleagues have long campaigned for the link to Manchester airport. In a letter dated 17 August, Greater Manchester passenger transport authority confirms that the former Secretary of State indicated that it should be operational by 1993. I hope that that timetable is adhered to and that the rail link is operating by that date. I hope that the Minister will agree that, although the link improves the service from the north side of Manchester airport to the airport, we need to consider whether there should be rail access from the south side of Manchester airport for people who use that great international airport.

It would be wrong for me not to welcome some of the improvements made by British Rail to local services in the north-west in recent years. The improvements to some stations in Lancashire, in co-operation with Lancashire county council, are most welcome, although only last week, while travelling on the line, I saw that there had been damage to some of the new panels of the shelters. The shelters cost a considerable sum and it is a matter of great regret to me, to Lancashire county council, to British Rail and, I am sure, to the Minister that money has been wasted in that way.

Another example of a change for the better is the Windsor link, which has improved services between the north and south of Manchester. The Roses line, which runs from Preston, through Bradford and on to Leeds, was opened only about six years ago. Next month, it will provide an hourly service, which shows the potential for development of that line.

There is a case for electrification of some of the services within the region. It is ludicrous that Blackpool, one of the major tourist resorts of this country, does not have an electrified service. The line from Preston to Manchester should also be electrified, and there is a strong case for electrification of the Roses line. There is tremendous potential in linking east and west, and there could be an electrified service from Blackpool via Preston, Burnley and Bradford to Leeds. The Minister should consider that seriously, If that scheme were carried out, it would be stupid not to include the electrification of the east Lancashire line to Colne.

Another matter of concern to north-east Lancashire, part of which I represent, and especially to Burnley and Pendle, has been the service to Manchester. At present, one has to go to Blackburn and change for a train to Manchester, which takes a considerable time and is not a satisfactory solution. A link could be provided by going through Yorkshire, which would not involve great new investment in line, but only a small spur. That would give us a more direct and speedy service which would attract

Column 1364

people. At present, few people from Burnley, Nelson or Colne use the rail service to Manchester because it is too slow and inefficient. Electrification of those services would bring about considerable improvement and benefits, and is worthy of consideration.

I know that the Minister will say that he and the Secretary of State are prepared to consider any case for electrification from British Rail if it can meet the Government's criteria and if it can justify it to the Government. The purpose of this debate is to say to the Minister that the Government's criteria are not satisfactory and that Government policy should change to enable British Rail to consider the electrification and development of services in a more positive light under new Government guidelines.

The removal of staff from stations is another important matter. I have here a letter from Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, dated 26 February. He says that, at Burnley Central station, "a single member of staff can encompass ticket issuing as part of his duties and a permanent booking clerk's position will no longer be a feature of Burnley Central."

That is not acceptable to me, to Burnley borough council or to those who use the station. We want staffing levels not only to be maintained but to be improved. When we do away with staff, whether on buses or on railway stations, we discourage elderly people, women and those who fear vandalism and violence from using the services. We must recognise that it can be short-sighted to save on staff wages, because the cost of the increase in damage and vandalism that results from destaffing, and the fact that it discourages passengers, can lead to a net deficit.

Preston station is a major interCity station, and a number of local Lancashire services also run from it. Lancashire county council and British Rail have done much work to improve the station. Incidentally, they are also to improve some aspects of Burnley Central station, where the improved access on one level will be a welcome development for disabled people. At Preston station, however, there remains a great problem for disabled people who need to use platforms 1 and 2 because the only access is by means of very difficult stairs. In a letter dated 3 April, Brian Hill, of Lancashire county council, wrote :

"I would, however, point out that, despite improvements to other parts of the Station, British Rail has failed to come up with a solution for improving access to platforms 1 and 2 for passengers with a mobility handicap. These are the main platforms for British Rail's provincial services at Preston."

We are seeing the end of an era during which the railways declined. In the past few years, there has been a move in a different direction. If the Government rethink their policy and accept that public investment in public transport--in particular, in the railway system, locally, nationally and internationally--they will improve transport and will bring environmental advantages that will certainly be welcome in the north-west.

12.47 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo) : I have great pleasure in responding to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and I congratulate him on having secured the opportunity to talk about rail services in the north-west, which is an important subject. I enjoyed his speech greatly. He took us rattling around the north-west and covered a lot of ground.

However, I found a number of contradictions in what the hon. Gentleman said. He began with an attack on the

Column 1365

Government for their lack of investment and then, with a generosity that is typical of him, paid tribute to the improvements made to stations, services and rolling stock in the north- west. He is absolutely right about that : there have been many improvements and the Government's investment programme has been substantial. The hon. Gentleman and I are not as far apart as he may think. I certainly echo the sentiments with which he ended his speech. I, too, believe that there is considerable scope for the revival of the railways in Britain--not least in the north-west.

At one point, the hon. Gentleman set about predicting what I might say in my speech, and he was accurate in that, too. I shall indeed be talking about the investment that has taken place. Investment in the railways is now at its highest level for 25 years--since the conversion from steam to diesel. We are looking at an investment in British Rail of £3.7 billion over the next three years. Investment in public transport over the next three years will be about the same as central Government investment in roads. I recognise the environmental advantages of investment in public transport, although where we have slow-moving traffic on congested roads, investment in roads can also bring environmental benefits, and we have a balance in Government policy between public transport and roads.

Mr. Pike : I in no way oppose investment in motorways. I am fighting for the extension of motorways in my own area, so I do not dispute the Minister's point.

Mr. Portillo : That is marvellous. We are even closer together than I supposed ; we share our balanced policy.

The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to mention some of the new services available in the north-west. The Windsor link became fully operational last year. It is now possible for through journeys to be made, for example, between Bolton, Blackpool and Stockport, without the need to transfer between Victoria and Piccadilly stations. Manchester Piccadilly station has benefited from a successful remodelling and resignalling scheme to improve the approaches to the station.

Manchester airport will have a direct rail link which is due to be operational in the financial year 1992-93. I am happy to confirm that that is my information to the hon. Member for Burnley. That link will provide direct services from such places as Leeds and Hull as well as from Manchester. I know that the hon. Gentleman is looking for access from the south as well. The frontier always moves on when the Government do what they are asked to do. However, I know that he welcomes the decision on that link.

British Rail is also considering other cases for electrification around the north-west, including Hooton to Chester and Blackpool to Manchester. The hon. Member for Burnley was concerned that there were no electrified services to Blackpool. The north-west is also benefiting from investment in modern diesel rolling stock. Pacer, sprinters and super sprinters are in service in that area and they will be joined in due course by the new class 158 express vehicles which will offer inter-city levels of comfort, air conditioning and 90 mph running.

By 1993-94, the whole of British Rail's provincial sector fleet will be either electric multiple units or the new generation diesels, apart from some stock kept on hand for

Column 1366

special requirements such as football special excursions. To achieve that, more than £400 million has been invested in the provincial sector rolling stock over the past few years and a further £340 million is planned over the next three years. That is a story of Government support for British Rail investment, and investment is the keystone to the strategy in the provincial sector.

New investment means greater reliability, lower maintenance and running costs, an enhanced quality of service and an opportunity to increase the receipts and revenue from the passengers attracted on to the services. Reduced costs and increased revenue mean that services can be maintained with a reduced call on the taxpayer in the way of subsidy. However, I recognise that large subsidies will continue to be needed for the provincial services for the foreseeable future. Indeed, even at the end of British Rail's current corporate plan in 1992-93, we are looking at public sector subsidy of £300 million to the provincial sector.

However, I recognise that some services in the north-west are not nearly as good as they should be, not least because the class 158 express units have been late in delivery. Therefore, some services have not been as good as they should have been because the life-expired diesels running on some routes have been breaking down. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, among others, have probably suffered as a result of that.

None the less, it is worth noting that currently revenue is 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. above the corresponding period in the previous year. There has been an increase of about 11 per cent. in Manchester PTE, and it appears that there has been considerable growth, mainly in off-peak periods. The conclusion that I draw from that is that services are at least attractive enough to bring in new customers. Otherwise, people would be voting with their feet.

As we are considering rail services in the north-west, I am proud of the fact that the Government have now approved the grant to be made to the Manchester Metrolink scheme. That £110 million scheme will provide a new rail-based public transport system within the Manchester area. It will offer services between Altrincham and Bury and will run on on-street track linking Manchester's two main railway stations. That will be an innovatory public transport system, and I am pleased that it will be designed, built and operated in the private sector but with a large subsidy from the public sector. Moving a little outside the area to which the hon. Member for Burnley referred, we have issued credit approvals that will allow the Merseyside PTE to modernise the signalling and information systems on the Merseyrail network. The total cost of about £24 million will be staged over four years. British Rail will be able to cut running costs, and passengers will benefit from more reliable services and information.

Following the King's Cross fire, we have also given priority to a programme of works, costing initially about £14 million, to update the underground parts of Merseyrail for the better protection of passengers, staff, infrastructure and equipment. Credit approvals have been issued, and also, exceptionally, capital grant of £376,000.

The hon. Gentleman referred to inter-city services. He talked about the service on the west coast main line. As he knows, the fastest journey time to Manchester is just under two and a half hours, to Liverpool just over two and a half hours, and to Carlisle about four hours. From May, most

Column 1367

services from London to the north-west will be operated with trains that are capable of running at 110 mph, and there will be an hourly service between London and Liverpool. The line will benefit over the next year from additional rolling stock and extra trains released by the electrification of the east coast main line.

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point when he said that the east coast main line already provides higher speeds than the west coast main line. He is right, but the crucial factor in determining the speed of the line is not so much whether it is electrified, as the layout, the straightness of the tracks and the number of flat junctions that trains encounter. The Government are looking for good economic cases that show that electrification justifies itself. There is often a misunderstanding, which is not shared by the hon. Gentleman, that electrification is the key to speed. Electrification may be the key to more reliable services and lower operating costs, and it is on that basis that it tends to justify itself.

The hon. Gentleman referred also to Channel tunnel services. Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 does not prevent public investment in Channel tunnel rail services. It prevents the Government from subsidising that investment. In other words, it must be an investment that justifies itself with a commercial rate of return.

The hon. Gentleman referred to section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act which sets out British Rail's current views of commercially viable services through the tunnel. As he knows, BR's proposals were based on extensive regional consultation prior to drawing up the plan. For passenger services it is important to recognise that people from places with fast, frequent inter-city services to London will find it convenient to change to inter- capital trains, so BR plans comparatively few daytime trains from the regions.

Notwithstanding that, BR plans a daily service to Paris each morning from Manchester, calling at Stockport and Crewe, where there will be connections with Liverpool services, and a return service each evening with a similar daily service to Brussels. There will also be an overnight service calling at Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston and Crewe.

On the freight side, British Rail recognises that about 70 per cent. of traffic will pass beyond London to the regions. It is anxious to compete in that important market, but clearly it can run only commercially viable services. It is planning a regional freight terminal for the north-west, but it has not yet decided on the site. I understand, though,

Column 1368

that British Rail hopes to announce the locations of the terminals during this year. A train operating centre is also planned at Crewe. Although I recognise the hon. Gentleman's impatience for decisions to be made, there are three years to go. Decisions are being taken in a timely way. Certainly British Rail's section 40 plan will be kept under review and it will be the subject of further consultation. BR would certainly welcome information from the hon. Gentleman's local businesses and other concerns that would enable it accurately to assess the developing demand for international services.

The hon. Gentleman was concerned also about some particular points. I share his ambition that Preston station should be made ever more accessible to disabled people. I very much hope that a way can be found to achieve that.

I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the change from the two- tiered structure of Burnley station to a single-level facility. All facilities will be merged at platform level. That will enable British Rail to reduce the number of staff required, but no exact decisions have yet been taken on the details of that. British Rail has made it clear that it intends to maintain the opening hours of the booking office to at least the present level.

I also hope that the refurbishment of Burnley station can proceed in a timely way. There has been a joint operation between Lancashire county council, which has provided some of the finance, and British Rail, which has provided the bulk of it. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed some of the results. I share his disappointment that vandals have been at work to destroy some of the good work that has been done. British Rail has had to defer some of the work that it hoped to do but, providing that Lancashire county council can come up with its part of the finance in the coming year, I understand that British Rail will be able to improve Burnley Central station and one other station. Despite the disappointing news that the programme of refurbishment will move more slowly than we would have hoped, it seems that there is a good chance that Burnley station and one other will benefit from the improvement programme in the coming year.

It has been a great pleasure to debate these matters with the hon. Gentleman. The review that I have given shows that a great deal of work is being done in the north-west area to improve services and stations. That is possible only under a Government who are committed to public transport and are prepared to see the railways invest massively for the future.

Column 1369

Rutland Water

1 pm

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton) : Rutland water in my constituency is the largest man-made lake in Europe. It is a reservoir which provides the water supply of 450,000 people. It provides recreation and enjoyment for many walkers, cyclists, horse riders, sailors, fishermen and wind surfers and is an internationally famous bird sanctuary and nature reserve. It provides employment and a living to several small businesses and is a major amenity for the east midlands as a whole.

On 7 September last, Anglian Water announced an immediate ban on sailing and warned people to keep away from the water's edge and especially to keep animals away. The reason for the ban was the weird blue-green algae which had been building up progressively on the surface of the water and at the water's edge over the previous few weeks.

I had only just returned from holiday that day, but the following morning, 8 September, I went to Rutland water with the district manager of Anglian Water, Mr. John Green. At that time fishing was continuing, but by the afternoon of that day it had been banned. A major competition scheduled for that weekend was cancelled. The closure remained in force until 18 October and resulted in great financial hardship for the small businesses and clubs which depend on the water. As far as I am aware, they have not been compensated in any way.

The closure of the reservoir was sparked off by the death of 23 lambs and at least 15 dogs. It is worth examining the chronology of the death of the lambs owned by my constituent, Mr. Renner, at Normanton Lodge farm. The first eight deaths occurred on 21 August. Mr. Renner collected a sample of algae which was then very visible and took it with two dead lambs to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinary centre in Lincoln. All the lambs that died had blue-green algae on them. There were further deaths over the weekend of 26 to 28 August and on 4, 5 and 6 September.

The death of the dogs was also spread over several days. Some vets originally thought that they had eaten the rat poison warfarin because the horrible symptoms were similar to those which occur with such poisoning. There have been persistent local rumours since that that remains the cause. As recently as last month, a local councillor passed to me an allegation that someone had seen warfarin on the ground round the edge of the water. I have asked the water company about that allegation, but it was specifically denied in a telephone call to me last Friday by the managing director, Mr. John Simpson. On 8 September, the day after the closure, the Leicester Mercury reported the affair. It quoted a spokeswoman for Anglian Water as saying that the public water supplies were not affected by the algae. She added :

"The treatment process deals with the blue-green algae. It will have no effect on the drinking water."

The same day, the newspaper quoted Dr. Garry Whitelam of the university of Leicester saying that several forms of the algae were toxic, that it was a worldwide problem, and that there were three different kinds of cyanobacteria, one of them a liver toxin which had caused catle deaths in other countries, another a neurotoxin which had caused convulsions and spasms in mammals and another a skin

Column 1370

irritant known as swimmer's itch. If that was known to Dr. Whitelam, it should presumably have been known to Anglian Water.

On the day I visited the reservoir, I was specifically assured by Anglian Water that there was no danger to public water supplies and that the algae had been caused by the long dry spell of weather. I was told that it was an entirely natural phenomenon resulting from nutrients in the rivers which were pumped into the reservoir interacting with the sun.

However, I was not fully satisfied by those explanations, and directly after the weekend I wrote to Lord Crickhowell, the chairman of the National Rivers Authority, asking him to undertake an investigation. I also spoke on the telephone to his chief executive, Dr. John Bowman. I questioned Dr. Bowman closely about whether the problem had been made worse by discharges of phosphates into the rivers Welland and Nene or by the sewage being discharged from Okeham sewage works. He confirmed that discharges of that kind would certainly add to the process of eutrophication and thereby to the nutrient content of the water.

Since then I have been in continual correspondence with the chairman of Anglian Water, Mr. Bernard Henderson, with Lord Crickhowell of the NRA and with Ministers. I have been to see two Ministers, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier). I made a brief speech in the House on 13 November and I have asked numerous oral and written questions. However, I am still completely dissatisfied with the co- ordination and scope of the investigations.

When I went to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I felt great unease about the co-ordination between the NRA, which did not know the result of the post mortems on the sheep or the dogs, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which had not supplied information from its veterinary service to the Department of the Environment, and the Department of the Environment itself, which did not seem to know much at all, even about the important researches of Professor Geoffrey Codd at Dundee university.

However, a number of facts have emerged. First, the post mortem on Mr. Renner's lambs carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's veterinary service confirmed that microcystin toxin has been found in the liver and rumen contents.

Secondly, a substantial amount of scientific materials about algal poisoning is available in learned journals, mostly in the United States. For example, a note on algal toxins in Wisconsin waters experiencing blue- green algal blooms, written by three water scientists, appears in the 1988 edition of Lake and Reservoir Management. That is all on public deposit in the United States and it is widely available. The 1976 edition of "Black's", the standard veterinary dictionary in Britain also has an article on algal poisoning and is available in the library of MAFF's veterinary service with which MAFF vets are familiar, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food admitted to me on 24 January in a parliamentary answer. The recent learned paper by Professor Codd has five pages of references to other works on the subject.

Thirdly, I have not seen any post mortems on the dogs, but the Parliamentary Secretary told me on 11 January

Column 1371

that two dead dogs had been examined by MAFF vets and that their deaths may have been linked to the ingestion of blue-green algal toxins.

Fourthly, the NRA, which is conducting an investigation which I hope will be published shortly, has confirmed that the principal species associated with the toxic blooms on Rutland water was microcystis acruginosa, which produces the toxin microcystin. In the past few days, Anglian Water has sent me two reports which I intend to treat as public and which I understand have been given to the Department of the Environment and to Rutland district council. One of them hums and hahs at considerable length about the causes of the disaster last August and September and refers to the work of Professor Codd at Dundee university. It admits that the first report about the scum from toxic blooms was published as long ago as 1878, following the death of domestic animals. It says that none of the post mortems on the animals that died at Rutland water is conclusive, but it admits :

"the symptoms described are consistent with microcystin poisoning."

It accepts that phosphate and nitrate are key nutrients and that phosphate concentrations rose slightly in Rutland water in 1989 because of increased pumping from the Rivers Welland and Nene during a dry summer.

The report suggests that there must have been special factors at Rutland water to account for the heavier scum than at other reservoirs, which it blames on local physical features such as the prevailing winds or water movements. It adds that additional biologists and biological technicians are being recruited and that extra treatment is being installed at Oakham sewage treatment works "to remove the minor load of phosphate."

However, the report admits :

"it is therefore possible that given similar climatic conditions, blue- green algal blooms could develop during the interim, including the coming summer."

There follow three extraordinary sentences :

"It seems likely from the evidence that healthy fish caught at the time of a microcystin bloom are probably safe to eat. However, if an angler has any doubts, it is open to him or her not to eat the fish. If more specific advice can be given at the time of an incident such advice will be made available."

Not many people will regard those statements as helpful or reassuring.

Anglian Water's second report concerns water supply. It is worth remembering that, at every stage, Anglian Water said that the drinking water was safe. The report is hard to understand and is full of endless qualifications about the difficulty of comprehending data and whether the scientific results are satisfactory. According to the report, there was a brief period, from mid-October to 1 November 1989, when some possible microcystin in the filtered, final water was measured at up to 16 mg per litre on one particular day, compared with less than 1 mg in late September 1989.

The scientists seem unsure whether their experiments are valid, whether the element really was microcystin or what they call pseudo-microcystin, or why some of the treated water had a higher concentration of it than the untreated water. Clearly, the experts are very sceptical about the findings. They say that there remains a strong possibility that the compound reported as microcystin was wrongly identified, and report that work is continuing. They conclude that the water did not contain--this is the vital point--microcystin at levels harmful to health. They

Next Section

Home Page