House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Jun 1990

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will realise that people in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire travel to that area for their summer holidays. I refer to the Camping and Caravan Club. Many hon. Members, particularly those from Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, have caravans and they go to Brigg and Cleethorpes. I have heard rumblings about what they would think if the development went ahead. I should have thought that it was in the hon. Gentleman's interests and those of his constituents to withdraw the Bill right now.

Mr. Barron : I shall certainly pass on that offer to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. The correspondence that I have had from people in the hon. Gentleman's

Column 95

constituency is more concerned about proposed changes in a caravan site. For example, I have had correspondence with the clerk to the hon. Gentleman's council.

Mr. Redmond : I also have had many letters from people in that area. It has not been made clear that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is supporting alterations to the caravan site. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would make it clear to people who go to that area that he does not support them and that, as far as he is concerned, they can go elsewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We must get back to the motion.

Mr. Barron : Getting back to the point, we discussed the situation--

Mr. McCartney : Before my hon. Friend leaves that subject, I invite him to deal with environmental assessment procedures published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I hope that the Minister is listening, just in case he might like to respond to my hon. Friend. Page 23 of a document on projects approved by a private Act of Parliament states :

"an environmental statement which can be considered by the select committee and standing committees of each House on the Bill" should be paraded by the promoter. That has not been done. If that is not a flagrant attack on parliamentary procedures, I do not know what is.

Mr. Flannery : A breach.

Mr. McCartney : My hon. Friend is right. The Minister owes it to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to make the Government's position clear on the failure to follow the procedures that were set down by the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The debate is again moving away from the matter before the House. I remind hon. Members that the subject is relatively narrow--it is whether or not the Lords amendments should be considered.

Mr. Barron : I want to explain why I believe that we should support the amendments when we consider them in six months' time. There have been several interventions

Mr. Jack Thompson (Wansbeck) : Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am about the question of environmental assessment, as it links in with the amendments? There is to be a change in clause 18, which shows the difference between using the Town and Country Planning General Development Orders 1977 and 1988. I do not think that there is a conflict of interest between the environmental assessment argument and the use of the General Development Order. I have some experience of planning matters, and they all involve environmental issues. There is no conflict.

Mr. Barron : Whether or not there is a conflict is not a matter for me, but I take my hon. Friend's point. He had many years' experience of planning matters before he came to this House.

Column 96

There is a lack of information, because there has been no consultation either in this House or in the other place

Mr. McCartney : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just received an urgent message that two prisoners have died at Hindley remand centre in Greater Manchester. Could arrangements be made for the appropriate Home Office Minister to come to the House at 11 pm to make an urgent statement about the conditions in that remand centre and the background to the appalling deaths that occurred this evening?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot deal with that sad matter at the moment, but I am sure that his comments have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Barron : I am sorry to hear the news that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has just given the House.

Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has just informed me that a bomb has exploded at St. James's, so there should be a statement on that important matter. Indeed, I wonder whether we should continue with the debate. There should be discussions between the appropriate people about an urgent statement by the responsible Minister.

Although we are discussing the important subject of the environment, I am not sure that we should continue, because we need statements on other important matters. Prisoners have been killed and bombs have exploded, yet we are discussing a matter that we all know can be discussed later. The Minister--he is the only Minister present--has good reason to speak to the Government Whip about urgent statements. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could quite easily facilitate that by suspending our discussions--even if only for a relatively short time--while arrangements are made for those urgent statements.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Those are serious matters, if they are correct. Again, what has been said has been noted by those on the Government Front Bench. One of the great glories of the House of Commons is that our proceedings are not interrupted by any incident outside.

Mr. Barron : I was talking about the lack of consultation on environmental assessment. Simply because no information has been supplied does not mean that there has been an exemption in the operation of the EEC directive. Indeed, in a letter dated 14 February 1990, Mrs. Elizabeth Dissing of the European Commission wrote to Mr. Standaring of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, and said :

"For a project to be exempted from the scope of the directive, it is necessary that an environmental impact assessment, similar to that requested by the directive, is made in the process of adopting new legislation. If an environmental impact assessment is not made through the legislation process, the project is not exempted from the scope of the directive."

If that is the case, it is probable that it can be challenged under the European laws--

Mr. Meale : I am pleased that my hon. Friend has mentioned that point. The Bill must not be passed without an environmental impact survey, and not just because the

Column 97

damage that will be done to roads in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and elsewhere. The Government are discussing with the European Community the planting of a national forest--a new Sherwood forest. My understanding is that the main area that it will cover will be part of Nottinghamshire, through Leicestershire and up to Yorkshire. It will envelop the area through which all the lorries will be trundling. The survey is essential before the Bill is passed. Mr. Barron rose --

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is doing a good job. I am having difficulty in following the debate because the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is continually engaged in conversation with Conservative Members who are coming into the Chamber to ask him what time there will be a vote, what time he is fixing for a vote, and so on. That is interrupting our concentration. It is yet a further sign that there is a plot and that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to gag many Opposition Members who want to take part in the debate.

Mr. Barron : I have briefly read what was said by the European Commission about the operation of the directive in relation to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

Mr. Hardy : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and assure him that this intervention is relevant, given his reference to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Indeed, my point illustrates the argument that my hon. Friend is advancing. Last week, an extremely rare bird, the night heron, arrived and can currently be found in the Denaby nature reserve in Don Valley. Its arrival has been well reported and many people have descended on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). At the moment, that bird is protected because it is in one of the reserves of the Yorkshire Wildfowl Trust, of which I am proud to be patron, and several people are supervising its welfare. But, if in a little while the bird decides to fly away, to tell other night herons of the splendid security, welcome and hospitality that can be found in Don Valley, it might fly east, and if it does, it will fly down the Humber--

Mr. Skinner : Is it a little plover?

Mr. Hardy : No, it is a night heron.

It might fly east, down the Humber, However, all the disturbances could prevent that bird either from reaching its home or from returning to my hon. Friend's constituency. That fact fully strengthens the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley.

9 pm

Mr. Barron : Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an intervention. Indeed, my hon. Friend is a scholar on the birdlife of Britain. I am more than interested to know that the night heron is currently residing within a few miles of my constituency. I may be tempted to go to see it at some stage, provided that I do not have to go out at night.

Mr. Redmond : Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of my constituency are concerned about environmental matters and make generous provision to

Column 98

enable visits from not only wildlife but the constituents of other hon. Members, who come to enjoy our quality of life? Yet it is that quality of life which the Bill and the Lords amendments are seeking to destroy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We should leave the night heron to itself and get back to our business.

Mr. Barron : I agree entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not be dragged further into a debate about the night heron at Denaby or anywhere else.

I referred to the Commission's letter to the RSPB merely to point out that we should not ignore the fact that we, as legislators, should ensure that an environmental impact assessment has been carried out. We should instigate an environmental assessment as part and parcel of our legislation. However, most hon. Members--of all parties--agree that that has not taken place in relation to this Bill.

Mr. Meale : I should like to refer my hon. Frind back to our discussions a short time ago about a new national forest for Britain which, as I said, would cover Nottinghamshire, parts of Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Leicestershire. It will involve about £1 billion of European and British taxpayers' money. It is outrageous that any measure that could inflict such damage on the environment could proceed without an environmental survey of its effects being considered, if not carried out. Will my hon. Friend comment on that ?

Mr. Barron : Although I do not want to go too wide of the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that the new forest that might be planted would cover part of my constituency. Like many other coal miners, I greatly appreciate long-term planning for the coal industry and planting a new Nottingham forest will help us in a few million years.

Just as you took the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was referring to our position as legislators and to the fact that we shall ignore at our peril the EC directive on the environmental assessment that should be carried out by legislators in the different EC countries, or in some other form, and to the lack of it--

Mr. Michael Welsh : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Barron : I shall give way in a moment, but I should like to carry on for a little while, to get over the page.

Complaints have already been made to the Commission about the failure to cary out any environmental assessment of the Immingham project. However, I shall give way now to my hon. Friend before outlining the principle complaints.

Mr. Michael Welsh : I shall be brief. The promoters of the Bill say that this is a private Bill, so they do not need an environmental statement or assessment, although it has been pointed out that the Government believe that the promoters of the Bill should provide an environmental statement. Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if they are right, 61 Tory Members, 18 Cabinet Ministers and 10 Whips voted for the Bill on Third Reading? Therefore, is this not also a Government Bill?

Mr. Barron : My opinion about whether this is a Government Bill is on the record. I do not for a minute disagree with my hon. Friend's figures, but if I commented

Column 99

I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rightly call me to order because I would be going wide of the debate.

I have mentioned the possibility of likely complainants if the Bill proceeds in its present form. I hope that in the distant future the Lords amendments will be accepted by the House.

I have with me a letter sent by one of the original petitioners to the legal services department of the European Community about directive 85/337/EEC and the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. It comes from Greg Kayser of the European relations sector of the Coalfield Communities Campaign secretariat. I shall not read the whole letter-- [Hon. Members :-- "Why not?"] I know that some of my hon. Friends will be disappointed ; perhaps somebody else can do so. I shall read the relevant parts. It states :

"I write as a matter of urgency following a complaint by the Coalfield Communities Campaign that directive 85/337/EEC has been breached in the United Kingdom."

The breach relates specifically to the passage of the Bill through this House and the other place. The last paragraph of the letter states :

"The Coalfield Communities Campaign urges you to give this matter your immediate attention and to apply pressure on the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to recommit the Bill. The Coalfield Communities Campaign will be available to discuss the case either by telephone or in Brussels at any time."

The Coalfield Communities Campaign, which is one of the original petitioners against the Bill, is not taking lightly the absence of the EEC directive with regard to this legislation. The legislation is likely to be challenged in the European Court, and certainly in the British courts, if the House does not recognise what has been said and change its mind to provide a breathing space of six months. To discuss the Bill further now would pre-empt the outcome of the complaints. We can hazard a guess now that the CCC will be one such complainant, but we must remember that when the Bill started its passage, more than nine petitioners were against it. I understand one or two of them have direct interests in the particular area of Immingham. They continue to oppose the Bill in the other place and are likely to oppose it in any way that they can. One of the nine is likely to secure a judgment against the Bill because it is outwith the EEC directive. In those circumstances we should slow the Bill's passage and stop proceedings now, so that we do not make a fool of the House which is our principal legislature.

Mr. Meale : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will recall that the difficulties of Nottinghamshire county council arose because of damage caused and that the Trent area, where the power stations are situated, is about 70 miles from Immingham. But that council, which is part of the Coalfield Communities Campaign, said that it would have to go to appeal because of the likely environmental damage and because an environmental impact survey will not be undertaken before the Bill is passed.

In a letter from that council to the CCC stressing its reluctance to support the Bill, it gives as one reason the fact that being a highway authority, which it is, it cannot restrict the movement of heavy goods vehicles on primary road networks. Another is that the power of the council as

Column 100

a highway authority is limited to the immediate access road to a power station, so it is unlikely that access could be prevented for more than eight hours in any one day.

Those are both important factors. Millions of pounds of damage will be done to the environment and to the road network throughout Nottinghamshire with no environmental survey in sight before a Bill that will affect the county so badly is passed.

Mr. Skinner : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before you took the chair, I raised on a point of order with the previous occupant of the Chair the need for a statement on the explosion just down the road at St. James's. It seems more than a little, not odd, but out of place and insensitive, for the Government not to make a statement before 10 o'clock on that incident purely because they want this debate concluded. I raised that point of order at least a quarter of an hour ago, and I thought that the Minister for Public Transport would convey that request to one of his ministerial colleagues and would manage to get one of them to give the House a report on that explosion. It seems to me that the Government are in a conspiracy with the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and that they are refusing to make a statement because it might interrupt the debate, with the result that we would not conclude the business before the House. If that is the case, the Government are playing a very dangerous game.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : I heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order when he raised it some time ago. The then occupant of the Chair gave the hon. Gentleman the correct response, that there has been no request at this stage for a statement by any Minister. But of course members of the Treasury Bench are fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Barron : Before returning to my arguments, I will reply briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, who raised the important issue of an environmental assessment. I have a letter from the chief executive of PowerGen, Mr. Ed Wallace, to Mr. Stuart Bradley, managing director of Associated British Ports, the promoters of the Bill, on 21 March. It is a short letter, but its contents are important in terms of the environmental impact of the proposal on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, and of neighbouring constituencies, including that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. Mr. Wallace wrote :

"Following our recent conversation, PowerGen has given consideration to the various methods of transport which are available to take coal from the port of Immingham to PowerGen's various generating stations. We have looked at both the commercial and environmental issues involved"--

hardly an environmental assessment. He continued :

"I am pleased to be able to confirm that we view the use of rail transport by British Rail to be an acceptable means of transport having a minimal environmental impact."

I am sure all the right hon. and hon. Members agree with that. He goes on :

"Clearly, the use of such a mode of transport by PowerGen would not preclude the use of any other method if PowerGen so determine it to be desirable for commercial reasons."

That letter was relevant to my hon. Friend's question, and I read it out because any hon. Members with coal mines in their constituencies--there are a considerable number in mine--will know that when British Coal or anyone else, such as the CEGB, moves coal and the load

Column 101

is not sizeable enough to fill a train, it goes by road. That creates havoc in my constituency and in many others, and we do not want that to spread.

We have changed the nature of buying coal for electricity generation. The industry is now considering buying coal in small amounts on the spot market at set times to make a quick buck. It is not importing coal as it used to do, under a 12-month contract, at a set price. With the changed circumstances, the coal may be imported in small ships, and it will not go by train because the shipload is meant for diverse locations and the amounts will be smaller than a train load. Therefore, we will have lorries running round the countryside.

9.15 pm

Mr. Meale : My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the environmental impact assessment. In Committee, it was suggested that coal could be transferred to rail, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and to barges. That was rejected. It is important for me to mention that point because other Opposition Members and one Conservative Member are also concerned about the issue and because there are no canals in and around the north Nottinghamshire area which could be used to take coal to power stations--it has to come by road.

Because of the Beeching cuts, only limited use of the rail network is possible from Retford works to Nottingham city and on to the Trent Valley power stations. If any coal is transferred from the Humberside-Immingham area to my part of the country it has to go by road, and the local authority--Nottinghamshire county council--has to bear the financial burden, because there is no alternative.

Mr. Barron : My hon. Friend makes his point very well and understands the dangers involved.

Mr. O'Brien : Will my hon Friend consider examples of areas where coal is transported by road to power stations? If he goes to Ferrybridge C power station he will find that the grass verges and the road are black with coal dust from the wagons which transport the fuel into the power station. There are canals and rail services, but because the Government in many instances oppose British Rail and British waterways they encourage transport by road, which creates tremendous problems.

The environmental issues are significant, and my hon. Friend is right to mention that the Bill will cause more transportation of coal by road. The examples are there and if anyone wants to see them I invite them to my hon. Friend's constituency, where I live. There is evidence of environmental blight caused by extensive use of road transport to carry coal. I hope that Conservative Members will listen attentively to what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Barron : I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The problem affects his constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford.

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned the bomb explosion not far away from here. I understand that there are a number of trapped and injured people at St. James's. Could you tell the House whether the Home Secretary will be dealing with the police regulations which follows this business, in which case it would clearly be convenient for him to make a statement at 10 o'clock about the explosion? If you have

Column 102

received no information, can you tell the Home Secretary that the House expects a statement at that time because of his presence here?

Madam Deputy Speaker : I have received no information, but I am sure --as I said earlier and as Mr. Deputy Speaker said earlier--that it has been noted by the Treasury Bench.

Mr. McCartney : On a separate point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. About 30 minutes ago I rose on a point of order concerning Henley remand centre. Since then I have been informed that two 19-year-olds, who had not been found guilty of any offence, have hanged themselves in their cells. To my certain knowledge, there have been four deaths at the remand centre in the past 24 months. The position is becoming intolerable, due to the closing of Risley remand centre because of the conditions there and the need to transfer its inmates to other centres in the north-west. This amounts to a crisis for the families. They know that deaths have occurred at the centre. Moreover, on three occasions during the past 12 months industrial action has been taken by the staff because of conditions that affect both the staff and those on remand.

There is to be a debate later on the police regulations. I hope that the usual channels will refer this matter back as a matter of urgency. All hon. Members want information as soon as possible from the Home Office about both incidents. One is very much more serious than the other, but the deaths at the remand centre amount to a tragedy for all the families concerned.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Both incidents are seriously to be regretted. I have received no information about the matter, but I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted it. It is not, however, a matter for this debate.

Mr. Harry Barnes : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Compared with the previous two points of order, this is a minor, technical and procedural matter that relates to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Before you came to the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the promoters had provided us with the relevant sections of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. This may be an even more serious matter than that which was raised by my hon. Friend. The only copy of that Act in the Chamber is held by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley).

The first Lords amendments seems to be minor and technical : that the reference to section 85 should be changed to a reference to section 85E. The sections of the 1985 legislation that are relevant to this measure are sections 77 to 85. Section 85 is now to be referred to as section 85E. The 1845 Act consisted of only nine sections that occupied two and a half pages --

Mr. Michael Brown rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I heard the original point of order. [Interruption.] Order. The Chair must occasionally be allowed to say a word. The matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be an important matter to debate as soon as we reach the amendments. Mr. Michael Brown.

Mr. Michael Brown rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put :--

Column 103

The House divided : Ayes 173, Noes 145.

Division No. 261] [9.24 pm

AYES

Allason, Rupert

Arbuthnot, James

Ashby, David

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Atkinson, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Benyon, W.

Bevan, David Gilroy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Body, Sir Richard

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Brazier, Julian

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Buck, Sir Antony

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Cash, William

Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Curry, David

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Devlin, Tim

Next Section

Home Page