Home Page

Column 21

Aviation and Maritime Security

The following question stood upon the Paper :

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve maritime and aviation security.

3.35 pm

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson) : We are determined to continue to take whatever measures are necessary to improve maritime and aviation security. The Aviation and Maritime Security Bill will strengthen existing aviation security powers and introduce new powers in relation to maritime security.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I report on the investigation into the incident at Heathrow involving Dr. Jim Swire. A senior investigator from the aviation security inspectorate, who is a former superintendant in the Metropolitan police, has interviewed all those involved in the incident. Although there are differences in the detail of the incident as recalled by Dr. Swire and his travelling companion and by British Airways staff, the investigator's conclusions are, first, that it is beyond reasonable doubt that British Airways were aware that Dr. Swire and his travelling companion were relatives of Lockerbie victims when they bought their tickets, when they checked in, when their hold baggage was searched and when they were on the flight ; and, secondly, that there are grounds for believing that British Airways staff, knowing who Dr. Swire was, were insufficiently stringent in checking the radio. I accept that, because British Airways staff knew exactly who Dr. Swire was, it was understandable that they should conclude that he was not planning to take an explosive device on board his flight. Nevertheless, I am asking my chief inspector of aviation security to write to all airports and airlines to emphasise that they must be especially careful in checking electrical items, irrespective of to whom they belong.

Mr. Colvin : I am sure that the House will join me in expressing sympathy--indeed, heartfelt condolences--to Dr. Swire for the tragic loss of his daughter in the Lockerbie disaster. Although he may have been a little unwise to go as public as he did, and in such a dramatic way, about the results of his escapade, he may have done the travelling public a service by identifying a weak link in the security chain.

Is my right hon. Friend happy that the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, now before Parliament, will give him all the powers that he needs to ensure that individual airlines and companies involved in services at airports can be kept in check? Are those powers strong enough for my right hon. Friend to ensure that the necessary security procedures are followed? Does he acknowledge that there is no such thing as 100 per cent. security?

Mr. Parkinson : I wish to associate myself with my hon. Friend's remarks about Dr. Swire. I have met him on a number of occasions, and know that he is a genuine person who is desperately keen to ensure that aviation security is improved. The Bill will be useful when the House passes it, and I hope that there will be no more filibustering of the sort that we experienced 10 days ago. Not only will the Bill give me the power to give directions to a wider range of people ; it will also give me the power to enforce them--

Column 22

including taking such action if necessary as, for example, closing airports, grounding airlines or putting directions on others who serve aircraft and airports. The Bill will be useful and it will provide the necessary additional powers.

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right to say that it is virtually impossible to guarantee 100 per cent. security. However, that is no reason why we should not use every possible method open to us to reduce the risks.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : Does not the Secretary of State realise that his explanation is both singularly silly and singularly worrying? Is he seriously suggesting that we should accept that, if someone is known to the authorities, that means that they are safe? Could not a device be planted on such a person on just that premise? Does he accept--I am sure that he does, privately--that we are in no way reassured by what we have heard today and that we hope that there will be much more stringent action in future?

Mr. Parkinson : The right hon. Gentleman cannot have been following events, or he would not have made that remark. First, Dr. Swire admits that he was one of the percentage of passengers selected. He was taken, his luggage was searched, and the radio was found. Dr. Swire admitted that he packed his bag himself. Those are his words, not mine. The individual making the investigation realised who Dr. Swire was, and she is, as I said, open to criticism for not taking such stringent measures as she might otherwise have done. However, she saw the suitcase and the radio, and Dr. Swire confirmed that he had packed the case--so there was no question of Dr. Swire having been duped.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : As one of the Members of Parliament who represents part of Heathrow airport, I ask my right hon. Friend to clear up some confusion, for the sake of those of my constituents who undertake airport checks. Will he confirm that there was not a failure to detect a real bomb, and that Dr. Swire's action was not part of a genuine suicide attempt, for which staff are trained to be on the look-out? Will my right hon. Friend confirm also that the luggage in question was not unaccompanied, which is very different from the Lockerbie situation? Given that my constituents have an unenviable job to do, does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members who seek to score cheap party points over such an issue should tell my constituents whether or not they should show humanity and compassion towards an individual who so tragically lost a daughter?

Mr. Parkinson : Yes, I will confirm that there was not a failure. The plane involved was one of a number selected at random each week for investigation. Ten per cent. of all hold baggage on those flights is checked. In this instance, the luggage was checked, questions were asked, and the radio was found. The young woman concerned, knowing the identity of the person carrying the radio, took the view that Dr. Swire was unlikely to want to blow up himself and the aeroplane. She is open to criticism, but she did not have the benefit of the hindsight that we have now. I thought that Opposition Members would accept that she tried to use her judgment and to be understanding in a difficult situation.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : I speak as someone who, some years ago, travelled on an aircraft on which there was a live bomb. Is the Secretary of State

Column 23

aware that several people have already served prison sentences for carrying dummy or hoax bombs into aerodromes and airports and on to aircraft? Should not there be a common standard of justice, to ensure an end to nonsense of the kind that was perpetrated at Heathrow last week, when intercontinental flights were delayed by as much as three hours?

Mr. Parkinson : As the right hon. Gentleman knows, enforcing the law is a matter for the police. The police questioned him about his future conduct, and, in the very special circumstances they decided not to take further action. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be a common standard, and that it must be enforced.

Mr. Patrick Ground (Feltham and Heston) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that in air transport the primary risk does not come from passengers who carry their own luggage and whose identity is known to those who undertake searches of them, but that progress needs to be made with securing greater international co-operation in improving security generally?

Mr. Parkinson : My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. In the main, the real danger does not come from accompanied baggage, when the person carrying the bomb travels on the plane, but from attempts to put bombs on planes on which the persons planting them do not intend to travel. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is vital to improve international co-operation. That is why my predecessor and the American Secretary of Transportation took the initiative after Lockerbie of calling on the International Civil Aviation Organisation to draw up much tighter international standards. We continue to work for improved standards in international forums.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) : Does the Secretary of State accept that it would be easier for us to accept the explanation that Doctor Swire was recognised if there had not been a fairly lengthy hiatus between his announcement that he had tried to put a fake bomb on board and British Airways explanation that he had been recognised? Even if one accepts that statement at face value, is the Secretary of State not aware that he raises doubts in my mind when he says that the radio was discovered by the random checking of baggage? Why was the radio not picked up by the X-ray machine when the hand baggage went through? If he will forgive me for raising the matter, what action is he taking about an Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science who disgracefully said that a hoax bomb was in his red box?

Mr. Parkinson : May I say to the hon. Gentleman, who I know studies these matters carefully, that this was not hand baggage. It was hold baggage. It was detected as part of the 10 per cent. of hold baggage that is searched on selected aircraft.

As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, my hon. Friend has already made it clear that he regrets the incident. I ought to point out that the same rules were applied in his case as would be applied in everyone else's case. When he made his foolish remark about his case being full of bombs, the supervisor was immediately called. He was taken to a private part of the examination area and

Column 24

asked to repeat the remark. He did not do so. He retracted it. Had my hon. Friend repeated the remark, the police would have been informed and he would have been interviewed by them.

Last year, there were more than 700 of these incidents at Heathrow and Gatwick alone, when jokesters--members of the public--made such claims once but withdrew them when pressed. My point is that the rules that apply to my hon. Friend apply to all those who travel and who make that sort of foolish remark.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) : Is not the ludicrous difficulty that we face that, although it may be possible to test the degree of risk in particular circumstances in a complex operation, as any modern airport is, one has to remember that there is a finite limit to the tolerance of the public when it comes to the delays and inconvenience to which they are prepared to be subjected regularly, if we are to squeeze out the last possible risks?

Mr. Parkinson : Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Our objective is 100 per cent. screening of all hold baggage. We have written to all airlines and to BAA asking them to come forward with their plans for reaching that target. We recognise that our airports were not designed for this level of search and that there are substantial logistical problems. However, that is the Goverment's declared aim and we intend to pursue it.

It was reported in the press when I wrote to the airlines that some of them were thinking of not co-operating. The point about the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill is that they will not have a choice about not co- operating ; directions will be issued and they will be capable of being enforced. We are working towards 100 per cent. screening of hold baggage, but it will take some time.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : Is my hon. Friend aware that, during the last 10 years, those who use Heathrow airport every week--as many hon. Members certainly do--find that delays of up to 30 minutes are not uncommon when one is being screened for security? In those circumstances, the weaknesses and deficiencies of attempting to achieve 100 per cent. security become obvious. Tempers become frayed and people grow very agitated when they realise that they may miss their flight.

Mr. Parkinson : I recognise that there is always a conflict between getting an aeroplane away on time and getting it away safely. People become irritated and think that the security checks are unnecessary until there is an incident, at which point they appreciate the importance of security checks.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport) : I am still worried about airport security. Will the Minister now state to what extent the security forces are protected by being authorised to carry arms? Are they armed at present or are they to be armed following the passage of the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, which we hope will be enacted next time?

Mr. Parkinson : I do not want to go into too much detail about our security arrangements, because that is a very good way of telling people who might be tempted to get around them what they face. There are armed police on duty at Heathrow and, as the hon. Gentleman knows,

Column 25

exercises are staged from time to time, with a full alert and fully armed soldiers. Our security arrangements do include the provision of armed security.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : In his discussions about attempting to reach the 100 per cent. target for security, has the Secretary of State discussed with the various airlines and the British Airports Authority the need for funding? In trying to reach that target, it will be essential to increase the number of personnel who work at our airports and the number of machines that are used to X-ray baggage.

Mr. Parkinson : Yes, and one of the difficulties, especially in the south-east, is the recruiting and training of suitable staff. Before someone can be accepted for a security job, his employment records, going back over many years, have to be checked. In an area where there is almost full employment, people are not prepared to be subjected to that search if they can obtain another job. The difficulty lies in recruiting people and keeping them ; the problem lies not in a shortage of funds but in getting the right number of staff. As the hon. Lady knows, from time to time people have to be flown from less busy airports to help out at Heathrow in peak periods.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that, 18 days ago, four hon. Members flew from London to Leningrad via Frankfurt? While the hold baggage was checked right through to Leningrad, there were no transit facilities for passengers at Frankfurt, as a consequence of which the passengers had to leave and re-enter going through all the customs and ticketing procedures. That gives members of the public an opportunity to leave their hold baggage to go right through and then to leave the airport entirely. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a thoroughly dangerous procedure at Frankfurt? Can he confirm that the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill will ensure that, if anything like that happened in the United Kingdom, he could stop it immediately?

Mr. Parkinson : One of the main aims of the new arrangements post- Lockerbie is to separate incoming and outgoing passengers and transit passengers. We recognise that that is important, as opportunities could arise for exchanging luggage bombs and weapons. We are therefore concentrating on this separation of incoming and outgoing passengers at every airport. We think that that is a major step in the right direction.

My hon. Friend referred to transit baggage. As he probably knows, any transit baggage going through Heathrow on American airlines is automatically the subject of examination even though it goes straight into the hold.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) : Does the Secretary of State accept that we are fed up with continually being assured by Conservative Secretaries of State for Transport that our airport security is adequate, when time and time again its inadequacy is exposed by the press and others, such as Dr. Swire? Is he aware that, by limiting the inquiry into Dr. Swire's action and by blaming the operator staff, he is behaving in a manner that is typical of his Department, which is always shifting the blame? That is in sharp contrast to the Americans' full investigation into their Government authority's role in security matters-- an approach that has been resisted by

Column 26

the Department. Is not the real lesson of this case that we require a full inspection of luggage, which is expensive and which takes time, but for which we called in our amendment--which the Government resisted--to the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill?

May I impress on the Secretary of State the fact that the relatives of those killed in the Locherbie and Marchioness tragedies welcome the Department's announcement today of an inquiry into a possible injustice arising out of the Titanic affair 73 years ago but that they would like a full, open, independent inquiry into more recent tragedies, which the Department of Transport is avoiding?

Mr. Parkinson : We have just heard a typical rant from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He is always getting fed up about something, while other honest people, like the security staff at Heathrow, have the daily business of examining the luggage of hundreds of thousands of people. They do not sit there like him, hoping that something will go wrong so that they can criticise. They get on with the business of trying to make our aviation more secure.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's remark about the presidential commission and full inspection of luggage, Lockerbie is at the moment the subject of a huge criminal investigation including the investigation of security arrangements at Heathrow. It is also the subject of an air accident investigation branch inquiry, and it will be the subject of a fatal accident inquiry. I announced last week that the Government exceptionally are going to fund legal representation for the relatives of those who died in that dreadful accident.

I want finally to deal with the hon. Gentleman's feeble joke about the Titanic.

Mr. Prescott : It was no joke.

Mr. Parkinson : It was made to a member of my staff by Dr. Swire at about 1 pm today. There will be a marine accident investigation branch investigation about the Titanic. That will not be a huge full public inquiry ; it will involve just the marine accident investigation branch. Exactly the same kind of investigation is already being conducted into Lockerbie by the air accident investigation branch. The hon. Gentleman's point was a total and utter non-point.

So as far as the Department is concerned, I want to repeat what I said earlier-- [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is really interested in aviation security, perhaps he should stop his noisy colleagues from filibustering on that vital Bill and perhaps we could get it through Parliament and help make Britain's airports safer.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker : With permission, I will put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,

That the draft Redundancy (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order 1973 (Revocation) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy Powers) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. That the School Boards (Financial Information) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1277) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Column 27

That the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 1020) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Patnick.]

Column 28

Opposition Day

[18th Allotted Day, First part

]

Environmental Policy

Mr. Speaker : We now come to the debate on environmental policy in the name of Plaid Cymru. I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.57 pm

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) : I beg to move, That this House condemns the current levels of pollution in the Irish Sea, particularly the dumping of industrial waste and sewage sludge, and the discharge of untreated sewage, and is not satisfied with current measures to tackle the problem ; notes the decision of the European Court of Justice to prosecute the United Kingdom Government for failure to comply with European Community Directives on the quality of bathing water ; and calls on the Government to commission an independent survey into the effects of pollution in the Irish Sea and to act on its findings without delay.

As the House will be aware, the gift of these minority party debates is organised through our colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party. As hon. Members of that party sit behind me in the Chamber, I begin by thanking them, as members of the senior minority party in the House for helping to facilitate this debate.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : On a subject in which we have a common interest.

Dr. Thomas : Indeed--I want to explain why we selected environmental policy as the topic for the debate.

We believe that concern about the environment is the major issue facing the Government and the House. The House will notice that our motion concentrates on marine pollution in the Irish sea. We intend to ask for a response from the Welsh Office and from the Government about that tonight. We will be pushing our motion to a Division because of our concern about the inadequate response so far from the Government on that issue.

I might go so far as to suggest that the Government of the Isle of Man have shown greater initiative on that issue than the Northern Ireland Office, the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the Welsh Office, the Department of the Environment or the Scottish Office. That should get me into sufficient trouble with all the Departments and parties in the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland scientists are excellent people, and their work is very good.

Dr. Thomas : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for defending the integrity of the Scottish Office. I should not want to impugn it. The scientists have been very good. Marine scientists have provided us with excellent advice on the issue. We need intergovernmental action. The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is an ideal subject on which to convene an intergovernmental conference similar to the one on the North sea. It would provide a forum not only for scientific opinion to be presented on the extent of chemical, sewage and radioactive pollution of the North sea but to initiate joint action.

Column 29

Marine pollution is a sensitive issue in terms of the marine ecosystem. It clearly relates to food safety and the fishing industry and to the sensitive issue of bathing safety and the health of swimmers and tourists on Welsh beaches. That has clear implications for Ireland, Wales and the English coastline because of our emphasis on tourism and marine recreation. Members of Parliament, scientists and others who highlight marine pollution and dirty beaches are often accused of making political points that can appear negative in terms of marketing our tourist industry. I put that matter straight once and for all. We are deeply distressed about the level of pollution in the Irish sea and other coastal waters around Wales, and we shall not cease to draw attention to the issue as long as there is clear scientific evidence that such pollution exists and that it creates a potential risk to health.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : Is not it a matter of shame that only one bay in Wales, Pembrey, has merited a European Community blue flag?

Dr. Thomas : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I had the misfortune to officiate at the opening ceremony of a sewage outfall in my constituency last year. At that ceremony, I was faithfully promised by the water authority, now Wales Water--Dwr Cymru-- that, within a year at the most, a blue flag would be flying over that beach. I have not yet seen it. I emphasise that point because there is a clear obligation on the Government to clean up marine pollution, as it affects the tourist industry. Indeed, there are international obligations on governments that are responsible for maritime pollution. We look not only to the Government but to statutory undertakings such as the National Rivers Authority for their assessment of the pollution in our estuaries and rivers, which lead into the seas and cause maritime pollution. In that context, we should look to the Welsh Office, in particular, to take a firmer lead on maritime pollution and other related pollution issues in Wales.

Maritime pollution is a good example, because all the rubbish that we produce, dispose of and dump ends up in the sea. I refer not only to the rubbish that we produce but to the rubbish that other maritime countries produce. I am not suggesting for one moment that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mo n (Mr. Jones) is more susceptible because it is an island, but my hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue. He hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to concentrate further on his proposals for cleaning up the Irish sea. Maritime pollution provides us with a case study of all the environmental problems that we face in Wales. I am concerned that we are not doing our bit to help to prevent the major international ecological disasters that now face us.

The Welsh Office has not done its bit in terms of environmental policy. The Welsh Office has been with us for 25 years--we often imagine where we might be without it--yet it has not had a Minister responsible for the environment who would give his or her time and energies completely to that issue. Indeed, at official level, the Department does not have a co- ordinating mechanism to bring together all its responsibilities for the Welsh environment. I invite the Secretary of State, in his first major public response to us in the House, to acknowledge that he is the Secretary of State for the Welsh environment and that, along with his hon. Friends the Members for

Column 30

Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), he will take seriously his responsibilities for the Welsh environment. I hope that the Department will produce an initiative on environmental policy that will co-ordinate all the activities of the Welsh Office. The Secretary of State for Wales must see himself as the guardian of the Welsh environment in all its aspects.

I should like the Welsh Office not merely to contribute to the general debate on environmental issues, which is conducted at the level--

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : On the point about the responsibilities of the Welsh Office for the environment, and especially for the aquatic and coastal environment, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a disgrace that the Department of the Environment and the Crown Estates Commissioners have sanctioned the use of dredgers off the Welsh coast, which is causing the beaches from Southern Down to Sker Point in my constituency to be denuded of sand, leaving nothing but mud heaps?

Dr. Thomas : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for raising that issue, which shows yet again the lack of co- ordination between Government Departments on activities that affect the marine environment.

I hope that this debate will establish that the Secretary of State is taking overall responsibility for this matter. It is not enough for the Department to contribute to the current process of producing a White Paper for the Government as a whole ; I expect to see the Welsh Office produce its own equivalent, as happens in other areas of policy, such as education, social policy and--dare I say it--for the health service. There is a Welsh Office face in all those spheres--although it is not always an acceptable face--but the same is not true for the environment. That Welsh Office face would enable those who are concerned, such as the statutory bodies, the local authorities and those involved in the strong environmental movement in Wales to make their representations directly to the Welsh Office and to ensure that the Department is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities.

After all, the Welsh Office is the Department of the Environment for Wales. It has most, but not all, of the relevant functions of the Department of the Environment. However, it is also the Department which is responsible for the national parks. At the moment, the Countryside Commission is undertaking a major review of the national parks. Although the initial report will be made to the Countryside Commission, it is important that the Welsh Office should be seen as the Department that takes any decisions that affect the structure of the national parks in Wales.

The Welsh Office is also the Department responsible for the activities of local government. Its role is therefore to give a lead to local government in Wales through its policies on the environment. I am thinking especially of waste disposal in local areas, the separation of waste and the availability of waste for recycling. The Welsh Office should be giving a lead to the local authorities and providing small-scale funding to encourage projects that will enable local authorities to tackle such responsibilities in their localities.

More than that, however, the Welsh Office should be giving a much higher priority to environmental policy in its own research budget. Much excellent environmental

Column 31

research is already carried out in Wales. Happily, a great deal of it is done at my University college of North Wales at Bangor. I welcome the announcement last week by the Minister of State that the new central administration of the Countryside Council for Wales will be located at Bangor in the offices of the Nature Conservancy Council. There was great demand to locate the offices in other parts of Wales. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) would have loved to have it at Aberystwyth. I can tell him that the town council in Dolgellau wanted it.

Mr. Anderson : Bala wanted it, too.

Dr. Thomas : I should not speak about Bala, although it is relevant to the debate on the aquatic environment because it has the largest inland lake in Wales. I must get on with my speech.

I welcome the announcement that the centre will be at Bangor. It will enable the centre to work alongside the excellent unit at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology which recently produced a document on pollution in Wales for those of us who attended its official re-launch earlier this year. Research has been carried out into acidification, deposition of nitrogen and other aspects of environmental pollution. Those studies represent a high quality of international research in Wales which is relevant to Wales and beyond Wales.

The scientists who work at the unit at the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and other experts on environmental policy with whom I have spoken emphasise that they are always short of funding. They often operate on short-term contracts. Where they have longer-term contracts, funding is sometimes inadequate to maintain existing databases. In environmental science where short-term projects produce interesting results it is important to maintain the database perhaps for 10 years. That is the time scale on which interesting, relevant scientific results may appear.

I ask the Secretary of State specifically to examine the research budget of his Department and its priorities. He should ask himself whether the minuscule proportion of his Department's budget which is spent on research is adequate. He knows the figures, because he and his colleagues have answered parliamentary questions on the matter recently. About 1 or 2 per cent. of the Department's budget is spent on research. For a Department which spends £4 billion of public money in Wales, clearly that is not enough. The Department cannot simply say that the Department of the Environment already funds research in Bangor. That is true and we are grateful for it. The Scottish Office has funded other aspects of hill farming in Wales and we welcome that. But as the lead territorial Department, the Welsh Office should increase its research budget.

In the present context of high priority for environmental issues, a doubling of the Welsh Office budget for research on the environment is the least that we can expect in response to the debate. I know that the Secretary of State is about to respond to me, and I am sure that he will take that suggestion on board.

It is important not only to examine the Welsh Office programme of research but to consider how the research that we undertake in Wales can be valuable in

Column 32

understanding the international implications of environmental changes. The nature of the country, its geology and topography makes Wales an ideal area in which to study climatic and environmental changes.

The Secretary of State will be aware that, within a radius of 30 or 40 miles of the new office of the Countryside Council for Wales, there are major sites of special scientific interest which include marine sites and sites where alpine ecology can be studied, such as Snowdonia and other upland areas. Within Wales it is possible to study the impact on the Welsh environment of overall climatic changes. For that reason, it is important that Wales should make a direct contribution to international research.

It is a matter not just of contributing to environmental research and assessing our environment, but of action research--in other words, of changing the form of activity which is polluting. I want to consider several sources of pollution. In recent years the farming industry in Wales gradually but continually has been reducing its fertilisers to prevent pollution. Only last week, at the royal show at Stoneleigh, we were discussing the substantial shortfall inorganic produce from the farming industry to supermarkets and the food industry.

Mr. Anderson : Organic food is too expensive.

Dr. Thomas : It is true that there is a 15 per cent. mark-up on premium quality organic Welsh lamb. If the hon. Gentleman were to taste it more often, he would understand why. It is tastier than the lamb that I suspect he usually eats.

Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd) : What if my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is a vegetarian?

Dr. Thomas : The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is a vegetarian.

Dr. Howells : I did not say that I was a vegetarian.

Dr. Thomas : Let me get on with my speech.

There is an opportunity for a substantial switch to organic farming in the hills in Wales. There is an opening in the market. The Minister has an opportunity to improve the perceived quality of Welsh products. After all, much of our farmland is grassland with a low level of fertiliser input, so the step to a greener farming industry in Wales is only a small one. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North will have something to say about that if he has the chance to speak. We have an opportunity to reduce soil pollution from nitrogen fertiliser at the same time as developing quality products from our agriculture industry. All our manufacturing and extracting industries, particularly quarrying and mining, have a strong negative impact on the environment. Wales has put up with industrial processes which have created employment and unique communities-- certainly in mining and quarrying--but which have also created environmental hazards and caused disasters with a cost to human life and young lives. Wales has a legacy of environmentally damaging industries in our economy. I say advisedly to Welsh Office Ministers and the House that when in future we look for inward investment in Wales we must ensure that we expect standards of environmental cleanliness as high as those that would be

Column 33

expected elsewhere. The old argument that it is tolerable to place environmentally unfriendly activities, such as nuclear activities, in remote areas or chemical reprocessing in not-so- remote areas because of the levels of employment and unemployment has gone. We must ensure that we have a green environment which is resource balanced and economically active, based on the ability of the environment to attract industries which are themselves environmentally friendly.

Dr. Kim Howells : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is just such an urgent case before us now? If the Secretary of State for Wales looks north from his window in the great fortress of the Welsh Office, he will see the first hills of Wales at Taffs Well. There is a historic site of special scientific interest which at this moment is under threat from quarrying. That is repeated right through Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State will take that matter seriously when it is put before him, because it is a precious area of scientific interest.

Dr. Thomas : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I may have visited that place during a recent by-election in which he was involved. I am aware of the impact of opencast quarrying because there is a lot of opencast slate mining in my constituency. I appreciate the impact that it can have not just on the immediate level of waste disposal, but on the landscape's overall shape. Where there are sites of special scientific interest or environmental destruction caused by noise pollution to communities and localities, the Secretary of State, as planning Minister, must consider the issues carefully. I know that the Secretary of State may tend to say, as his colleagues do on planning matters, that he does not want to talk about specific cases because he has to determine individual cases. However, surely he and his team are determining such individual cases in the context of environmental policy. Our frequent complaint is that we do not hear what that policy or strategy is. Where there is a conflict of interests or policy objectives between environmental conservation--whether in national parks or on the borders of urban areas--

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : Or Cardiff bay.

Dr. Thomas : --or in Cardiff bay, as the hon. Gentleman says-- wherever there are major individual projects and conflicts involving environmental policies, the Department's duty in that case is--if I may coin a phrase--to come clean and spell out clearly to the public its thinking in such matters. If there is a conflict of interest between the various duties of the Secretary of State and his Ministers according to which hats they are wearing, it is better that it should be known and debated in a public forum, rather than hidden behind closed doors in a castle at Cathays park.

We have to consider not only the global effect on our Welsh environment, the contributions that we can make and the sensitivity of the marine environment, but the way in which the Welsh countryside is affected by changes in planning policies. This is an important opportunity for the Secretary of State to show himself to be the greenest Secretary of State there has ever been. I mean Green with a big "G", not a small "g". We know that he is not green in other senses, because he has had a hard training in other Departments. We also know that he has lived for part of his career in a Welsh environment and enjoyed visiting it.

Next Section

  Home Page