House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Dec 1990

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : May I press the Secretary of State on the question of textiles? It is difficult to grasp the detail. I should be obliged if he would say a word about the linkage between strengthened rules and disciplines and access to third countries' markets. It might be helpful to put a draft of the text in the Library, so that hon. Members can see for themselves what has been at least tentatively agreed.

In the event of no agreement being reached by July 1991, if the MFA flies off, will that mean no controls after that date, and does the same apply to bilateral agreements that go beyond July 1991?

Mr. Lilley : To respond to the hon. Gentleman's last question, if there were no successful outcome to the round--I hope very much that there will be--the CAP would terminate automatically-- [Hon. Members :-- "CAP?"] I am sorry, the multi-fibre arrangement : that was wishful thinking. The MFA will lapse automatically at the end of July. Textiles will then automatically be treated in the same way as other goods. Bilateral arrangements are largely outlawed under the ordinary GATT agreements. GATT's purpose is to try to phase out and do without such things. I shall try to put any papers that are available in the Library for hon. Members to peruse, though some of them are opaque and include many square bracket entries where agreement has yet to be reached.

On textiles generally, we believe that considerable progress has been made in securing intellectual property rights, which will be of benefit to textiles in outlawing piracy of designs, and so on. That will come into effect before the full phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement. There should be increased access to overseas markets through tariff reductions and the removal of non-tariff barriers. There should be an improved safeguard mechanism, and other rules and disciplines will come into effect well before the phasing out of the MFA-- [Interruption.] Well, it does not need to be a condition. It will be there, before the phasing out of the MFA.

Mr. Steve Norris (Epping Forest) : Given that my right hon. Friend has already referred to the fact that some of the European Community delegates to the talks seemed to be remarkably unwilling to allow the Commission to negotiate on their behalf, does he consider that that might have some interesting ramifications when one takes into account the proposed European central bank?

Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was an interesting experience to participate in last week's negotiations. It is hard to believe that those who are so reluctant to concede sovereignty on a matter which, in principle, has been within the Community's competence for the past two or three decades would be willing to hand over monetary policy to a truly independent central bank.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) : Does the Minister accept that it comes as no surprise to

Column 673

those of us who have been concerned about the detail and the political framework of the common agricultural policy for a number of years that the talks should have broken down, partly on the basis of failure to reach agreement on a common CAP position between the Community and the other participants? Does he also accept that, in a sense, the European Community brought about the breakdown because of its failure to renegotiate the framework of its CAP? Those of us who share the Minister's view about export subsidies are equally concerned about establishing a framework that will maintain agricultural support in terms of income, environmental and landscape objectives and also the food production objectives of the common agricultural policy. Will the Minister initiate such an attempt within the Community?

Mr. Lilley : My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is attending a meeting of the Community's Agriculture Council. Doubtless the member states will consider the consequences of the temporary suspension of the round. Such implications as those that the hon. Gentleman raises will be considered. I still think that it is wrong, however, to attribute the breakdown of the talks entirely to the Community or entirely to the common agricultural policy. Everyone must take their share of the blame. Many of the parties were reluctant to make concessions until too late in the week. When the Community showed flexibility, others were unwilling to recognise that it was making movement. There is only limited freedom of action for the Community, given the need to provide some sustenance of farmers' incomes.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the European trade Ministers gave sufficient flexibility to the Commission to reach agreement? Will he confirm that he believes that if the negotiations had continued there could have been a settlement? Will he also confirm that the Government's policy is still that if subsidies to farmers, who face very difficult circumstances, are cut off, there will be adequate compensation for them?

Mr. Lilley : Yes, I believe that we allowed our negotiators considerable flexibility. Had the talks continued and we were arguing against suspension, it might have been possible for other members to draw out that flexibility and to achieve concessions valuable to themselves and acceptable to the Community. It will probably now require greater flexibility by the Community and everyone else to resume negotiations and to bring them to a successful conclusion early in the new year. We shall have to show greater flexibility than if we had concluded negotiations this week.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Does the Secretary of State agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House have spotted the common agricultural policy as the problem because that policy is predicated on a political ratchet : first, the decoupling of taxes from control and, secondly, the fact that majority qualified voting has been in operation for 17 years makes it difficult for one nation to make a change? Does he agree that embarking on extended majority voting and embracing principles of common policy without considering what effect they would have on the rest of the world and on each producing state is a terrible warning for the next week or two?

Column 674

Mr. Lilley : There is considerable logic, as always, in the hon. Member's position. I have no doubt that those who find the operation of the common agricultural policy unacceptable will be reluctant to see those principles extended more widely.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall need to be twice as flexible in future, first, to get talks going again and, secondly, to bring them to a successful conclusion? Does he further agree that France and Ireland were largely responsible for the breakdown of talks? Whatever the outcome of the talks, will he make it quite clear to those Governments that in future British taxpayers' money will not be used to bail out part-time, peasant and inefficient farmers in those countries?

Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend's first point is an extremely good one, which I hope will be recognised in the Community and among other negotiating partners to the GATT round. I do not want to point the finger at any countries involved in the talks, but those who were most willing to accept suspension and most reluctant to show flexibility should perhaps recognise that, in the next round, when greater flexibility will be needed because of the suspension, they should be the most forthcoming in coughing up the proposed concessions from their budgets and special interests.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I appreciate that the common agricultural policy is very much less than ideal and realise the extent to which it, and reluctance to reform it, led to this interruption, but does the Minister realise that there are matters of substance behind the concerns of many people in this country and in other countries about small agricultural units? Does he appreciate that there is a need to find some other way of providing support? Could he perhaps persuade our Common Market partners to reconsider the old British system of agricultural support that existed prior to 1972? Would not it be easier to operate in the GATT rounds and negotiations? Could not the Government consider taking the initiative of persuading our European partners of the advisability of reforming the CAP in that way?

Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley)--I am sure that the House wishes to join me in congratulating him on his elevation to responsibility for agricultural matters in the Province --has heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks and will be discussing them with our right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There will have to be changes as a result of a successful GATT round and, indeed, if it were to fail, in the evolution of agriculture policy. The hon. Member's ideas will have to be taken into account in that. Given the pressures that have already been felt by the agricultural community in this country, I recognise, like him, that there are constraints on what can be done. We cannot ignore that.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : In the same way that the textiles industry is concerned about the future, so, too, is agriculture. With falling farm incomes and the greater responsibility for the environment that is being laid on agriculture, how can one accept further cuts?

Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend makes the point that I was making earlier : the agricultural community has had to

Column 675

bear considerable pressures, which we bore in mind in the negotiations. We sought, within the existing offer on the table, to try to make it more attractive to other partners in the GATT round without adversely affecting the position of farmers at home. We believe that that was possible and that, to a large extent, it will be possible in future.

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : As the Minister admitted that further concessions will have to be made, will he expand a little on the alternative methods of supporting agriculture that will be necessary? Given his remarks about the need to reduce export subsidies and the high prices that the food-processing industry pays for raw materials in this country, what help will be given to that industry, which has to rely on restitution when it sells abroad?

Mr. Lilley : The hon. Gentleman should be under no misapprehension. I was not suggesting that additional cuts would have to be made on top of the 30 per cent. cut in export subsidies. Towards the end of the week, we discussed some way of ensuring that a 30 per cent. cut in total subsidies by the EC is reflected quasi-automatically in a 30 per cent. or similar reduction in export subsidies. We discussed other assurances to provide that, in years of falling agricultural prices, there is no ballooning of export subsidies, through volumes or through financial limits on the total amount of money going into those subsidies.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was careful to get into the basic EC agreement an assurance that any reduction should be non-discriminatory so that there is no discriminatory reduction in subsidies for processed food at the expense of basic products.

Mr. Conal Gregory (York) : As the food and drinks industry is the largest manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom, will my right hon. Friend confirm that when an agreement is finally reached it will not jeopardise the £2 billion of exports of food and drink to non-EC countries and the 60,000 jobs in various places, including great centres such as York?

Mr. Lilley : That is certainly a good point. We shall try to ensure in the agreement by Community partners that any change in the support mechanism will be non-discriminatory, particularly in terms of the support available for exports of processed food products.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : The Minister will recognise the importance of the textile industry to our manufacturing base. What contingency plans has he made in the event of the talks breaking down and nothing resulting for textiles? For instance, has he taken note of the four -point plan for textiles proposed by the textiles division of the Transport and General Workers Union? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some hope for the industry and its employees?

Mr. Lilley : I am still strongly of the opinion that we can and must achieve a successful outcome to this round, not just because a sudden ending of MFA would have severe effects on and be unacceptable to many countries. We do not think that it would be sensible to start working on the assumption that the round will fail. We shall do all in our power to achieve a successful outcome. If we fail, we shall have to pick up the pieces.

Column 676

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : Given my right hon. Friend's clarity of vision, does he agree that the alleged 30 per cent. offer made by the EEC was littlemore than a bogus fraud, because a 15 per cent. cut had allegedly already occurred and because, in respect of the other 15 per cent., the Council of Ministers and the Commission promised fully to compensate farmers for any reduction in protection? Bearing in mind that the EEC's budget for 1991--which has just been agreed and which, at £23 billion, represents the Community's highest-ever expenditure-- seems likely to be broken, how can my right hon. Friend have the slightest optimism about the idea that we are likely to make progress? Is not this simply a disaster for British jobs?

Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend always shows a daunting knowledge of these figures, but the fact is that a 30 per cent. cut over 10 years--even if part is already under our belt--is a considerable reduction in subsidies. If the world can bring agriculture fully within the GATT round, it will be a major achievement. There will need to be further rounds before we can achieve the degree of development of GATT disciplines within the agricultural sector that has been achieved elsewhere. It will be a significant prize to get agriculture within the GATT round and we shall work hard towards that end.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Does the Minister realise that his comments will have set alarm bells ringing in the minds of the men and women who depend on the British textile industry for their livelihoods and who are most anxious about the job losses that are now taking place? Will he give us a clear assurance that there is no prospect of the British Government's agreeing to the phasing out of the MFA, even over a 10-year period, unless the so-called five safeguards are incorporated under GATT? Will he also give a firm assurance that there is no question of the British Government's once again regarding the British textile industry as expendable?

Mr. Lilley : I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of that. The outline agreement on textiles that was approaching completion before the round was suspended was the sort of agreement which the British textile industry could have lived with and accepted. It envisaged a transitional period of about 10 years and that is not out of line with what the industry has asked for. It also envisaged considerable improvements in respect of intellectual property, rules and disciplines and market access, although the extent of those improvements will not become absolutely clear until we can finalise the whole round. Nevertheless, they were the sort of thing that the industry wanted. Far from coming in gradually as the MFA was phased out, many of those improvements would take effect more or less immediately and that would be a rather better outcome than that for which many in the industry hoped.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : The Minister will be aware of the consequences for third-world economies of the failure of the round. Will not last week's shambles fuel those third-world countries' fears of a Fortress Europe? Is not the tragedy of all this that our traditional trading partners in the third world may well be forced into the arms of rival trading blocs?

Mr. Lilley : The less-developed countries certainly stand to gain significantly from a successful round and to lose

Column 677

substantially from a failure to conclude the round. That was constantly in the minds of both the British Government and, I believe, the other parties to the negotiations. I held a number of meetings, including meetings with some of the less-developed countries. In general, although apprehensive about the prospect of trading blocs closing in on themselves--to which my hon. Friend referred--they believed that a successful round would be a major factor in improving their economies. The inclusion of agriculture in the agreement for the first time and the fact that more of the rules and disciplines of GATT will be brought to bear on their economies--something of which they were initially apprehensive--must in the long run benefit their economies, as it has benefited the economies of developed countries.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : Was not the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) right to smell a Eurorat? Will the Minister admit that there has been a significant--one might say, "Major"--U-turn in the past couple of weeks? Three weeks ago, under the former Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we had a bellicose defence of the American position and free trade, whereas we now have a whispered compliance with the aims of the French and Germans and other farming interests in Europe. That compliance will cost the average British family £14 a week--the amount needed to support the common agricultural policy. Is not that a little too much to pay just to give new Eurocredentials to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Lilley : The Government's position has been consistent throughout. We have sought flexibility within the Community and from other parties to the negotiations and, to the extent that we have attained flexibility in the Community's position and achieved some movement on services from the United States, we were anxious to draw the two sides together. We regret that the talks were suspended when some movement, at least, was being shown on both fronts.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that we have reached this stage with agricultural subsidies because of our failure to define exactly what a farmer is? Everyone seems afraid to tackle a situation whereby British farmers suffer because, in France and Germany, people who would not even be called allotment-holders here are called farmers? They often have jobs in factories during the day and scrabble in the soil at the weekends, but, none the less, receive huge subsidies. Is not it about time that the Common Market got down to defining what a farmer is, so that we can cut those outrageous subsidies? We must have the courage to do that. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food seemed to say yesterday that it was the Americans' fault. It is not. The fault lies with us and only we can solve the problem. The new Government must have the courage to do that.

Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend's point lies behind the insistence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that any changes in agricultural support should be

non-discriminatory. We are determined that British farmers, who, as my hon. Friend said, are genuine, should not lose out when new forms of support are developed which might otherwise have been oriented to the kind of farmers that he attributed largely to

Column 678

continental countries. We are determined that that should not be the case and that any support arrangements should benefit British farmers fully, along with any help directed to continental farmers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : With regard to intellectual property rights, what was the thinking on the issue of the patenting of living organisms which is a matter of enormous importance to the pharmaceutical industry? Some of us believe that there is a danger of a lawyers' paradise being created around the real interests of innovation.

In connection with tropical forest products, does the Minister accept that those of us who were fortunate enough to participate in the recent Inter- Parliamentary Union visit to Zaire received the impression from Ministers in Kinshasa that too much emphasis was placed on policies that would actually be detrimental to the preservation of the rain forests? Before advantages are given to tropical forest products, will the Community be sure that those are not disadvantages for the rain forest, of which Zaire has 46 per cent. of that which remains in Africa?

Mr. Lilley : The outline agreement on TRIPs--trade-related aspects of intellectual property--envisages that each country shall enforce in its own patent law and other rights. It accepts that those have been beneficial in encouraging the development of new products and, by the same logic, will be beneficial in encouraging the development of new plants and other agricultural products. With regard to the importance of rain forests, I am not sure what provisions in the embryonic GATT round the hon. Gentleman believes would apply to them.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South) : While we all welcome the notes of flexibility and qualified optimism that my right hon. Friend has struck from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, does not he also fear that the world could be on the edge of an era of trade wars particularly if the Americans begin to use their formidable section 301 powers of their trade legislation to retaliate against what they rightly see as excessive agricultural exports subsidies by the EEC? In that context, are not the discussions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Council of Ministers at the weekend absolutely crucial? How can those discussions have great hope of success when agricultural subsidies and the GATT talks have a much lower priority on the agenda for discussions than what many of us consider less important matters, such as economic and monetary union and even political union?

Mr. Lilley : My hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly about the danger of the outbreak of trade wars if the round were to fail absolutely. If that happens, we should not simply forgo the benefits of what would have been a very important round ; we should probably also slip backwards with greater use of grey area measures, as they are called, and voluntary restraint arrangements. We might also slip into a trade war and, as my hon. Friend said, there might be resort to super-301 rights which give rise to great antagonism among other GATT participants.

With regard to this weekend's meeting between European Heads of Government, my hon. Friend is right to state that this time the EC must recognise the importance to the Community, as one of the world's great trading blocs, of a successful outcome to the round. That

Column 679

must be given appropriate priority in the discussions--over and above, if need be, other matters that my hon. Friend would consider less important.

Column 680

Terrorism

4.43 pm

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the new phase of IRA terrorism and intimidation which surfaced this weekend in County Fermanagh and which has forced both Roman Catholic and Protestant businesses to insert public notices in the local paper announcing that, under threat from the IRA, they will not in the future do any business with or serve Her Majesty's security forces."

The matter is specific. I have a copy of the newspaper involved at hand. It contains a series of adverts and I will quote from several of them. One from a Roman Catholic business states :

"At the request of the Fermanagh Brigade of the Provisional IRA, I Barry McCormack Proprietor of Silver Dollar Take Aways in Lisnaskea and Irvinestown will not be serving members of the Security Forces." Another advert, from a Protestant business, states :

"The Proprietors of Henry's Filling Station, Lisnaskea, wish to announce that they can no longer welcome business from the Security Forces."

Another advert, this time from Traynor's cafe at Maguiresbridge, which is a Roman Catholic business, states :

"Owing to a phone call we can no longer serve the Security Forces."

Another advert from a Protestant business, W. J. Kennedy at Magheraveely, states :

"We wish to make it publicly known that we will no longer serve the security forces."

The matter is specific. Had it happened on this side of the water, there would have been a furore in the House.

The matter is also important. Anyone who reads Irish history knows the power of boycott. The terrorists will escalate this weapon in their armoury. Terrorists always prevail when law enforcement powers are not exercised by the legal Government. Many people who are against the IRA and all its works have had to bow because they are on record as saying that they went to the authorities, who told them that unfortunately they could not protect them.

This is a matter of life and death. It strikes at those good and true men and women who serve in the security forces in Northern Ireland. They put their lives at risk to serve all the community and they are being struck at in this way by murderous thugs.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the new phase of IRA terrorism and intimidation which surfaced this weekend in County Fermanagh and which has forced both Roman Catholic and Protestant businesses to insert public notices in the local press announcing that, under threat from the IRA, they will not in the future do any business with or serve Her Majesty's security forces."

I listened with deep concern to the hon. Gentleman but, as he knows, my decision is whether to give the matter priority over the business set down for today or for tomorrow. In this case, I regret that the matter does not fall within the criteria laid down under the Standing Order

Column 681

and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. Nevertheless, I hope that he will find other opportunities to debate the matter.

Electricity Supplies (East Midlands)

4.47 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the failure of the Home Secretary's statement in response to the private notice question about the severe weather condition to refer to the electricity crisis in the east midlands."

In the East Midlands electricity board area 300,000 customers have had their supplies cut. Some of those supplies have been cut for two and a half days and some people will not get their supplies reconnected for at least another four days, and that includes my constituents in Barrow Hill.

The cut in electricity supply has caused a further crisis at water pumping stations and many of the areas do not have water supplies. That massive crisis was not referred to in the Home Secretary's statement in response to the private notice question. A statement should have been made by a Minister from the Department of Energy, which should be co-ordinating the problems facing the East Midlands electricity board. That board is undoubtedly doing the best it can in difficult circumstances, but it faces a massive problem.

If the crisis had occurred in the south, I am sure that we would have been told that Bellwin scheme money would be available. Such statements should have been made in respect of Derbyshire county council to help it run its services.

It is essential that electricity supplies be resumed as early as possible. The disruption has been caused by cables falling under the weight of the snow. Trees have come down and pylons have been destroyed. That has led to a massive problem. Nearly 750,000 people in the east midlands area have been affected and see no hope in the future. A Minister should come to the House and say something to ensure that the full resources of the Government are directed at resolving a massive problem in the east midlands area and in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire in particular.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20,

Column 682

for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the electricity supply crisis in the east midlands."

I in no way underestimate the importance of what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I must give him the same answer as I gave the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I regret that his application does not meet the criteria laid down under the Standing Order, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. However, no doubt he will have other opportunities to bring the matter to the House.

Parliamentary Conference

4.50 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last Thursday the House debated the forthcoming European Council and intergovernmental conferences to take place in Rome. During that debate reference was made to unofficial versions of the declaration of a parliamentary conference which took place there recently and which came to a conclusion on 30 November. I wonder whether you could tell hon. Members when we are likely to get the official text of that declaration and whether it will be available to the House prior to the important conferences of next weekend.

Mr. Speaker : I thank the hon. Member for raising that matter. I received a personal copy of the document this morning and I have arranged to have it placed in the Library of the House so that hon. Members may see it.

BILL PRESENTED

Human Rights Bill

Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide protection in the courts of the United Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to which the United Kingdom is a party : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered ,

That the draft General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons : Hyperbolic Systems) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Patnick.]

Column 683

Orders of the Day

Road Traffic Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.52 pm

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is the first time I have had the pleasure of appearing at the Dispatch Box in my new incarnation

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) : I will give you 12 months.

Mr. Rifkind : I start as I mean to go on.

I cannot claim to have been other than surprised at the responsibilities that I have been given. Indeed, I could not help but recollect the splendid words from a sonnet by Wordsworth : "Surprised by joy--impatient as the Wind

I turned to share the transport".

My joy was enhanced by the realisation that, as a result of that translation, I would enjoy the company of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for many weeks, months and perhaps years to come- -a veritable transport of delight.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). During his period as Secretary of State for Transport he achieved a great deal. He not only identified the great priority that must be given to the subject but ensured that the resources which will be available over the next few years will be substantial. My task and that of my hon. Friends has been made much easier by my right hon. Friend's achievements.

Today we are to consider the details of the Road Traffic Bill, but perhaps I could precede my comments by one or two brief remarks about wider transport matters which arise out of the legislation. I begin by commenting on what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. Arising out of the events of the past two or three days, I have asked my Department to review the current arrangements for dealing with sudden weather crises to see whether further improvements can be made to assist the movement of passengers and freight at such times. That review will also take account of arrangements in comparable countries. I am satisfied that action for dealing with snow on motorways, trunk roads and railway lines was put into hand quickly and effectively, but there is always room for improvement and it is right that we should make the effort to see whether further improvements would be appropriate. I hope to report to the House on that matter as soon as possible.

I shall now make a couple of brief comments on general transport policy, which will be of interest and relevant to the Bill. For many years we have been conscious of how transport is crucial to the economy of the country, given that we are a great trading nation and that the movement of our freight, imports and exports is the lifeblood of our economy. I am conscious also that transport is highly relevant to the convenience of members of the public as they go about their normal business. What has become clear in recent years is the extent to which a new dimension is relevant to the debate on transport--the environmental

Next Section

Home Page