House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Apr 1991

Column 1347

Mr. Ron Davies : If the hon. Gentleman does not know the difference between gerrymandering and filibustering, he should be reticent about giving advice on matters procedural to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body).

Mr. Holt : I did not give my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) any advice. I took on board the point of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), that it would have been presumptious for me to give advice to my hon. Friend who, I know, is interested in this debate. However, I do not think that my hon. Friend has too many power stations using atomic energy or many chemical works in his constituency. But I am grateful to him for being here.

Sir Richard Body : The railway system in my constituency is being used for the transportation of these dangerous materials, which has caused great anxiety.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington is against the Bill and proposes to press for a Division. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaugh support my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington in his opposition to the Bill?

Mr. Holt : I repeat that my hon. Friend must be patient. We shall all find out what I am going to do at the end of the debate, when I shall say which way I shall lead the House on Third Reading.

Mr. John Townend : Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been some presumptuousness in the House today? My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) will have to wait and see what happens at the end of the debate and see how I vote.

Mr. Holt : We shall all have to wait and see how we vote. The important thing is to see how many people vote. We shall have to see whether the Government, as this is their Bill, have managed to persuade the payroll to materialise out of the woodwork and present themselves in the Lobby on a Friday, or whether this is genuinely a one-line Whip day, when the wishes of Back-Benchers prevail, not the Executive.

I have a sneaking feeling, because I have not been contradicted in the suggestions that I have made three or four times, that this is Government legislation. As it is Government legislation, I feel reasonably confident that the Government will have done something in the background to bring in hon. Members. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston would like to ask all of them how they are going to vote, how they made up their minds how they were going to vote and which salient points of the debate they took on board? Perhaps they were influenced by a telephone call from the Whip telling them to be here and support the Government legislation on Friday morning. I doubt whether those people have listened to the arguments in the debate or made up their own minds. I freely admit that that is my practice on most Fridays when I vote. That is the way in which the vast majority of hon. Members make up their minds on many pieces of legislation on which they vote day in, day out, vote in, vote out because that is how this place operates. I shall tell my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston which way I shall vote later.

It is worth noting that, while people come out of the woodwork to speak on points of order on a London hospital, there are no Liberals or Labour Members

Column 1348

present, except one Labour shadow spokesman, for this debate, which is about the movement of atomic material. When people come to my glorious constituency and drive along the road to Teeside they come across a sign saying "Nuclear Free Zone" put up by Labour -controlled Cleveland county council. That means that the nuclear power station at Hartlepool must be a figment of our imagination.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the Bill. We are on Third Reading and the debate should be restricted to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Holt : I am talking about the tranportation by road of nuclear waste material. It will be transported by a lorry that has been tested, has proper tyres and has undergone an oil change. That lorry will be driven up the A19 and could be involved in an accident. When the driver comes across the "Nuclear Free Zone" sign will the lorry shudder to a stop as he puts on the brakes? Does the Bill tell the lorry driver what to do when he comes to that sign on his way to or from Hartlepool power station to take nuclear material in or out? The Bill does not. It states that the lorry must be in good order and the packaging must be right, but it does not say anything about the man or woman driving the vehicle--but it is a piece of Government legislation.

Having enjoyed being a nuclear-free zone for so long under the loonies, the London borough of Brent has now done away with the nuclear-free zone signs. The last of the signs was recently installed in the civil museum in Brent to mark the passing of the loony left and the signs in that borough. Unfortunately, Cleveland is still controlled by the loony left Labour local authority, which has a right to determine the movement of nuclear material by road and train.

My hon. Friend mentioned that trains, possibly with nuclear material on board, pass through his constituency. I wonder who knows which trains have nuclear material on board. Are there special signs? It appears that, in the Bill, the Government have omitted to mention anything relating to trains.

Mr. John Townend : My hon. Friend must have misheard me. I did not mention trains passing through my constituency. I was worried about the transportation by road of such waste in my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The Bill clearly deals with transport by road and it would be out of order to refer to any other form of transport.

Mr. Holt : I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was drawn along that path by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland and Boston. I was seeking only to answer his point about trains carrying radioactive material passing through his constituency. Perhaps the fact that the Bill relates only to roads is one of its defects. It will be undermined by forthcoming European legislation, which will relate to all the transportation systems for such material. It may not be long before the Government have to return to the House with another Bill. Will that be on a Friday? Will they ask some hon. Member who is lucky enough to have come high in the ballot to adopt it as a private Member's Bill?

I am not really knocking the fact that the Government behave in that way. On occasions, I am glad that

Column 1349

Government Bills go through the private Member's Bill route on a Friday. I was here not many Fridays ago when the House debated another Government-inspired and sponsored Bill to provide for vending machines and television sets in betting shops. That came through the door--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the Bill. It is my job to protect the business of the House and the hon. Gentleman must keep in order. He must relate his remarks directly to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Holt : I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to the whole of the debate and I am simply trying to discuss some points that have already been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South referred to her cottage in the Loire valley and said that the atomic power stations there did not create dust. She was in order

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that I stopped the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) at that point.

Mr. Holt : Your memory is better than mine, Mr. Deputy Speaker--you did stop my hon. Friend. That was when I intervened to remind the House of what happened when the Swedish Government changed their policy on the use of atomic power stations.

My hon. Friend for Kensington moved the Third Reading with alacrity and smoothness, but nowhere near that shown by my hon. Friend the Minister. The manner in which he responded and the fact that he added nothing to the reasons why the Bill is being dealt with in this way made me think that perhaps he had a heavy pressing engagement outside the House. Hon. Members who participate in debates on a Friday--including my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston--want to know why people vote in a particular way. Because my hon. Friend the Minister has left, he cannot intervene in my speech and answer some of my legitimate questions. What about other forms of transportation for atomic and dangerous materials? Will sufficient roads be built? Will roads be identified as priority routes on which the hazardous material must be transported? Will certain roads be banned for the transportation of such material? Can only specific vehicles be used to carry such material, or will any vehicle be permitted provided that the packaging, as set out in the Bill, is correct?

Was not it discouraging to see on our television sets during the past few days that those who transport atomic warheads have been highly criticised by an independent body--not the Opposition ; a body far more learned and thorough? That had Government support, as the Bill has Government support. I have a responsibility to my constituents to be absolutely sure, before I vote on proposed legislation, that it is in their best interests. I am not convinced that the Bill is in their best interests, especially in view of the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister. Of course, if I were to be polite, I would refer to his lack of speech. He did not answer any of the points made. He has gone and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food--who is waiting for the next debate--is holding the seat on the Treasury Bench. I doubt whether an Agriculture Minister would wish to intervene in a road transport debate.

Column 1350

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean) : My hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically unfair. I urged my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to leave so that he could fulfil his important engagements. Before he did so, he gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Stoke-on- Trent, North (Ms. Walley)--who has also left to fulfil engagements--that he would write to her on any detailed points. This is a Third Reading debate and I feel that my hon. Friend's speech was more than adequate, especially as the Bill was exhaustively discussed during earlier stages.

My hon. Friend the Minister would be pleased to write to my hon. Friend for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) on any technical or detailed points. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Minister concluded his speech by saying that the Government support the Bill.

Mr. Holt : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the fact is that the Minister responsible has left. That underlines my earlier point that Government legislation on a Friday is wrong, especially if Ministers have previous engagements that take them away in the middle of the debate when hon. Members are making their points. I do not make a slur on my hon. Friend ; perhaps it is a problem with the way in which the Government organise the business of the House. I am not being personally critical ; I am criticising the way in which the system works. I accept the assurance that my points about the roads in my constituency will receive a written reply. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a most courteous and diligent man, but that does not detract from my argument that Ministers should be in the Chamber to reply, not just to hold the seat.

I return to the question of my constituency--its roads, the road patterns and the vehicles that will be carrying the hazardous material. We will not always know what the vehicles are carrying. We do not know what the markings regulations will be. Langbaurgh has been waiting since 1938 for bypass for the market town of Guisborough. If vehicles carrying hazardous waste have to go through Guisborough, until the bypass is built, my constituents will be worried. The vehicles will have to pass through a busy market town with markets on both sides of an old cobbled street, with a steep, sharp bend at one end. We have been waiting for the bypass and perhaps we should have one before such materials are allowed to travel through Cleveland in road vehicles, however well protected the materials and however young, fit and able are the drivers, or however good their eyesight.

If the Minister were here, I would have mentioned to him the fact that Guisborough almost has a bypass. A few months ago a new stretch of dual carriageway spur road came along, stretching from one part of my constituency to the outskirts of Guisborough. A lovely roundabout was built and 20 ft of brand new roadway leads off it. One day that will be a bypass.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman once more that we are talking about the transport by road of radioactive materials. We are not talking about road works.

Mr. Holt : They cannot be transported by road if we have not got the roads, and I am trying to argue that case.

Column 1351

To transport such materials through my constituency, as provided for in the Bill, roads need to be built and that bypass needs to be built.

Perhaps that subject is on the fringe of being out of order, but it is a road--or to be precise it is not a road, because it has not been built yet, as is the case with the Brotton bypass, which we should have but which we do not have--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I thought for one moment that the hon. Gentleman was about to be very helpful. He virtually admitted that he was out of order. I ask for his co-operation to ensure that his remarks are in order.

Mr. Holt : I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was skirting close to the edge of the road and I am carrying no hazard warning signs ; if I were, they would be out of order as far as the European Commission is concerned.

This is a serious matter and perhaps I have treated it with a little levity. However, it is important that, when Parliament is asked to pass legislation, it is given all the information that it requires. I am not sure that we should be proud to say that in Committee we got rid of the Bill in six minutes or 12 minutes, or whatever the figure was, or that it had a thorough, detailed investigation there.

On Third Reading we are not necessarily able to go into all the ramifications, but can only say whether we approve or disapprove and vote for or against the Bill. However, it remains incumbent upon us to probe and to look for answers from Ministers.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, the promoter of the Bill, were a member of the Government it would be different. I wish him well and I hope that he soon is, as his talents lie in that direction. However, at the moment he is not in a position to answer for the Government.

Sir Richard Body : I congratulate my hon. Friend on his stamina, because he has succeeded in killing off the subsequent legislation for this afternoon, which is quite an achievement, given the paucity of matter for debate in the Bill. Is he aware that during his speech he has driven out of the Chamber everyone who came to the House concerned with the Bill other than its promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn)? That is a remarkable achievement for which he deserves to be doubly congratulated, because there is no one on either Front Bench who is concerned with the Bill--they have all gone. Everyone else has gone, because they are satisfied with the Bill. True my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) is here. We are fascinated to discover whether he will support the Bill. He has said that he will call a Division, no doubt because he is against it, although everyone else seems to be in favour.

Given all those facts, does not my hon. Friend consider that, having succeeded in killing off the subsequent legislation, we might now be spared too much detail about the necessary road works in his constituency and about some of the other matters that we have been hearing about for some time? Now that he has achieved his objective, could he not sum up his essential arguments as to why he objects to the Third Reading of this Bill?

Mr. Holt : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has given me one or two thoughts that had not occurred to

Column 1352

me. That enables me to remind my hon. Friend that I have not driven anyone anywhere. My hon. Friend is still here. The hon. Member for Bridlington is still here ; I have not driven him away.

Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) : Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to go on for 45 minutes, talking like a five-year-old schoolboy, and for him deliberately to obstruct a Bill that many hon. Members have stayed here this morning to see brought into legislative effect--an animal welfare measure that many people in this country want? Is he not ashamed of himself? Would you order him to bring his remarks to a close?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : As long as the hon. Gentleman is in order, he is entitled to address the House, but he is having quite a job keeping in order.

Mr. Holt : I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to answer some of the questions asked during this debate, questions which were obviously in order because they were not ruled out of order. May I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Holland upon Boston that he need not worry about my stamina because I was here for the entire 14 hours during which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), myself and one or two other hon. Members managed to talk, quite conclusively and within the rules of the House, about putting fluoride in water. I believe that that was the longest speech on record by any hon. Member and that it is recorded in the "Guinness Book of Records". I was here for the entire 14-hour debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that because I had forgotten about it.

Allowing for interventions and points of order, and for giving way so generously on so many occasions, I do not think that I have spoken for long. If I have changed the direction of Parliament or have moved legislation in one way or another in such a short time, it is quite an achievement. Perhaps if I keep going for a little longer on the Bill, legislation may well be the better for it.

However, I do not want to travel along those roads, even on a road Bill, if it causes you to bring me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to tell me that I am stretching the patience of the Chair and of the House. If you tell me that something is out of order, I respect that and come back to the subject as quickly as I can. I am a little tangential from time to time because my hon. Friend--but I see that he has gone. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston says things that tempt me on to subjects for which I do not even have a note. I had not anticipated that. Sometimes I have to reflect for a moment about interjections. Earlier my hon. Friend the Minister made a helpful interjection.

I am concerned that there are fears for animal welfare. I did not know that there were any atomic animals as yet. Many people have views on the transportation of atomic materials and many people have expressed strong views in the past about anything to do with radioactive waste.

Sometimes it is when a seemingly short, two-paragraph Bill is before us that important legislation is passed. It is incumbent on hon. Members with constituencies close to a power station where hazardous materials and toxic waste may be transported on the roads continually, day in and day out, night after night, seven days a week to consider the Bill. I wonder whether there is any reference in the Bill

Column 1353

or whether the Government have given consideration to the possible hazardous mix between chemical and atomic materials. Will anyone ensure that a vehicle carrying a heavy load of toxic waste is not travelling at the same time as a vehicle carrying atomic waste from the power station? If they were nowhere near each other, there would be no danger whatsoever, but who will co-ordinate the transport? To the best of my knowledge, no one will do that.

The Government have not thought about co-ordinating traffic movements. They seem to be living in never-never land. They believe that once one has written "fragile" on a label, the parcel will never be thrown around. If that is the case, the Government can never have used the Royal Mail. The same applies to lorries. They may carry markings, but will people always respect them? They will not. That is not the way that people drive vehicles.

Why is not hazardous material given a police escort when it is transported? If it is so dangerous, why does the Bill not provide for it to have a police escort while it is being transported along our streets through the quiet of the night and at all other times? Legislation provides that a vehicle carrying a long steel girder or an old boat must have a police outrider, back and front. There is even legislation which provides that if one wants to carry a ladder over the end of a lorry a bit of rag must be tied round the end of it. Provided, however, the lorry is all right and the packaging is all right, nuclear material can be transported, and all is well. I wonder whether the chief constable of Cleveland will ever be informed, or his traffic superintendent? I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston will be informed when nuclear material is transported on trains going through Lincolnshire? I wonder whether anyone will be aware that hazardous material is being transported? We hear that there are 300,000 such journeys each year. Boy, that is going to tie up a bit of police time! How many inspectors will there have to be to ensure that anyone who is concerned with the transport of this dangerous material has got it right?

I have asked a large number of questions relevant to the Bill and I have done so legitimately. I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington can answer them. He is not a Government Minister and this is a Government Bill. Now I see that there is a Government Whip on the Treasury Bench. It must have been thought that this legislation would go through on the nod, that no one would be particularly interested in the movement of atomic waste. They must have thought that a little Bill of this nature, a private Member's Bill, would slip through. Well, slip through it might ; but if it means that in future it will provide a legitimate excuse for those who might have an accident to say that they had done everything within the law, as laid down by Parliament, and that they did not have to inform the police, or to ensure that there were regular checks of the vehicle or regular driving tests for the drivers, it is perhaps just as well that a Back Bencher like me should have got up, kicked the Government in the backside and told them that they ought to have done their job properly. I do not believe that they have done their job properly.

I believe that the Government have misled my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. He is an honest, decent guy. He introduced the Bill thinking that the Government were behind him, as I did when I introduced the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. I honestly,

Column 1354

genuinely and sincerely thought that the Government would support me. As I had the Prime Minister voting for the Bill in the Division Lobby, I felt secure in the knowledge that that Bill would reach the statute book. It did not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has now strayed into discussing another Bill. He must talk about this one.

Mr. Holt : With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one tries to compare Bills to show that all Bills are not the same, that they are different and that consequently they should be treated differently. I am just trying to point out to my hon. Friend that the Bill that we are considering seems to have the same pedigree as mine and that its fate is likely to be the same as mine, but for different reasons. My Bill was not inadequate. There was no reason why it should not have been passed. The House of Commons wanted it to go through and voted for it, just as it voted for my hon. Friend's Bill. No hon. Member put forward legitimate arguments against the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. It was left to a House of Lords Committee to sink it, without right of appeal. Its failure was more peremptory than what happened under Stalin in Russia.

There have been occasions when I have wanted to speak but have been unable to do so. Today I did not really want to speak, but I was persuaded to do so.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : We know why : the hon. Gentleman will be named.

Mr. Holt : I know that some hon. Members have just arrived ; perhaps they could not get up this morning. Having arrived, perhaps they would have the courtesy to keep quiet while another hon. Member is on his feet. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way, I shall happily give way to him if he has anything to contribute to the debate on the transportation of nuclear hazardous waste. One of the hallmarks of the debate has been the lack of contribution, interest and knowledge on the part of the Opposition. To try to be rude during an hon. Member's speech does not add to the quality of the debate, but it highlights the deficiencies in the thinking of the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis). I do not believe that that enhances Parliament's role one little bit. Up to now we have enjoyed a reasonably good debate. The hon. Gentleman who has just come in has not heard the debate and does not know what it is all about, yet he feels that he can make a contribution to it.

Mr. Lewis : The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what I am talking about is the next debate on the Pig Husbandry Bill. We know what he is up to. I repeat what I said from a sedentary position--that he will be named.

Mr. Holt : If the hon. Gentleman had been here even for one minute before he made his intervention and had listened to any of the debate, he would have found it difficult to sustain his criticism. No one else has sought to criticise my contribution. I have been asked to explain a few points and I have given way on a number of occasions. I did so because we on this side of the House normally act with a degree of courtesy and decency. We do not behave in the way that so-called Front-Bench spokesmen for the Opposition do.

When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I did not hear one word about this Bill. Perhaps I ought not to have given

Column 1355

way, but then you might have taken me to task, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not giving way. However, the hon. Gentleman only wanted to talk about another Bill that is to follow this one. I am not aware of what he wants to talk about. If he wants to enlighten the House about his thinking, I am prepared to give way and allow him to tell us what it is about the road transportation of atomic waste and other atomic materials that is so vital and that has been missed out of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, or my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. But now all that we are getting is a turning of the back and a chat with someone in the second row. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is getting instructions about what he ought to have said when he intervened a few moments ago. It is not quite an hour since I rose to my feet, so I think that some hon. Members who are worried that the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill may not see the light of day must have missed what I said earlier about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton having spoken for 14 hours on a previous Bill. To be fair to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, he covered the entire Bench with notes to make sure that he did not forget anything, and indeed he had many strong arguments. After only one hour, I may well be concluding my speech.

Mrs. Currie : I hope that my hon. Friend will not make a mistake about what happened. I was present when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made his speech. It was four hours, and not 14 hours, although it certainly felt like 14 hours. The main problem was that my hon. and learned Friend started speaking at about 4 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Holt : With great respect to my hon. Friend, I think that she will find that that speech lasted about 12 hours. I may have been exaggerating a little when I said that it was 14 hours. It did not start at 4 o'clock in the morning ; it finished at 4 o'clock in the morning, having started at about 3.30 on the previous afternoon. I was in my usual place on that occasion, so I was sitting on the end of the Bench where my hon. and learned Friend had put his notes. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South was sitting on the other side of the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. These reminiscences are very interesting. I realise that the hon. Gentleman was led astray by the hon. Lady, but I am sure that he will now direct his speech to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Holt : Would I allow my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South to lead me astray?

Mrs. Currie : Yes.

Mr. Holt : Of course I would, given half a chance. I hope that Hansard has not written down too much of that, or we shall both be in trouble when we go home!

I had intended to speak for only a few moments, but an hour is not very long to draw attention to important matters affecting the roads in my constituency and the lorries travelling along them. However, I have had to give way to unnecessary points of order from Opposition Members. Points of order are usually the only

Column 1356

contributions we hear from Liberal Members, who have been completely absent today. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) wonders how I will vote on the Bill. I wonder how the Liberals will vote on it. They certainly have not made their position clear, but that does not surprise anyone.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend to continue because I am in favour of getting the Pig Husbandry Bill before the House because it is such an important measure. I accept his acknowledgement and I hope that he will do all he can to allow that Bill to come before the House.

Mr. Holt : I am not quite sure why my hon. Friend wants to steer me in that direction. My hon. Friend knows that my knowledge of Ealing is quite extensive, but I am not too sure whether there are any pig farms there. I wonder how many pig farmers my hon. Friend is representing today. If there are any in Ealing, perhaps he will let me know, because to the best of my knowledge there are none. My hon. Friend knows that I was born in the neighbouring constituency--

Mr. Ron Davies : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that this is a Third Reading debate? While we recognise that the hon. Gentleman has the absolute right to speak at whatever length he chooses, whatever his motives, surely on Third Reading he has to be precise and his remarks must be addressed to the motion. I do not wish to challenge any of your earlier rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you have drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he has strayed wide of the mark. May I put it to you that, as this is a Third Reading debate, you have a responsibility to instruct the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I would be reluctant to do that at this stage, but I hope that when hon. Members make interventions they ensure that they are directly relevant. The hon. Gentleman who has the floor is finding it difficult to keep in order. If interventions tempt him out of order, it makes it that much more difficult for the Chair to protect the later business of the House.

Mr. Holt : I am not quite sure why the hon. Member for Caerphilly keeps interrupting while I am trying to wind up my speech. Every time I try to bring it to a conclusion somebody interrupts me. As I am getting a little dry, I wonder whether I could pause for a drop of water. Hon. Members will know that I have permission to stop for a drink of water because of my medical condition.

On my way here I happened to be listening to the radio and I heard a gentleman talking about the society for plain English which is trying to get rid of gobbledegook. The Bill contains words and phrases which would lead the society for plain English to wonder what it meant. It refers to "70 kilobecquerels per kilogram". I thought that we were still the United Kingdon and I had not realised that we had become European to that extent. I do not remember when Parliament passed legislation saying that those who draft legislation were to do it in such a way that no one understood it, unless they were French. I hope that in the absence of a Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington will tell those of us who are still English and who remember learning English weights and measures at school what "70 kilobecquerels per

Column 1357

kilogram" means. Perhaps he can tell us how that information gets through to those who employ the lorry drivers and whether the lorry drivers will know whether they are within the law when they pick up their time sheets in the morning and go to the yard to collect their vehicles. Will they say, "Hang about, what does 70 kilobecquerels per kilogram mean?" How will they measure that? I do not think the Government have thought that through. I do not think that my hon. Friend has thought it through, and nor did he expect me to ask that question. Before we give the Bill a Third Reading, can somebody tell me in plain English what is meant by "70 kilobecquerels per kilogram"? That is in the legislation we are being asked to pass and we are still the United Kingdom Parliament.

The Bill goes on to refer to "such lesser specific activity". I hope that the lorry drivers know what that is. I expect that they would probably be more inclined to want greater specific activity. Who will pay and train all the examiners who will be examining the vehicles? Where is the money resolution for the money that Parliament will have to vote so that those people can be trained to carry out the examinations that will be necessary? I hope that my hon. Friend has an answer to that.

Mr. Fishburn : The money resolution has already been passed.

Mr. Holt : So the money resolution was passed before anyone knew how much it would cost. If local government tried to get away with that, Ministers and shadow Ministers would be leaping around screaming, but it appears that the Government can behave in that way without anyone getting upset.

One aspect of the Bill gives me cause for concern in my capacity as a member of the Select Committee on the Environment. The Bill refers to devices for cooling. One might have thought that the Bill would specify whether CFC coolants are to be used--or, indeed, contain an instruction that they should not be used. We now know that the release of CFCs into the atmosphere is the major cause of the ozone problem and global warming. To the best of my knowledge, however, we have not yet been able to find a commercially viable alternative to CFCs for use as coolants in vehicles and elsewhere.

Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow) : This is disgraceful.

Mr. Holt : Does the shadow deputy Chief Whip wish to intervene? I am more than willing to give way.

Mr. Dixon : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's speech is an abuse. He is not making a Third Reading speech and he should have been brought to order on numerous occasions. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed him to digress in response to interventions from hon. Members who wish to talk out the next Bill. I ask you now to bring the hon. Gentleman to order and to tell him to make a Third Reading speech, as he should have been doing for some considerable time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave that matter to the Chair.

Mr. Holt : I do not impugn Opposition Member's motives, and it is wrong that they should seek to impugn the motives of Conservative Members. I have always found that bullies like things when they are going their way, but are always the first to complain when things do

Column 1358

not go their way. Fortunately, I do not have much to do with bullies. Bullies do not frighten me--so do not try it here--and I know that bullies will not frighten you either, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I stray out of order, you will give me that little haul on the reins--as you have already done several times--and I shall immediately return to order. I have been told that I am not making a Third Reading speech, but I have been asking legitimate questions and talking exclusively to the Bill. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, feel that the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has any meaning, so be it. We have known for a long time that members of the Labour party do not like honest decent debate, and on this occasion they have shown their hand even more than usual.

Before that rather rude interruption, I was talking about devices for cooling and CFCs. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington may or may not go through, and I sought to draw to his attention the fact that it is not good enough merely to refer to coolants. One must define what they are, especially as we are discussing the safe transportation of hazardous materials. That makes it incumbent on us to include a definition. New kinds of coolants may be used in future. The Bill seeks to put right the errors, wrongs and sins of legislation introduced in 1947. In 10 or 20 years the generic title "coolants" may include substances that may have a chemical input and may act as a catalyst in the event of a horrendous accident. We never know what accidents will entail until they happen. Almost all accidents are about people not being able to prepare themselves in time. If we glibly include the word "coolants" without defining it, in 10 or 20 years my successor--not the successor of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, because my hon. Friend is still a young man--will say, "Why did they do that when they had the opportunity of the Third Reading debate to discuss it? Why did they include the generic term coolants' without specifying chemical values?" I should have welcomed an explanation from the Minister of why the Government favoured the inclusion of those words. I am not sure whether the Government would know entirely what they meant by "thermal insulation" either.

I have suggested that there are weaknesses, defects and problems relating to the Bill, even though it is a short Bill. Perhaps Opposition Members are so much in favour of atomic energy and the atomic industry that they want the Bill to go through without anyone debating it. I am sure that Labour activists throughout the country will ask why it was left to a Conservative to raise issues concerning nuclear power and public safety questions arising from the use and transportation of nuclear materials? Where are all those with CND badges? Where are all those who have opposed everything that has been done in respect of nuclear power for the past 50 years? Clearly they lack the staying power to come to the House on a Friday or the intellecutal power to understand the Bill. [Laughter.] Did I say something funny? Certainly there is a great lack.

I am pleased about one thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said that my speech had driven everyone out of the Chamber. That has proved to be false. There are four times as many hon. Members present now as were present when I rose to my feet a few moments ago. If I keep going for a few more hours--as I have suggested I just might--perhaps even more hon. Members will return to hear this debate on the important subject of radioactive materials.

Column 1359

Sir Richard Body : I merely drew attention to the fact that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), who introduced the Bill, all those concerned with it had left the Chamber. That is a remarkable achievement--especially as both Front-Bench spokesmen walked out. I do not think that that has ever happened before. It has certainly not happened in the 30 years that I have spent in the House. It is a remarkable achievement, and I congratulate my hon. Friend.

Mr. Holt : I had never expected such plaudits. In any case, it is not true. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) had walked out before I rose to speak. Only my hon. Friend the Minister, having heard a few words of my argument, realised that it was better to be somewhere else. Perhaps I should plead guilty in that respect. In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, with his 30 years' standing, I would only say that I bet that some hon. Members who have left will wish that they had not. I bet that by the time that the matter has been analysed, some people will wish that they had not been here at all. They may well have come here today anticipating that we would reach the Young Persons (Alcohol Abuse) Etc. Bill, which is item 6 on the Order Paper. That was the Bill in which I was really interested. I expected that the sponsors of that Bill would be present. However, I do not think that we will reach item 6.

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : I am a latecomer to the debate. Not only do I have an interest in the Pig Husbandry Bill, on which I hope to speak as several amendments have been tabled by me and other hon. Members, but I have a keen interest in the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill. Throughout my time in the House of Commons I have been approached by constituents who were fearful about safety issues. They had good reason.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We cannot debate again the Pig Husbandry Bill. It has been raised many times already this morning. On that subject, we are moving rapidly towards tedious repetition.

Mr. Holt : I hope that you do not accuse me of tedious repetition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not the first to refer to the Pig Husbandry Bill ; it was the hon. Member for Jarrow. The second person was my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, the third was my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and the fourth was my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). Indeed, Hansard will show that, far from being repetitious on the Pig Husbandry Bill, I have made little reference to it. I may have strayed gently on one occasion in response to promptings from the Opposition Front Bench. But I do not want to upset you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by talking about the Pig Husbandry Bill.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, let me point out that I have a great deal to say on the Pig Husbandry Bill, which may exercise the House for a little longer than I am likely to exercise the House on the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill.

I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has arrived in the

Next Section

Home Page