House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Nov 1991

Mr. Hughes : The hon. Lady is desperate to make her defence, and I shall let her do so now.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although I am not desperate to make the defence. The hon. Gentleman is merely saying, "A plague on both your houses"--the normal Liberal line. I was expecting slightly more constructive comments about the environment. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that the fact that the environment did not feature in the Queen's Speech except for one reference to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development which we spent considerable time debating on 12 July--must be a reasonable reason for the subject being squeezed out of the debates. In addition, we knew that today's debate was taking place.

Mr. Hughes : The hon. Lady's case will rest on its merits. The Labour party could have chosen to debate the environment. The fact that it is being debated today was a matter for negotiation between the Tory and Labour spokesmen through the usual channels. There was a carve-up and neither of the two largest parties thought fit to put environment in the first week's programme of the Session. People may draw their own conclusions about that.

Mr. Morgan : The environment debate is two days later than the other debate.

Mr. Hughes : The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) seeks to make light of the subject. However, everybody protests all the time about how important the issue is and the hon. Gentleman knows prefectly well that the Labour party could have chosen to make it a priority.

Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich) : I am not making a party political point, but we should note the number of Members in the Chamber today. On an issue of such dramatic importance, it is disgraceful that the attendance should be so light.

Mr. Morgan : There is a higher proportion of Liberals than of other parties here, even though there is only one of them.

Mr. Hughes : So unfair is the system that by being here myself I am ensuring that my party has a high percentage attendance. When the revolution comes, and we have a decent system, there will be many more of us.

The obvious omission from the Queen's Speech was the environmental protection agency which was derailed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There were lesser omissions such as the legislation on hedgerows--a cause to which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is personally committed, but which was not included in the Queen's Speech--and legislation on common land, which has sadly slipped down the Government's agenda from its position three years ago, for no very obvious reason. Another obvious failure in the political rather than legislative programme was the failure to commit any significant new resources to environmental matters--that point was conceded by the Secretary of State for the

Column 726

Environment in his press release, the announcements and the simple figures. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary is nodding negatively--

Mr. Baldry : I shall deal with the matter.

Mr. Hughes : The Minister says that he will deal with it, but if we look at Government expenditure Department by Department, we can break down the Department of the Environment element into the environment sector as opposed to the housing or local government sectors, we see a reduction from the estimated outturn this year--£750 million--to £610 million next year, £600 million for the following year and £580 million for the year after that. It is a matter of fact that, according to the Government's projections, the amount of money that has been committed is less. That may be defended, but it is incompatible with their argument that priority is being given to environmental matters.

Also shunted off into a convenient siding was the Government's commitment to do what they said was necessary about raising fuel prices. On Monday of this week the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment expressly recommended that fuel prices should be increased. The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Trade and Industry said that they could not comment on that ; it was up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the Chancellor said nothing about raising revenue from that source. I appreciate that that is principally a matter for the Budget. Nevertheless, the Government could have said something about taxing the use of environmental resources. When the Chancellor referred to the success of the economy he could have talked about evaluating growth in environmental terms rather than in traditional gross domestic product terms, but all that was ignored.

We welcome the fact that the Government published their checklist of action a year after publication of the White Paper. In it they were honest enough to admit some failures. We also welcome the fact--although it has been commented on with cynicism, because many argue that this should have been Government policy for many years--that there has been a substantial increase in the Government's commitment to improve public transport. That may have something to do with the impending general election and public perception of the importance of the issue.

I want to deal, as did the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), with the European Community's environmental impact assessment directive.When the directive came before the House, in regulation form, the Government commended it through the mouth of the then Minister of State, now the Secretary of State for Health. It was a debate in which the Labour spokesperson, for whatever reason--I have never discovered why--did not show up. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) had to hold the fort. In January of this year the Commission gave an early warning to the Government. In March the Commission sent a draft letter to the Government. Subsequently there was a continuing dialogue between Brussels and Westminster. The Environment Commissioner says that in the summer he had a long telephone conversation with the Secretary of State for Transport regarding his concern about non-implementation of the directive. There was a last-ditch meeting the night before the letter was made

Column 727

public. it is not true to say--it is no good the Minister of State trying to duck out of it--as the Prime Minister said in Harare : "we had no previous notice of it."

Not only had the Government had notice of the letter ; they had had conversations about it and they had seen a draft copy of the letter. The Government must not pretend that this was a belated attack by Brussels. The matter had been under discussion for nine months. They--the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for the Environment--knew it.

Mr. Win Griffiths : Will not the hon. Gentleman admit that for a Prime Minister who thought that the poll tax had been abolished this was one of his lesser slips?

Mr. Hughes : Nobody is perfect, but there is a difference between making a slip and saying that one did not know about something when one did --unless the members of the Cabinet do not talk to each other and do not talk to the Prime Minister. I suppose it is possible that the Secretary of State for Transport had never talked about it. In that case, somebody should have briefed the Prime Minister to say nothing instead of what he did say. There is an inconsistency. In another place Lord Brabazon was asked questions yesterday about it. It appears that the Government's answers are all over the place too. On Wednesday the Under-Secretary of State did not answer my question ; he answered another question instead. We must, therefore, take it as admitted that the Government knew what was coming.

The solution now is easy : to give in, to say, "Okay, if you don't think the regulations are perfect or satisfactory, let's negotiate, get some satisfactory ones, bring them to Parliament and apply the test." That does not mean that all the projects suddenly stop ; it means that we shall have the proper methodology for judging them. The same methodology should be applied throughout Europe. As a postscript, I do not believe that the people of Twyford Down in Hampshire, or the people who live in the London borough of Greenwich in south-east London regard Twyford Down and Oxleas Wood as "nooks and crannies"--a description from some who suggest that the European Community is prying and probing into our affairs. These places are important environmental assets in Britain. I hope that we regard them as such. I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow that we must consider how the public's natural demand for the accessibility and mobility which the car offers can be rendered compatible with a decent quality of life, particularly in urban areas. It is not only, as the hon. Member for Billericay hinted, an air pollution problem, but a resource depletion problem. According to some good estimates, we have only 45 years of oil left. Therefore, cars may not be able to be powered by oil-based fuels 45 years from now.

Although those estimates may be wrong, we must consider the best options. There are problems with the electric car because it is still necessary to generate electricity. There are also problems with a car driven by water because, again, it must be powered by electricity. There is an urgent need to give the public information on the best form of motorised transport. It is best to walk and the next best option is to cycle, but if neither of those

Column 728

is possible and it is not possible to use public transport, which is the most economic use of resources and causes less pollution per number of users, we must give people advice about the best alternative.

The Government have been honest to admit that petrol prices will increase. We must therefore protect those who will be particularly disadvantaged. My colleagues and I will shortly explain our policy on that, because people must know how they will be affected. We are right to address that as a key part of the environment debate. For those who represent and live in urban areas, excessive congestion and the disadvantage of additional people and cars are bad news. In other parts of the world, the problem is becoming considerably worse. That is our legacy to people who are far less able to cope than we are.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : The issue with which the hon. Gentleman is dealing is supremely important. I have followed with interest his comments about the need to price fuel appropriately. He now acknowledges the essential dilemma in his proposal--that to be effective, energy taxes must be raised enormously. The problem is how to raise them without penalising the people who are least able to afford increases, such as those to whom the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) referred yesterday--car drivers in rural areas--but it applies equally to people who would face higher fuel bills and can least afford to meet them and who do not have the flexibility of changing from one fuel system to another. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that in supporting energy taxes he is creating such dilemmas.

Mr. Hughes : The hon. Lady makes a perfectly proper point. I have spent much time with my colleagues working out how to deal with that dilemma. She rightly alluded to two aspects of the problem. First, we must ensure that we do not penalise people who have no alternative because they have no public transport. I was brought up in rural Britain and know that such people cannot fairly be clobbered by huge increases when there is no alternative. Pensioners and people on basic incomes should also not be penalised by increases in the price of domestic and other fuels. They must be protected. I assure the hon. Lady and those who are concerned about the problem that it would be irresponsible of me as spokesperson of my party not to address it properly. I hope that she will respond positively when we make our announcement of our conclusions, which may be within days, although the final timing is not entirely in my hands.

One of the other great issues that are tests of our environmental progress is what we do with water. I entirely endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow. We must reduce consumption. We must stop wasting water. Because of defective pipes, 25 per cent. of water does not get around the system and move from reservoir to tap. We must make people value water properly. My mother lives in a house which still has a well. When we go home, we are used to not having water sometimes but also to looking after it carefully. Those of us who have been brought up without immediate access to mains water know how valuable water is, just as most people in the third and fourth world do.

We must also be much tougher about extraction, particularly in areas around London. People are extracting water from urban rivers and there is a serious problem

Column 729

with the drying up of river beds. We must provide the facility to get water to where we need it and we must consider whether that should be done through a national grid or some other means. Drinking water quality is generally good, although not as good as the Government would argue. But I urge the Minister to pass on to his colleagues the need urgently to improve bathing water quality. If we had not had this environment debate today, I would have been in Swansea bay in a wet suit, surfing with many people from all around Britain as a protest against the toxins in Swansea bay.

Mr. Win Griffiths : I would have been there as well.

Mr. Hughes : The hon. Gentleman would have been there as well. I do not know whether he would have been in a wet suit as well, but if so, the pair of us might have been a sight for sore eyes.

Air pollution is bad enough in Baglan bay and Port Talbot, but the sea is equally polluted. During the Langbaurgh by-election, I went to the coast at Saltburn and Marske. A pipe that is about 25 in across discharges sewage into the sea 24 hours a day. One can see all the stuff that comes out and which is thrown around straight into the sea. At high water, an escape hatch on a pipe also opens and the sewage is then also pumped straight on to the beach--there is no pretence that it goes further out. The same happens in many places around the coast--in the south-west, the east and in places such as Southend-on-Sea.

Not just rural dwellers worry about bathing water quality. Urban dwellers who go to the coast for their holidays also worry. They want to take their children to the beaches. There are also all the people who swim, sail, surf or windsurf.

If I could achieve only one thing as a result of today's debate, I should like the Government to take more seriously the need to clean up our act around our shores. It is clear that they are backsliding. The first-year report makes that clear. The original commitment in "This Common Inheritance" refers to

"£13.7 billion to improve sewage works which includes £2.9 billion to bring all bathing waters up to EC standards by the mid-1990s through building long sea outfalls and treating the sewage discharged through them".

That commitment has one year later been modified to read : "agreed an accelerated programme of investment for the improvement of bathing waters to bring virtually all bathing waters up to EC standards by 1995".

There must be much better monitoring, not just in the summer but all year round. There must be more frequent monitoring of bacteria and viruses, not just of one. It is not good enough to say that we have cleaned up our environmental act, when around Britain's coastline the beaches are often foul.

Mr. Morgan : It is just going through the motions.

Mr. Hughes : I shall attribute that one-liner to the hon. Gentleman- -it is just going through the motions. The hon. Gentleman is good at those one-liners.

Pollution was a big issue in Langbaurgh and our good candidate, Peter Allen, rightly joined those campaigning for improvements. I hope that we will be tougher on toxic wastes and will not just allow this country to become a trading post for them. I hope that we will be much more committed to renewables than the Minister announced this week we

Column 730

would be. The Government's belated conversion is welcome, but a real conversion would be much more welcome. I hope that we will be much more committed to energy efficiency. The commitment has been pathetic, starting from nothing and moving on only slightly. This is an important issue and it is good that we have held a debate on it so early in a Parliament.

Mr. Morgan : It should have been in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Hughes : Yes, it should have been in the Queen's Speech, but at least we have debated it sooner rather than later.

The psephologists tell us that if the results of yesterday's three by- elections are followed by similar results, there will be no one party in control after the next general election. Therefore, if there are general election results like yesterday's, my colleagues will be in the House in increasing numbers to fight for these issues. Our pledge is that the environment will remain a very high priority for us, higher I believe than it has been for Labour or for the Tories during the past decade and more.

12.45 pm

Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich) : The debate has covered a wide range of global issues, but I wish to bring a tighter focus to the environment in our towns and cities--the urban environment--because care for one's locality can influence the quality of life of those who live there perhaps in an even more dramatic way than by dealing with the broad global issues.

Where we live and how we look after it has in recent years become an issue of greater concern to those who are interested in the environment. The growth in the number of amenity societies is reassuring. The Southwark Environment Trust in my constituency and borough plays a full part in ensuring that aspects of urban life which should be preserved and conserved are cherished. The Dulwich Society plays an important role in ensuring that the aspects of rural life which remain in an urban area are retained. The Camberwell Society and the Peckham Society have in the past few years been active in trying to preserve the benefits and good points of their areas which have been under threat from the channel tunnel rail link proposals.

Dulwich village, in my constituency, is one of the most attractive urban environments to be found in the United Kingdom or--dare I say it--in the world. It is a highly desirable area in which to live and it is appreciated and treasured by those who live in it.

The area around Warwick gardens--also in my constituency--has over the years been neglected. Only in the past 10 years has there been an appreciation of the inherent and intrinsic quality to be found in its architectural heritage, in its layout and in the opportunities for regeneration. It has not been a matter of local authority planning or large -scale capital investment ; the area has regenerated itself. Its architectural heritage has been brought back to its former glory by those who live there and often by those who have little money but who appreciate the opportunities of the locality and have developed them.

That work was at risk when British Rail decided with great insensitivity to drive the channel tunnel rail link through south-east London and through the Warwick

Column 731

gardens area. The effect was that during the past three years there has been a loss of confidence in that area. A blight settled on it and will remain for some time. It is important to appreciate the need to preserve and conserve and to recognise that it is an environmentally sensitive area--like so many in London--which can be built slowly and painstakingly, but which can so easily be damaged by an insensitive decision, which is what happened. I plead today for our urban environment and for the quality of life that should be retained there. When we consider how the blight can be relieved, we should do so in a way that reassures and which re-establishes confidence in the area.

British Rail purchased some houses that were within its corridor of intended operations. It also purchased some houses that were not in that corridor, because once such a route is threatened the adjacent housing market collapses and there is no opportunity for those who wish or need to move to sell their properties. In one instance firms of estate agents refused to take any flats in one block on their books on any terms. I think that that is the first time that that has happened, and it was due to the negative housing market in that area. With great wisdom, the Secretary of State for Transport has turned down British Rail's proposed route and has chosen another which is far more environmentally sensible.

Mr. Win Griffiths : I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the sensitivity of rail routes through urban areas. Does he agree that in choosing the alternative route the Secretary of State for Transport was second guessing and ignoring the possibility that an environmental assessment would conclude that the general route that he has selected was as inappropriate as the one from which the hon. Gentleman thinks his constituents would suffer?

Mr. Bowden : I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that I can approach the issue as a fighter for my constituents' interests while at the same time recognising the broader issues. I shall later develop that point.

The alternative route was chosen on three criteria : that it should be environmentally acceptable, operationally effective and financially viable. The British Rail route failed on all three. The alternative route proposed by Ove Arup, which the Secretary of State has sensibly accepted, was acknowledged in all its aspects to be environmentally acceptable. Of course in one or two places difficulties will arise, but the route will pass through areas which will benefit environmentally. For example, industrial waste-land which needs an uplift will benefit from a freight and passenger route passing through it.

British Rail is now a large residential landowner in Warwick gardens and will wish to offload on the market the expensively obtained properties that it has acquired. That will have a disastrous effect upon the locality equal to that which arose from the threat of the route. A glut of properties could cause a slump in the housing market. It will take time and sensitive marketing to ensure that the housing market recovers progressively rather than being artificially injected with activity. In order to ensure confidence in the Warwick gardens area, British Rail should be told to ensure that the properties are offered for sale in a positive and constructive way that will benefit the community and the quality of life in the area.

Column 732

We must also consider the question of compensation. To some extent, the environment must be planned and allowed to grow organically. However, when planning we need to make sure that people are compensated for disruption in a way that does not put them at a disadvantage. It is a matter of planning, management and marketing to ensure that what is good in the locality is preserved and conserved. It is also a matter of money, but I would argue that money plays a lesser part than the necessary will and the understanding of those other factors.

The channel tunnel rail link has been at the centre of my thoughts about my own urban concerns. It offers an opportunity to improve the environment of the United Kingdom generally, by taking traffic off the roads and by diverting some of the airline traffic which causes such congestion because the link will probably provide an equally fast alternative route to the continent. What causes me some disquiet, however, is that British Rail's thoughts seem to be entirely devoted to the passenger opportunities that the link affords. I agree that they are important, but I am concerned that so little is made of freight. The current culture at British Rail seems to be--and I have heard this said by the chief executive--that freight is not time-sensitive. The chief executive and British Rail generally reportedly say that they do not see themselves as being in the business of transporting goods that need to be moved fast. They are looking only at aggregates and pig iron and other goods which can be trundled around the railways for many weeks and do not need to reach their destination at any particular time.

That attitude will create a knock-on problem. If British Rail feels that the first stage of the channel tunnel rail link to Stratford and King's Cross does not offer immediate opportunities for a freight route, there is something seriously amiss in its thinking. The implication of such a decision is that freight will continue to be carried, as at present, on existing lines, with the intensified use of those lines possibly throughout the night. By and large, we are talking about commuter lines designed to bring people from the south-east to central London in the morning and to take them home in the evening. There is little traffic on them during the dark hours at present, but if the lines are to be used by freight trains-- some of them a mile long trundling through the night and causing heavy vibration and noise, there will be a dramatic effect on the environment and quality of life of those who live in proximity to them.

That brings me back to my earlier point about the importance of considering giving compensation in such circumstances and perhaps introducing a new code of compensation. If one buys a house near a railway line, one expects some disturbance from it, and that is a factor which will no doubt be reflected in the price. I would argue, however, that there is a difference between what one might consider to be reasonable use by passenger traffic during the day, and the disturbances that might arise from that, and the use of the line at night by heavy goods traffic. That represents not merely an intensification of the use of the line but a change in its character. To my mind, it represents a change of use so significant that compensation should be given to those who suffer injury as a result. If we are to ensure that we preserve and protect the quality of life in the urban environment, we must recognise the need for a change in the code of compensation and the circumstances and amount in which it is given. It should be

Column 733

more generously calculated than at present and should not merely be the bare minimum market value, as seems to be the case at present. When the bare minimum market value is offered to compensate for disturbance or injury, disputes inevitably ensue, with professional advisers saying, "This is too little" and the proposer saying, "It is about right" with the inevitable delay that results.

By increasing compensation in those circumstances to a more generous level of 10 or 15 per cent.--and in some countries it is 25 per cent. above market value--we would not only right an injustice or injury, but speed up the process. People would believe that it was unnecessary to dispute the matter and that they had received an additional benefit for the injury that had been forced upon them. In the long run, that would be a cheaper and more effective way of dealing with the issue. As a lawyer and a chartered surveyor, I recognise that the professional opportunities in the area of compensation would be limited if people did not dispute the compensation that they were offered.

Elsewhere in Europe, freight is being taken off the roads. There are refrigerated freight vans and trucks travelling on the railways throughout Europe. Why are there no plans in this country to ensure that we have a fully compatible freight arrangement that could take re-frigerated herrings from Aberdeen to Milan on refrigerated rail trucks instead of having traffic trundling along our motorways and on channel ferries? We have an opportunity to improve the environment of our towns and cities by ensuring that freight is taken off our roads.

The decision on the channel tunnel rail link was environmentally sound. It has provided an opportunity to develop many aspects. I beg that those who are responsible for making it work will now take full advantage of the opportunities. I trust that the issue will be considered not simply as a transport or environmental matter, but as a trade and industry matter as well.

1.1 pm

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few points about the environment. Initially, I want to consider environmental impact assessments from a slightly different perspective from that which has been referred to so far. There have been disputes between hon. Members over whether Carlo Ripa di Meana, the European Community Environment Commissioner, was within his rights or was interfering in every nook and cranny of British daily life--as our Foreign Secretary put it in rather colourful language--when he commanded that work on construction projects in this country should cease because environmental impact assessments had not been prepared although they should have been. I do not want to enter that dispute. I want to consider whether the way in which environmental impact assessments are drawn up at the moment is satisfactory. Are they objective? If they are not, can we introduce improvements to the current environmental impact

statement--EIS--procedure to make them objective?

It is timely to consider that, because since the beginning of this Session it has become compulsory for us to comply with European EIS legislation. We have modernised the procedures of this place to make it compulsory for all private and hybrid Bills to incorporate environmental impact assessment statements.

The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, which affects my constituency and is returning to the House for the third

Column 734

time, now has an EIS which has been published and is freely available to the hon. Members in the Vote Office. It is a large document which is one inch thick. There is also the compulsory brief, non-technical summary which, although it tends to fall apart when one tries to read it, due to unsatisfactory stapling, is nevertheless an easy, quick 10-minute read.

The wider question is not whether the summary falls apart because the staples are not strong enough, but whether it falls apart because it is not sufficiently objective simply because it has been commissioned, paid for and its contents finally determined by the promoter of the original Bill, now working in co-operation with the Government. That aspect is the essentially corrupt relationship between promoters of private legislation or Government Departments, when using the hybrid Bill procedure, and the consultants who are asked to draw up environmental impact assessments.

For a further improvement in our environmental legislation, in future, when consultants are hired--there are some very good environmental consultants-- to produce environmental impact assessments to comply with European directives and with our new private and hybrid Bill procedures, the last word on exactly what is contained within the environmental impact assessment should not be left exclusively with the Bill's promoters. Some further strengthening of the environmental obligation that we and the European Commission's directives are now laying on the promoters of private Bills should be introduced by not giving a promoter the last word.

I hope that other hon. Members on green Benches--we can see mostly green Benches today--will join me in trying to find out how we can avoid the consultant-promoter corrupt relationship. Perhaps "corrupt" is too strong, because we do not know who has actually taken out key words or added sections at the last minute because they are worried about the public impact of certain phrases. We do not know what the consultants originally said when they first produced a draft for the promoter, and what they were then asked to add afterwards to make it a little more toothsome for the promoters, to make it a safer version of the environmental impact assessment.

When compulsory environmental impact statements are produced for Parliament for a private or hybrid Bill, the promoter obviously has to pay for the environmental impact assessment. There can be no question about that. It is not an obligation on the taxpayer, because the promoter wants to build a harbour, bridge or whatever it might be that requires parliamentary procedures. The trouble is that the promoter can then bowdlerise or doctor the final version that appears before the House, and it is presented as though it is objective, but is it really objective?

Once a Bill or a proposed measure requiring parliamentary approval enters the lists and it is realised that an environmental impact assessment must be produced, and once it is decided to commission an environmental impact assessment it becomes public property. My idea--I admit that I came up with it only this morning--is that the entire transaction involving the definition of the terms of reference for the study for the consultants should then become public property and not an enclosed relationship with the promoters.

Reference should then be made to the Environment Select Committee, and its staff, jointly with the promoters of the Bill, could settle the terms of reference and observe

Column 735

the final version of the EIS. The report that hon. Members receive and that the public pick up outside would have been looked at from the point of view of the client, the promoter and the public interest. The Environment Committee and its staff would ensure that the promoters could not interfere with the consultants' conclusions and that the consultants, during the preparation of the report, had consulted local authorities and environmental agencies such as HMIP or the NRA, or other agencies.

I am concerned about the contents of, lack of objectivity of and lack of thoroughness in the study that was carried out by the Environmental Advisory Unit of Liverpool University Ltd. for the Government and the promoters of the Bill, Cardiff Bay development corporation, when there was still a private Bill, in preparation for the Government's hybrid Bill, which was laid before the House on Tuesday.

I should like to give some examples of my concern about the report's thoroughness and/or objectivity. I say "or" simply because I am not aware-- and at the moment there is no way of finding out--whether the consultants who wished to involve the NRA or Cardiff city council's environmental health department were told not to do so by the Cardiff Bay development corporation or whether, off their own bat, they simply chose not to do so, in which case, if there is a design fault, it lies with them. At the moment, we have no way of knowing and, although the report is now public property, its contents during preparation and its final contents are determined entirely by those paying the bill--and they are the promoters who have every interest in avoiding drawing attention to anything that could be used against them when the Bill is debated publicly or scrutinised in the House on Second Reading, Report or in the Special Select Committee or the Standing Committee.

At those stages, people from outside the House who oppose the legislation as petitioners or hon. Members who might also be opposed to it can seek to improve the Bill and can point out the problems that the proposal might cause. Although the promoters are faced with an environmental impact statement compulsion, at the moment there is no way of ensuring that the work is carried out objectively. One of the issues covered in the non- technical summary and then, in detail, in the full-length version of the statement, is flooding. The statement tries to come to a view on whether the proposed barrage would be good, bad or indifferent in terms of the flooding problem in the low-lying areas of Cardiff. The problem is that flood control is the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority. The statement says that the barrage will improve the position as regards flooding, but we are not sure how that statement was arrived at. Was the NRA consulted? It has the statutory obligation. Are the promoters giving their view after consulting the NRA, or are they giving the NRA's view?

I spoke to the NRA this morning and asked what consultations it had with the Environmental Advisory Unit of Liverpool University Ltd. before the unit produced its chapter of the full-length study on the Cardiff bay barrage proposal. The message that I received from the NRA was :

"The answer to your question is no. Liverpool University has not approached us regarding flood defence assessment."

Column 736

Why not? Was that the consultants' own decision or were they prevented from consulting the NRA by the Cardiff Bay development corporation which originally proposed the Bill in close co- operation with the Welsh Office? Can we rely on the document? Can people who read it believe it to be objective and thorough when those who prepared it did not consult the agency that has the statutory responsibility for preparing flood prevention plans and for carrying out works to prevent flooding?

After the expenditure of a large sum--about £150 million or so--on improving the environment and creating an impounded lake behind the barrage, one of the attractions is supposed to be the facility for water sports. Paragraph 4.15 of the non-technical summary rightly states :

"there will be restrictions on the type of watersports that can be carried out in the Bay. Whereas angling, pleasure cruising, canoe touring, rowing and bankside activities will be possible, water sports which inevitably lead to immersion, such as bathing, diving, rafting and waterskiing, will not be permitted.

There is some dispute as to whether dinghy sailing and windsurfing are classified as immersion sports and whether or not they will be permitted. Regular monitoring will be taking place to see whether the water is of suitable quality for immersion sports."

I ask myself whether that is a fair summary which is based on the views of the body that will have the job of monitoring water sports and the safety of the water in which the water sports will take place. That body is the environmental health department of Cardiff city council.

I spoke to the environmental health department this morning. I asked whether the Liverpool university environmental advisory unit consulted it on whether certain water sports might be, would be or would not be permitted. It said that the unit had not done so in the past three or four years. I find that breathtaking. In the case of flooding and water sports the unit did not consult before giving to Parliament the final version of the environmental impact assessment. If that is true of flooding and water sports, on how many other matters did the unit not consult? The assessment purports to be an objective statement to be given to the House and, via the House, to all the people outside who will be directly affected by the proposal. The unit did not consult the statutory body with the job, again given to it by our legislation, of taking care of flooding or water sports.

Furthermore, the environmental health department of Cardiff city council told me that one of the statements that I have just read out was plain wrong. What is one to do about that?

We have been given the printed version. We will not receive another version. The department told me that windsurfing is definitely out and that it was true that :

"There is some dispute as to whether dinghy sailing and windsurfing are classified as immersion sports and whether or not they will be permitted."

That statement left the matter open and as yet undetermined. But that is not the case according to the body that is responsible for deciding whether certain sports will be permitted. That body has already made up its mind. Windsurfing is out, not "still to be determined".

This is supposed to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Its legislation is supposed to be followed once laws are passed. We have just introduced a great improvement to the existing legislation by making environmental impact assessments compulsory. However, we have no way of controlling the quality, objectivity or

Column 737

thoroughness of the assessments or interference in the final version by the promoters of a private Bill, who have every interest in fixing the assessments so that they do not say anything which could later be used against them during the proceedings of the House and when people make their minds up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is our rule that in an Adjournment debate we do not discuss legislation. If the hon. Gentleman confined himself to discussing the merits or otherwise of the scheme, he would be on good ground. I may have to reproach him if he impinges too much on the debates that we are likely to have when the legislation comes before the House.

Mr. Morgan : I appreciate your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to raise questions about the merits of the scheme. I simply wish to deal with whether we can rely on the objectivity of environmental impact assessments when we have no procedure for ensuring that promoters do not interfere with them during their preparation, to avoid the inclusion of material that may be critical of the scheme. Such material may give rise to problems for the promoters when seeking to secure the passage of the Bill through Parliament.

My point relates to the structure of our legislation and whether we should be satisfied with it. It became law only this week. I wonder whether we need to go a step further and take out further insurance so that we can be certain that environmental impact assessments are reliable documents. The Environment Select Committee should be involved to ensure that there is joint commissioning and setting of the terms of reference, even though the promoters obviously have to pay. At present it is a simple case of he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

The Government are trying to pretend to the country at large that they are far greener than in the so-called bad old days and that the Secretary of State takes full account of environmental matters when preparing legislation. However, in the past week something has cast severe doubt on whether that is a sustainable proposition. I refer to the decision last Friday to exclude the area within the Cardiff bay barrage site of special scientific interest from the special protection area to be registered in Brussels under article 2 of the European Community's wild bird directive. It is probably fair to say that many of us deeply suspect anything that the Government announce late on Friday afternoon. It is probably almost entirely done to secure the minimum amount of press discussion.

Last week the Government submitted a four-page document to the press and to the successor to the Nature Conservancy Council--the Countryside Council for Wales--and to English Heritage. The document stated that they had to take the Cardiff bay area out of the proposed special protection area that they intended to register with Brussels because otherwise they would be in severe legal trouble due to their proposal to build a barrage across the mouths of the Rivers Taff and Ely.

What does that say about our procedures? Obviously, when one is about to register a special protection area--I think that we have about 41 such areas now--one receives documentation about it from what was the Nature Conservancy Council. It was subsequently split up into three bodies to cover Wales, Scotland and England, but

Column 738

their part in the process remains the same, as they classify sites according to their significance for nature conservation and they inform local landowners, local authorities and do all the donkey work and the accounts. They also inform local wildlife organisations and then give the documentation to the relevant Minister. In the case of Cardiff bay, it had to be given to two Ministers, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment because it involves both sides of the Bristol channel. They check that it is in order and finally make their decision.

After the Nature Conservancy Council had submitted the lower Severn estuary special protection area proposal to the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment, a court case took place in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg--we call it the Leybucht bay case--which involved a German Government-assisted fishing harbour on the German-Dutch border. The case resulted in a victory for the German Government, not for the European Commission.

As an interesting obiter dictum, a signed letter from the European Court of Justice last year, affirmed the principle that in areas designated as special protection areas, the first priority was to be given to developments offering an improvement to human health or life, such as protection from flooding, the second priority to ecology and nature conservation and the third priority to leisure or economic development.

At that time the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill was live in the House and opponents of the Bill, such as myself, pointed out that the judgment could deal a blow to the proposal as it was already a proposed special protection area--it was merely awaiting a decision on the Minister's desk. That idea was pooh-poohed and we were told that there was no comparison between Leybucht bay and Cardiff bay and that the judgment was irrelevant. The fact that the Government sent a posse of lawyers from the Welsh Office, Cardiff Bay development corporation, the Treasury Solicitor's department and a local firm of solicitors in Luxembourg to observe the case was merely because they wanted them to have some alpine air or because they just happened to be passing through Luxembourg. The case was of no interest and immaterial to Cardiff bay.

Now we know the truth--it was a killer blow to the Cardiff bay barrage proposal because SPA status for Cardiff bay would have meant that only those forms of construction development that contributed to the avoidance of flooding and endangering life or health could take priority over the nature conservation designation : not economic development, marinas, leisure developments, dredging to deepen the water for fishing harbours or creating large walls of concrete for a barrage that would completely inundate the inter-tidal mud flats--the reason for the SPA designation proposed by the Nature Conservancy Council. Last Friday the exclusion device employed by those in favour of the barrage was to admit that the principle of the Leybucht bay judgment in the European Court of Justice last February would apply to Cardiff bay, but to say that the way round that was to exclude the bay from SPA.

The argument used was that although we might agree that an SPA designation would imply that a barrage could not legally be built across Cardiff bay, we could go to the European Court of Justice--although it lacks injunction procedures--and ask that court to declare the barrage proposal to be contrary to the directive relating to the

Next Section

Home Page