House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Jun 1992

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd) : We have had a full andinteresting debate on the issues raised by the Earth summit, and I am delighted to be able to reply.

On his return from Rio, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the real achievements that we made there. I do not for a moment accept the arguments of those who say that the summit failed to go far enough in tackling the important issues that we face, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who said that he thought that it had made progress. Many inflated expectations were expressed in the months before Rio, and it is, of course, impossible to satisfy everyone ; but Rio put down a firm platform of agreements, on which we must build an effective long-term implementation process.

I believe that 22 speeches were made tonight, and I shall do my best to respond to them all, but I shall not be able to do so properly in 25 minutes. I am conscious that I am replying not only on behalf of the Foreign Office and the Department of the Environment, but on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Departments of Trade and Industry and of Transport ; but I shall do my best.

The cornerstone of the summit was the opening for signature of legally binding conventions on climate change and biological diversity. More than 150 countries signed both conventions. The climate change convention was negotiated over 16 months ; the biological diversity convention took slightly longer--but, given the normal pace at which such negotiations proceed, that in itself was a remarkable achievement. The imminence of the Earth summit clearly helped everyone involved to focus their minds on the issues that were at stake.

I must take issue with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who is not in the Chamber now. She said that UNCED was supposed to agree a number of treaties, but managed to agree only two of them. That is not correct. Only two legally binding treaties were ever planned for Rio--the conventions on climate change and on biodiversity. It should be noted that both those complex negotiations were completed in a strikingly short time, and that each received over 150 signatures at the conference.

Before I say anything else, I must comment on the four delightful maiden speeches that we heard today. I felt a little jealous when my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) described his constituency as the number one holiday venue in the United Kingdom. My constituency, Morecambe and Lunesdale, has some visitors from Yorkshire--although, as far as I

Column 475

am aware, they do not include the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), whom we tease on occasion--and it shares some of the social problems that my hon. Friend attributed to Blackpool.

My hon. Friend described his experience of journeys to the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe, and the environmental catastrophe that he saw there. The environmental tranche of the United Kingdom's know-how fund is £5 million for the next three years, and we shall be helping with training, scholarships and expertise transfer. My hon. Friend observed the failure of an economic system--a system which had failed to adopt market- based systems, to allow the efficient allocation of resources and to observe good government and free trade, and that had not had the benfit of, for instance, the Uruguay round and the GATT. All those matters are deeply important for the environment and the developing world, as I think the hon. Member for Workington would agree.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made an elegant speech. She said that everyone--from Government down to individuals in their own homes--must be involved in tackling environmental problems, with which I heartily agree. The Rio declaration makes it clear that the citizen's participation is fundamental to the process. It emphasises the need for environmental information to be available and for environmental impact assessments to meet the concerns of ordinary individuals. My hon. Friend touched on matters that are central to the Rio declaration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) spoke as an environmental scientist. He brought his expertise to the House and spoke of the beauties of the urban environment that he represents. He is most welcome to the House, and most welcome indeed to the Conservative party for an obvious reason : it is far too long since the Conservative party returned a Member of Parliament from the Indian sub-continent. He is the first Member to have originated from Sri Lanka--he is not the first Conservative Member from the Indian sub-continent, but there has not been one for perhaps 100 years--and we are most pleased to see him here today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) spoke of one of the most beautiful environments in Britain. Sadly, he was interrupted by the 10- minute rule, but in his short survey he told us of the quality of his local brewery and of the beauty of the county that he represents.

All four of my hon. Friends spoke warmly of their predecessors and their constituencies. Their panegyrics were well phrased. I give them this word of advice : agenda 21 of the Rio declaration is only 800 pages long, and if they have little else to do in the long recess they could take it home and read it. The trouble is that it is written in rather turbid prose--it is good stuff, but it is heavy going--and if they could write a potted version for other hon. Members in the elegant way in which they spoke this afternoon, they would be doing the House a service. We look forward to hearing further speeches from them.

The climate change convention marked an important and historic first step towards solution of the global warming problem. It commits all countries to devise measures to combat climate change and to report on those measures to the conference of the parties. It commits the industrialised countries to go beyond that and to take a lead by instituting measures aimed at returning emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990

Column 476

levels by the end of the century. That is a sensible precautionary step and, as the convention evolves, the conference of the parties will review the action being taken in the light of improved scientific knowledge and will assess the need for further action. I shall answer some of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who opened the debate for the Opposition. She asked a question that was touched on by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State--why is the United Kingdom's CO stabilisation target conditional on actions ? That is at the heart of it. Far from that being a matter about which we are defensive, we can assert very positively why it is so. Global problems need a global response. The hon. Lady knows that a quarter of the world's gas emissions are from the United States. Unilateral action by Britain and the European Community would be insufficient without action by other major emitters. Unilateral action would seriously damage the United Kingdom's economy and our industry's competitiveness, which we are not prepared to contemplate.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for confirming what the Secretary of State refused to confirm earlier--that the Government's target is conditional and not the clear-cut target that the Minister was trying to suggest. Does not the Minister realise that if the whole of the European Community were to meet that target, it would be a significant contribution? The countries that are getting ahead of the game are those which are looking after their own industrial interests best. We do British industry no favours by making it inefficient, especially in energy conservation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : The hon. Lady must accept that it is a global problem on which we must all act in concert. The same principle applies to the reason why we did not subscribe to the side declaration to which she referred. The hon. Lady cited the European Community, so I shall also do so. The EC decided that it was better to work through the climate change convention, which was signed by more than 150 countries, than to take the divisive step of a separate declaration which not all those countries--and not even all the OECD countries--would be able to support. The climate convention contains a clear target which we should work to achieve.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) asked a question to which I shall respond immediately. Yes, of course we shall observe our obligations under the climate convention to return carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels. We have published our strategy on limiting CO emissions and we are urging all developed countries to join us in publishing full national programmes by the end of 1993.

A major feature of contributions to the debate has been the question of population and population growth. In order to save time, I shall not name the many hon. Members who raised the subject, but I shall cite my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). He is not raising the issue because it is the flavour of the month ; he has been interested in it for many years and he knows that I take his contribution seriously. Other hon. Members were also serious about the issue. The issue of population has moved into sharper focus in recent months, and it is right that it should do so.

Column 477

I always remember the statistics that for anyone who is 40 years old, like yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker and some other hon. Members, the population of the world will have doubled in your lifetime. That is a significant factor. It has a little more than doubled in my lifetime, but merely doubled in the lifetime of many hon. Members. The links between environmental degradation, poverty and population are wide-ranging and complex. We cannot ignore the fact that population growth is causing considerable environmental problems. We all have different figures, but, by the end of the next century, the population could be between double and three times what it is now. The Government raised the issue of population at Rio and took a lead, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South was kind enough to recognise.

The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) also mentioned population. The issue was dealt with in Rio, and I draw his attention to principle 8 of the Rio declaration which states :

"The nations undertook in principle to achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people. States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies." In an intervention, the hon. Member for Workington once again used spurious statistics--I shall come to other spurious statistics of his in due course--and alleged that we have slashed our population budget. I have here a document entitled "Action for the Environment", an ODA publication. It states :

"Britain's support of population activities has increased substantially in recent years--from £6.5 million in 1981, to £24 million in 1990. Britain is also a major donor to multilateral population agencies, particularly the United Nations Population Fund"--

it mentions three funds--

"and these agencies will receive £9 million, £8 million and £2.75 million"

in 1992. I commend the document to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : If we take the aggregate of bilateral and multilateral allocations between 1979-- [Interruption] That is what we spend on population, as hon. Members do not appear to understand these matters. If we take the figures together, did the budget go up or down in real terms between 1979 and 1992? Let us have the truth.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I will not be cross-examined at the Dispatch Box on some numerical calculation which the hon. Gentleman has taken all afternoon--perhaps all week--to make up.

Mr. Campbell-Savours rose--

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I am sorry, but I have rather more important things to do--to do justice to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends' speeches, for example. He should recognise that.

The hon. Member for--

Mr. Worthington rose--

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I cannot give way any more. I have 10 minutes, and 22 contributions to deal with. I must do justice to the debate. All hon. Members can make their points.

Column 478

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made an important point. He is not here now--he told me that he would not be--but I want to answer his question, which was how developing countries are to address development and environmental concerns, especially those involving energy and the impact of increased energy production on the global environment. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the global environment facility, to which Britain is a major donor, is designed to help developing countries deal with just such issues.

I shall cite one example of a project which has recently been approved and which addresses that problem. Indeed, the Szechuan gas transmission distribution rehabilitation scheme is taking place in one of the countries which the hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned--China. Fifty per cent. of China's natural gas is produced in the province of Szechuan, and the cost to the GEF of rehabilitating the existing equipment there is £10 million. The project will have a significant demonstration value for other developing countries, and will show how investment can be made to bring antiquated gas distribution systems up to the standards of industrialised countries in terms of leakage and safety. That is a fine example of the GEF at work.

I am afraid that I shall not comment on the many points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). They will be answered in the usual way.

Mr. Dalyell rose--

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : May I comment on the hon. Gentleman's last point? If there were fewer interruptions I should make more progress. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the £100 million. The size of our contribution to the GEF is new and additional money--it is not just new ; it is new and additional.

Mr. Dalyell : Is it additional to the White Paper?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's allegations about revisions of the White Paper. If he is not prepared to accept the words, "it is new and additional money", and make what use of them he wishes ; if, when the money comes, there is some way of demonstrating that it is not new and additional money, the hon. Member for Linlithgow will not have been as capable an advocate as he likes to make out.

Mr. Dalyell : Is it £5 million or £2 million.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I am sorry--I shall have to comment on that in correspondence.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Answer the question.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I cannot answer that question ; I do not believe that a decision has been made.

Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Repeated interventions make it impossible for me to follow the argument. Perhaps hon. Members could be a little quieter so that we may hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must make progress, especially as I am about to deal with an area of interest to Opposition Members.

As Opposition Members know, we accept the target of 0.7 per cent., and are committed to reaching it as soon as possible. In recent years the United Kingdom aid

Column 479

programme has increased in line with our economic growth--[ Hon. Members :-- "No."]--and, at £1,831 million, it has grown by 8 per cent. in real terms since 1987. The quality of our aid programme is of the highest standard and order, and is recognised internationally for effectiveness. As hon. Members know, the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD recently commended Britain on that, and recognised that British aid goes to those most in need.

I shall ask the hon. Member for Workington--and the hon. Members for Dewsbury and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)--one or two questions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Ask me.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : All right. I shall put the questions before the House.

Two years ago, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was questioned about the Labour party's commitment--

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Not true.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : If it is not true, the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to point that out on an intervention--when I shall willingly give way. But first let me repeat the words in question, as not all hon. Members may be as conscious of them as the hon. Gentleman and I are.

The hon. Member for Derby, South was asked in May 1990 in the BBC "On the Record" programme whether the 0.7 per cent. of GNP was a specific commitment by the Labour party. She said :

"No, that is a goal."

She did not say that it was a target. Hon. Members will remember that there was some ridicule about the target to which the United States and all the rest of us have signed up in the climate change convention.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I will give way on condition that the hon. Gentleman explains to the House the difference between a goal and a target for the Labour party.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : The answer is easy to give. We live by our record. We nearly achieved the figure between 1974 and 1979. We were determined to achieve it under the next Labour Government, but we were robbed of the opportunity.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I have not quite finished. There are a few more things that I had better read out. The hon. Member for Derby, South said :

"That is what we are aiming for. Nobody"--

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Get on with it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : I will. The hon. Lady said :

"Nobody is absolutely able to put their hands on their heart and say We know we can get there'. Not even if there is a Labour Government."

We know how to read these things and we all know what they mean. Perhaps Opposition Members, when accusing us of hypocrisy and letting the side down, should dwell on those words which explained the true position.

I will reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), who is president of the Inter-Parliamentary Council. He referred to the Sustainable Development Commission. I wholeheartedly agree with him that an effective follow-up to UNCED is essential.

Column 480

Like my hon. Friend, I support the formation of the Sustainable Development Commission. The commission's success will depend on the political commitment of the states involved. We hope that all will participate at a high level, as we certainly will.

I will speak briefly about the importance of trade as well as aid. Many of my hon. Friends have referred to trade as well as aid being essential for developing countries to progress in an environmentally responsible way. I strongly agree with that comment. Aid makes up only a small amount of the income of developing countries. In 1989, aid was 8 per cent. of Africa's income and the figure was 1.7 per cent. for south Asia. The trading position in developing countries is improving. The 1989 GATT figures show that there are now six developing countries among the top 20 trade exporters in the world. That is a remarkable achievement and shows that in environmental matters we must not rely on the Labour party's rhetoric about the need for aid. We must examine the enormous importance of developing trade for the developing world to enable it to increase its prosperity.

I emphasise several points. The criticism of the results of Rio has been severely overdone. The fact is that Rio was the largest-ever meeting of Heads of Government. It achieved a number of agreements which mark important steps forward for the protection of the global environment. Two of the agreements, the convention on climate change and the convention on biodiversity, already have the signatures of more than 80 per cent. of the countries of the world. That is deeply significant.

The conference has also agreed a comprehensive action plan and a credible follow-up mechanism to turn words into actions. It concluded ground- breaking principles on sustainable development in the form of the Rio declaration and there was also a declaration on forests. They provide guidelines against which to evaluate future plans. By any standards, the conference was a highly significant event which has given new political momentum and public prominence to sustainable development for the future. Those are facts which the critics cannot gainsay and which heavily outweigh the few matters on which the conference did not produce as much as some had hoped. My second point is to re-emphasise that in the context of Rio too much attention has been devoted to the argument about aid. Certainly, contributions to economic growth by means of aid have an enormous role to play in the third world. However, the real foundations for environmentally sensitive development lie elsewhere. They lie, first, in an open world trading system which encourages developing countries to produce goods that they can export and, secondly, in the adoption of market-based economic systems, which will encourage inward investment, economic dynamism and efficient allocation of resources. It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That at the sitting on Tuesday 30th June, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall--

(1) put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr.

Column 481

Secretary Lilley relating to Family Law not later than one and a half hours after the first such Motion has been entered upon ; and ()

put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Lilley relating to Social Security not later than one and a half hours after the Motion has been entered upon ;

and the aforesaid Motions may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

Column 482

Plymouth Dockyard

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Boswell.]

10 pm

Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton) : Later this year, our Government will decide which of the naval dockyards--Rosyth in Scotland or Devonport in England--will carry out refitting and refuelling work on the Trident submarine. I have two reasons for requesting this Adjournment debate. First, I wish to explain how important Devonport dockyard is to the economy of Plymouth and the surrounding regions and what will be the consequences if Devonport Management Ltd. is not awarded either all or the substantial part of the nuclear refit work. Secondly, I wish to speak in favour of the DML bid, which I believe is the right choice for the Ministry of Defence in terms of value for money and other strategic considerations.

As the matter is so important to Plymouth, I have agreed that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who is equally interested in the matter, should also take part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) has requested that he should be associated with my remarks. He is well known, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you are, as a champion of many years standing of Devonport dockyard.

I turn first to the importance to Devon and Cornwall of DML winning the nuclear refit work. It must be understood that, for many years, Plymouth has been dependent on the dockyard for a significant proportion of its male employment. That is less so than it used to be, but the dockyard still employs 5,500 people from the Plymouth travel-to-work area. It is by far the largest private employer in the region.

Since 1985, when private management of the yard was introduced, it has reduced its work force from 13,500 to 5,500--a 60 per cent. reduction of mainly male jobs. How many other towns or cities in Britain have suffered a similar fate? It is partly for that reason that, as at April 1992, Plymouth had an unemployment rate of 14.2 per cent.--well above the national average.

Even though our dependency on the dockyard is less strong today than it has been for many years, its viability is of massive significance to the economy of Plymouth and the south-west. Many hon. Members believe that Plymouth is an attractive and prosperous city. It is attractive, but Plymouth has many needs, and the need for jobs is one of them.

The significance of the dockyard is increased by the collocation of the naval base as part of the Devonport complex. The continued existence of both Devonport and the naval base is of massive importance to the defence of this nation. It is certainly of substantial importance to our local economy.

It may help my hon. Friend the Minister in replying if I set out some relevant information. The Devonport complex and other military bases in Plymouth generate £521 million of income per annum for Devon and Cornwall. That is a massive sum. The defence complex, directly or indirectly, supports 29,900 jobs, of which almost 7,000 are generated by the expenditure of wages of defence workers and by purchases from local firms. More than 600 local firms receive orders from the dockyard, and

Column 483

some £38 million is spent directly on contracts with those firms. Approximately 30 per cent. of all local income in the Plymouth area is generated directly or indirectly by the dockyard and naval base, and other military installations. About 20 per cent. of the local work force have jobs which are directly or indirectly associated with the Devonport complex. Those figures clearly show that the continued existence of the dockyard and naval base are critical to the economy of Devon and Cornwall.

Let us consider for a moment the economic consequences for the region if the refit work is not forthcoming. There is every possibility that the dockyard would gradually die without that work. Certainly, many people connected to the yard firmly believe that the yard would close without the nuclear refit work. That would devastate the economy of Plymouth and simply cannot be allowed to happen. There are those who believe that, if the dockyard were to close, the Navy would gradually leave Plymouth. That is what I call the domino theory. It would mean a further loss of jobs and would be a further body blow to our region from which we would find it hard to recover. I should be glad if my hon. Friend the Minister of State could say something about the second prospect--the commitment of the Navy to Plymouth in the long term--by way of reassurance to my constituents.

May I take this opportunity to kill off, once and for all, the feeling in some quarters that Plymouth is in some way anti-nuclear? It is not. The council, the community, the work force and the trade unions are all committed to carrying out the nuclear refit work in Plymouth. Of course, we are concerned about safety--only a fool would not be--but we are impressed and satisfied by the stringent safety standards introduced by the Ministry of Defence. Please, let the House be in no doubt that we want this work.

I should not like the House to think that we are asking for handouts that we do not deserve. Plymouth has coped remarkably well with the reduction of jobs in the dockyard since 1985. We have sought to diversify our local economy. There have been massive changes within the management of the dockyard to improve greatly value for money on behalf of taxpayers. Since DML took over the dockyard, there have been substantial commercial successes and many financial savings. About £100 million worth of commercial work has been brought in by DML, constituting about 20 per cent. of its work load. A recent National Audit Office report has made it clear that more than £110 million has been saved by DML in the past four years. Those savings increase year by year.

Recently, an independent study was made into the case for awarding the nuclear refit work to Devonport, and into the ongoing maintenance of the naval base and royal dockyard there. That study concluded that the collocation of the naval base and dockyard facilities provides economies on a scale at least equivalent to any potential net savings provided by closure. That study clearly showed that Devonport is geographically best placed in the United Kingdom for access to deep water and rapid response. It showed that closure of the Devonport complex would throw away recent investment, much of which would have to be re-created elsewhere. Most importantly, the study showed that Devonport could refit the nuclear- powered submarines, including Trident, much more cheaply than any other alternative.

The DML proposals provide for low-cost modernisation of existing facilities, strengthen nuclear safety and will

Column 484

allow all the planned submarine load to be accommodated at a single site, thus reducing fixed costs to the taxpayer. Given the Treasury's determination to curb public expenditure--a view that I wholeheartedly endorse and applaud--that is surely an advantage.

For all those reasons, the DML bid is supreme. Will the Minister also consider carefully whether now is a wise time to place all our nuclear submarine support facilities in Scotland, with the growing demand for independence or devolution in that country, which has no doubt received a recent boost by the strides towards nationhood of many of the central European peoples?

This issue will come to a head in the next few weeks. It is the subject of intense lobbying. The needs of our national defence, the prospects for employment and the future of communities are at stake. Inevitably passions have been heightened on this subject. In those circumstances, we all have a particular duty to ensure that emotion does not cloud reason and logic. No one has a birthright to the amount of work that any decision on the refitting contracts might provide. The decision as to who undertakes that work must be made on the basis of an open and fair competitive contest.

Devonport dockyard and the local community are confident that a decision taken on those grounds will give them victory, because DML can provide quality services at a reasonable cost with the flexibility that is required.

I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to mention the fact that he has been invited by me to come to Plymouth to visit DML, to speak with council leaders and to see for himself--I have no doubt that he will be impressed by it--our commitment to win the work and to do it well.

The decision is critical for Plymouth. I am fully persuaded that the DML bid is right for the MOD, the taxpayer and my constituents. I commend the Devonport case to my hon. Friend.

10.10 pm

Next Section

Home Page