| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 791
she has acted responsibly and in good faith. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some reassurance when responding to the points that I have read.1.44 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on obtaining this debate. He has raised an important subject in the House. I also thank him for his courtesy in telling me what would be the general line of his inquiry. I hope that my reply will be the better informed as a result of the courtesy that he has shown to me.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend put at the centre of his debate the St. John Ambulance Brigade. As someone who has taken part in motor sport, I understand the vital role that it plays in being there when it is needed. Perhaps all too often we take the service for granted because it is always there. One could hardly imagine a sporting occasion in Britain at which the brigade's smartly turned out uniforms and obvious awareness of what was happening were not evident. The brigade has become part of the furniture. The fact that my right hon Friend drew attention to that particular item of furniture is important.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I presume a moment of his time to put on the record the work that St. John Ambulance does in Fylde. Mr. Michael Wren Hilton and Mr. Steve Williams have singularly dedicated themselves to that work. I took advantage of the foreknowledge that my right hon. Friend gave me of the subject of the debate to ask Mr. Wren Hilton for his thoughts on the central issue at the heart of the problem. He shares with my right hon. Friend the anxiety of St. John members. He acknowledged the relationship between the problem and public liability insurance. I shall say a word about that in a moment.
My right hon. Friend was also right to mention the concept of Good Samaritanism. I hope that in my remarks I shall not pass by on the other side of the road by ignoring any of the points that he raised. That is the essence of volunteering. The volunteer is the person who does not pass by the problem. The volunteer is the person who says, "I see a problem. What can I do to help?"
The selfless actions of the St. John Ambulance Brigade are a clear demonstration that there is a boundless pot of innate decency among most people in our society and a willingness to give and to help. In his new year message, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister touched that chord. It is a positive chord to strike at a time when, as my right hon. Friend rightly said in his comments about thuggery and crime, we must perform an important balancing act. We must recognise that all is not wrong in our society. A great deal is right, but a great deal more could be done.
I wish to spend a few moments on the technicalities as we see them of indemnity insurance and some of the risk factors to which my right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House. I fully recognise the anxieties of the volunteers who render emergency assistance. They come forward in good faith and with the greatest care. Yet they could somehow find themselves the target of litigation. I understand and share that anxiety. But I hope that the House will understand that I am, sadly, not in a position to comment on the specific case to which my right hon. Friend drew our attention.
Column 792
The subject is difficult and complicated, as my right hon. Friend said. It has many legal implications. It goes wider than health care and beyond my remit as the Minister with responsibility for the voluntary sector. I accept the responsibility as rapporteur, if I may use that term. I shall comment in a little more detail on some of the points that my right hon. Friend made, but I undertake to ensure that the other parts of government who should be listening to what he says are fully appraised of his arguments.My right hon. Friend drew attention to the subject of insurance. The position of charities engaged in community care activities is no different from that of non-charitable bodies in regard to the risk of claims for negligence. The charity trustees or charity can protect themselves and their staff and volunteers by taking out appropriate public liability insurance. Although my right hon. Friend drew our attention to some of the problems that arise when that insurance is invoked, I checked to ensure that that type of cover was generally available. I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that cover is available for those who seek it. Trustees, when taking out such insurance, should act prudently and in the best interests of the charity. They should ensure that they do not pay more than they need to and that the cover is appropriate to the risks involved. We need to consider the questions that arise about matters of negligence, which lay at the heart of my right hon. Friend's speech. It is important to know how the law considers that issue. In some circumstances, those who act on a voluntary basis may be liable to compensate those injured as a result of their negligence, as my right hon. Friend said. As a matter of law, however, negligence comprises three legal elements--a duty of care, a duty in respect of breach of that duty and damage caused as a result of that breach.
In the case of volunteers, the first issue that arises is : do they owe a duty of care to any person injured as a result of their actions? Although the law often imposes a duty to take care not to injure others, there is no general duty to act for the benefit of others. I have put that in precise legal terms and I am glad to say that it does not inhibit the many thousands of volunteers who do care and, as my right hon. Friend rightly drew to our attention, give so generously of their time and talents.
When a person intervenes to help an injured party it is likely that a legal obligation arises to take care not to injure him further or to prevent intervention by a better qualified person. Should a situation arise in which a volunteer is held to owe a duty of care to a person injured as a result of his actions, the next stage to be considered is that of breach of duty. The standard of care, which conduct will be measured against, is that of the reasonable man. That standard may vary according to the circumstances of the case. In terms of treatment of a road accident victim, a passer-by, who, in the absence of expert assistance, does his personal best to help, is likely to be judged by a lower standard than a person who is acting in the capacity of himself--a qualified member of a first aid organisation, albeit on a voluntary basis. Equally, I should also emphasise that the law would not see the work of the volunteers in the same light as professionally qualified medical workers. In saying that, I stress that I imply no criticism of the excellence of the work undertaken by the St. John Ambulance Brigade.
Column 793
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an important distinction in the perception of this matter. A victim would also have to show that he suffered as a result of the breach of duty--for example, that the volunteer caused his condition to worsen or that that volunteer prevented, in some way, his access to proper treatment. I hope that those specific comments are helpful and will act as a guideline to those who will read the debate and wonder how they or their organisations might be affected by those obligations. My right hon. Friend gave us an outline of what he considered to be an elegant solution to the problem. It is one upon which those who read the record of the debate will want to reflect. My right hon. Friend referred to the Missouri Act, which might offer a simple way forward--as demonstrated by my right hon. Friend when he introduced his draft clauses. As far as we see it, however, that Act relies on a distinction being drawn between what is termed "gross" negligence and what might be described as "slight" or "ordinary" negligence. English law makes no such differentiation and it is important that the appropriate duty of care is exercised. It is for the courts to decide what that duty of care is. I do not want to leave this part of the debate without offering my right hon. Friend a further way forward, other than those words of observation. As the matter lies very much in the sector of health and the care that is associated with it, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will be pleased to see my right hon. Friend and such representatives as he thinks appropriate from St. John's to discuss further the implications of what he has drawn to the attention of the House. I hope that he will take up that offer.Sir John Wheeler : I thank my hon. Friend for that offer, which I am sure will be pursued with much enthusiasm.
Mr. Jack : I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's response. There was a great deal more in my right hon. Friend's speech on the wider issues of the voluntary sector and I shall now touch on those. In the broader context, it is perhaps worth reflecting that the Government spend £2.7 billion in the voluntary sector a year. Our focus is often on giving and not so much, as in this case, on spending. That is a substantial sum of money. It underlines the ever-growing appreciation of what the voluntary sector can contribute, in partnership with the Government, to the life of the country. One has only to look at the voluntary movement in housing to realise what a singularly important task is taken forward, by and large, by a great deal of voluntary activity. The fact that so much public money is invested in that sector underlines the importance that we attach to the voluntary contribution.
Many people ask for direct grant assistance, on which the Government spend £470 million a year in the voluntary sector. In addition, further assistance is given through taxation and my right hon. Friend will be aware that the changes announced in the recent Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will further enhance that form of help. Many individual citizens find,
Column 794
for example, that schemes such as payroll giving and gift aid are a convenient way to make their personal statement of commitment to the voluntary sector.I am responsible for the ministerial group for the voluntary sector. One of the issues that we have been considering, following remarks that I made at a Charities Aid Foundation annual meeting at the end of last year, is to renew the process of proofing that I asked other Departments to take into account in devising their policies. If my right hon. Friend's support for voluntary activity is to find its place in the realms of government, the Government have to continue to develop their appreciation and understanding of the effect that their policies have on the voluntary sector. We are reissuing those proofing guidelines to ensure that, as far as possible, that dimension of our public life is taken into account when other Departments are framing policies or legislation. That continual awareness can make a great difference in ensuring that the voluntary sector finds its place in partnership with government in many vital areas.
My right hon.Friend drew the attention of the House to the Prime Minister's new year initiative. I am excited by the idea, because I think that it taps into the innate goodness, the innate wish to give and to help, in our society. I can annouce that I am actively looking for ways to pursue that objective. I have it in mind to bring into the Home Office a group of representatives, organisations and individuals from the voluntary sector to sit with me and help me to take that initiative forward. That is again a way of underlining the importance of partnership, to which I attach a great deal of importance. If we are not, in simple terms, to reinvent the wheel, and instead to amplify what is there and derive great benefit for society out of that, the voluntary sector must play an equal part in developing the way forward. I am determined to see that work through.
As to my specific roles in terms of the criminal justice system, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the regard that the Home Office has for the work of the voluntary sector. For example, we have said that 5 per cent. of the probation services budget should be spent in the non-governmental sector in a spirit of partnership in dealing with offenders and ex- offenders in the community. That again underlines the importance of the voluntary sector in dealing with sometimes the most difficult of issues. It is sometimes easy for a good charity to persuade people to give, but it is much more difficult for that charity to show that it can work with difficult individuals. Organisations such as the Society of Voluntary Associates show what can be achieved.
Through our initiatives such as those on safer cities and on drug prevention, the voluntary sector is making an important contribution towards crime prevention. We in the Home Office do what we can to underline that by funding the superstructure of the voluntary sector. I am delighted that we are helping the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Community Development Foundation, the Volunteer Bureau and the Volunteer Centre. They all play their part in taking forward the move for greater volunteer--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. We must move to the next topic.
Column 795
Channel Tunnel Rail Link
2 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : It is regrettable that the important subject of the channel tunnel rail link has to be raised exclusively by me on the day before we adjourn for Easter. We have not been afforded the opportunity of a full and comprehensive debate in Government time on a project which will have a major and lasting impact on the economy and the lives of the people of the United Kingdom, probably for a century or more. That is a great tragedy, bearing in mind the engineering achievement and technologies that have been developed to create that wonderful rail link under the channel. The United Kingdom will not only have a delayed London channel link, it will not have the best either.
The history of the matter is a sad tale of meanness, Government dogma, short-sightedness and political expediency, which culminated in the announcement of the route by the Secretary of State for Transport on 22 March. The line that he announced is not based on considerations of transport, geography or geology ; nor is it based on primary engineering considerations. The route has been dictated by politics, principally to protect the interests of the Conservative party and to minimise its embarrassment rather than by any attempt to maximise the great engineering opportunities that are presented by the tunnel.
The tunnel history is in three chapters. First, the southerly route was canvassed. It was the swiftest way from Dover to London and had immense logic because such a route would have maximised the tunnel's opportunities for the United Kingdom. However, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, laid down in tablets of stone that no public money would be available for the project. As a result, the Ministers who had to decide the matter were caught between the choice of a cheap route which would cause enormous environmental damage in Kent and south-east London or one that which would have to be shifted because of the legitimate outrage of people whose homes, lives and businesses would be blighted or destroyed in those areas. No money was to be made available for necessary tunnelling or to ameliorate harm. Therefore, there was an internal political row in the Conservative party which dictated that the swiftest and most logical route would not prevail, but, instead, a route to the east of London would have to be sought. I recognise that there are hon. Members in all parts of the House who rightly champion the interests of their constituents in this matter.
It would be hard to reach agreement in the House on the best route, but Labour Members can legitimately charge the Government with their refusal and failure to test any of the route options at an independent public inquiry or some other form of hearing such as the one held by Lord Justice Roskill into an airport some years ago. Such an inquiry would have been able to examine the best and cheapest ways of maximising the benefit of this great project for the whole United Kingdom, taking into account the limiting factors imposed by cost and environmental concerns. That is what should have happened and should still happen ; instead, we have been presented with a route dictated by political considerations.
After the Government's move to look for an easterly route to minimise the political damage, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind),
Column 796
then Secretary of State for Transport, arrived at the Conservative party conference in October 1991 to announce what he described, with much trumpeting, as an "historic" decision on the line of route. I commend to anyone interested in the history of these matters a number of articles written at the time, particularly the one by Tony Helm in the Sunday Times on 13 October of that year. Others in The Independent by David Black, Colin Brown and Michael Harrison--on 10 October --and in The Times of the same date were also instructive about the real motives for seeking the easterly route.Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mackinlay : In no circumstances will I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Sunday Telegraph article said that the then Secretary of State for Transport had decided on a southerly route. It said that he was prepared to resist all the pressures from within his party. He had pored over the decision for many months and was determined to see the southerly route through. British Rail's plan for a southerly route also looked cheaper and was far more advanced than those its rivals, including that of Ove Arup, which is broadly the route that we now have. The report in The Sunday Telegraph, which I choose to believe, went on :
"Mr. Rifkind stuck by his guns until the eve of the party conference and insisted he would not announce any decision at Blackpool but would do so as soon as Parliament returned." Then, suddenly, on the Monday morning everything changed. Rumours circulated that the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands had been caught in a last minute political pincer movement between the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), then Ministers with different portfolios from those they now hold.
It emerged that the Secretary of State for Transport was outnumbered in Cabinet and had to concede the easterly route, largely because of the looming general election which could not be long delayed. This version of events is substantiated by numerous articles of the time. The new decision was bad for the United Kingdom, but once it was given at least all the interested parties concerned--local authorities, residents, those promoting various channel tunnel projects--had some certainty. There was at last what was deemed to be a settlement of the issue, albeit inadequate. Some months later, keen readers of the Telegraph newspapers discovered that, following changes of Cabinet portfolios, the current President of the Board of Trade managed to persuade the Cabinet that the route needed to be reviewed yet again! It emerged some months ago that a major rethink was under way. It represented a betrayal by Ministers and an overturning of the former Secretary of State's decision--at enormous cost to the British people and the promoters of the channel tunnel projects.
When I challenged the Minister for Public Transport about this a little while ago he conceded that a further review of the route decided on in October 1991 was under way. He described it as a "local route variant within the broad route corridor."
It has emerged since that it is a major departure affecting large parts of Kent and my Essex constituency. It is not in the best interests of my constituents and it further dilutes the benefit that the United Kingdom can gain from the
Column 797
channel tunnel project. As a consequence, there is now acute blight in my constituency and other parts of the south- east. For example, people in the Pepper Hill area of Northfield in Kent fear that the route will affect their houses and make them extremely difficult to sell.My complaint is that the proposed line of route has never been tested at any independent public inquiry and never will be. That is undemocratic and it flies in the face of all our practices. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, wished to put a small construction at the end of your garden, you would have to seek planning permission. If you wanted to construct an airport, you would have to seek planning permission. If your applications were refused, you would have the right and opportunity to test those refusals and argue your case at independent public inquiries. The Government and Union Railways, who are promoting the route, will deny local authorities, businesses, individuals and, indeed, the country the opportunity of testing the proposed route against normal planning, environmental or engineering criteria. That is an example of what Lord Hailsham referred to as parliamentary dictatorship. The Government will ignore the legitimate views of so many people and railroad--no pun intended--this route through, regardless of the impact that it will have.
Mr. Nigel Evans : Will the hon. Gentleman give way? It is just a short intervention.
Mr. Mackinlay : I made it abundantly clear that I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman in any circumstances.
Mr. Evans : Why? What are you afraid of ?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. I think that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has been here long enough to know that it is entirely within the capacity of the hon. Member who has the Floor whether he gives way or not--especially in a short Adjournment debate which, it is understood, is divided between the Member raising it and the Minister replying.
Mr. Mackinlay : On 22 March, the Secretary of State tried to reassure the House that there will be a minimum period of consultation. All the evidence shows that that is a sham--a charade. He also went on to say, and I have checked Hansard, that the consultation will be led by Union Railways, which is promoting the project and will be judge and advocate in its own court. The environmental impact will not be considered. The route will be imposed on the south-east regardless of the objections.
On the same day, the Government published a document, "Channel Tunnel Rail Link : An Independent Review". It is so independent that it was commissioned by the Department of Transport. That is somewhat cynical. Paragraph 48 of that document makes it abundantly clear that no criteria are laid down for judging the full environmental impact of such a project, despite the fact that the British Government should have laid down such criteria to fulfil the spirit and letter of the European directives on environmental impact assessments. No one will have the opportunity to say, "The Government and Union Railways are not applying the criteria that they should." As with so many other projects, the Government
Column 798
have proceeded slowly in laying down the criteria necessary to fulfil the European directive on environmental impact assessments. It is a tragedy that the Ove Arup route--the easterly route-- was chosen without assessing all the options at some form of independent, quasi-judicial hearing. As I have already said, if we have to have the easterly route, it is reasonable to expect the Government to be consistent and to stand by the decision taken in 1991. They have reneged on that and it is fair to ask why they have done that. It is clear that the profit motive has become the primary, not the secondary, consideration. When I challenged someone at Union Rail about why the route had been altered to the disadvantage of my constituents, I was told that it was because the previous route, which took the line along the Dartford marshes and crossed the river Thames in the vicinity of the Kent-Essex boundary with the former Greater London council area--a proposal which was acceptable to many people --had overlooked the development potential of the Dartford marshes. There was, therefore, a need to shift the route. I suspect also that the latest route is intended to go a little south of the area of Blue Water Park, Northfleet so as to maximise the opportunities where there is an intention to build a massive retail park. In my view, that is not a legitimate or primary reason for shaping the line of the route and I believe that it is wholly reprehensible that such considerations should enter the equation. The route will cross the River Thames in a tunnel in the vicinity of Stoneness point. It will pass beneath West Thurrock power station which, incidentally, ceased production this week. It will emerge at ground level in the Oliver road trading estate area and then pass beneath the approach road to the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at the Thurrock-Dartford M25 crossing. This engineering exercise is breathtaking. The line will come out of the ground, pass over the approach road to the QE2 bridge, but also go through the piers of that great engineering project. That is like passing a thread through the smallest of needles. I am told that it can be done, but it is breathtaking bearing in mind that there will have to be the highest and steepest rail gradient in Europe--1 in 40--to achieve that. That wonderful fast train will have to negotiate a massive hill on its way to London. I doubt whether that has been fully and critically examined from an engineering point of view and I suspect that it is the product of the Government and Union Rail trying to rush the project through for the political reasons to which I referred earlier.The line will then cross open land north of Van den Berghs on a viaduct crossing London road, Purfleet at the Stonehouse lane junction. It will run parallel to the Purfleet bypass on its southern side, crossing the brow of the hill of the Purfleet bypass in a cutting. It will then pass the northern edge of the Mardyke Park estate on a viaduct. The Mardyke Park estate is a very attractive, modern private residential estate in which people have invested their savings. They are very happy in that wonderful environment, but, under these proposals, they will have to endure a viaduct overlooking their properties. There will, in addition, be appalling noise consequences. The route will move on in a westerly direction towards London and merge with the existing London to Tilbury and Southend railway.
Column 799
That is the position as it affects my constituents. It is grossly unfair that they should be hit in that way, with minimum notice, when the Minister confirmed in 1991 that they would not be so affected. This is a great betrayal and I make no apology for saying that it is the fault of the Conservative Government and of Conservative Members. I should like to know what help will be provided for those who are blighted. Will we have a full debate in Government time in which this whole wretched issue can be reviewed and scrutinised by hon. Members in all parts of the House? Will the Minister tell us the timing of the hybrid Bill, which will be the last opportunity for me, for my constituents and for the local authorities to try legitimately to frustrate this crazy route? How and when will Parliament be told how the project is to be funded?The Secretary of State said that he still hoped to attract private funds. I have no objection to that for this project or for many others, but I say on behalf of the United Kingdom that the channel tunnel rail route needs to be in place as quickly as possible and that it needs to be the best. The route now being proposed is not the best. It is time the Government decided how the route, whichever one is chosen, is to be funded. They have signally failed to do that. Clearly, there will be enormous congestion on our railway network in decades to come because of the Government's failure to realise the needs of the channel tunnel project on its way to London from where it will give continental access to the rest of the United Kingdom. I apologise for detaining the House at some length, but I point out that this is a matter of great importance to my constituents which is causing them great distress. They and many thousands of others in Kent and Essex have been treated grossly unfairly. Above all, the whole story is one of failure by the Government to do what is fair and best for the people living in Kent and Essex, and to do what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom generally.
2.20 pm
The Ministey the hon. Gentleman but those of my hon. Friends who are affected by the route are concerned about this major project. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) in his place and I know that he has taken a deep interest in this matter. I was rather disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I had hoped to be able to answer some detailed questions. What we got was a rather inconclusive, third-rate, sixth-form rant about the evils of the Conservative Government, which did not take him or his constituents any further. To assist the hon. Gentleman, I will suggest the questions that he might have asked me and which might have helped his constituents. I will then give the answers to those questions. At least there will then be a constructive contribution to this important debate. I note that my hon. Friend for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is also in her place and I know that she, too, has also taken a great interest in these matters. I see that she is breathless in anticipation of my remarks.
The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's rant appeared to be the absence of a public inquiry. The hon. Gentleman should know that, throughout the process of refining the route, Union Railways discussed the options available to
Column 800
those planning the route with representatives of local authorities, necessarily on a confidential basis, so that it could be sure that it was aware of the authorities' plans for the future and of other relevant matters.Formal consultation with the authorities will take place over the next six months and it is recognised that authorities will wish to comment further from today. That consultation is vital and valuable, and it will give some scope for enhancing the horizontal or vertical alignments of the route. For the Government simply to have published all the options without stating a preference would not have been progress--it would have been going backwards. The Government want to take the project forward and to put an end to the blight that is the real enemy of the public interest in these circumstances. We want to bring about the benefits that will come with construction of the railway. There has now been an opportunity for the House to look at the details of my right hon. Friend's statement of 22 March and at the documents published in support of it.
The channel tunnel rail link, threading a route through the garden of England, across the Thames, through the edge of Essex and urban east London is an extraordinarily large project in its scope and imagination. I suggest that such a scheme cannot take place without some environmental impact. It is extraordinary that, for a 67 mile long route, the impacts are surprisingly few ; only 11 residential properties are required to be demolished along the whole route. It has proved possible to produce an environmentally sensitive route which--crucially--the country can afford. It is important to appreciate the painstaking process through which the consultation process had to go to produce it.
The easterly route corridor was selected by the Government in 1991 because it has less environmental impact than other options and because it could foster regeneration in the east Thames corridor. I remind the House that there was all-party support for that choice. All the work since to optimise the route has proved that the original selection of the corridor was right. The route selected was conceived by Ove Arup and had been engineered in sufficient detail to prove its feasibility and to provide a reliable basis for comparison with the other principal options. Clearly, the selected route then had to be refined by comparing all the localised route options within a broad route corridor.
We have achieved substantial cost savings without any reduction in the level of environmental protection. The environmental standards applied are those used for other major transport infrastructure projects in this country.
On the section of the route local to the hon. Member for Thurrock, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), all of whom are affected by the proposals, the section between Gravesham and Ford presented particular challenges because it has to include a crossing of the Thames in a fairly built-up area. Contaminated land is also an issue and there are extensive designations for nature conservation. We also had to provide for station options which will enable the east Thames corridor to reap the benefits of regeneration--and I stress the words "benefits of regeneration".
The route originally defined by Ove Arup had some significant environmental disadvantages, such as a serious impact on the Aveley marshes site of special scientific interest within Thurrock. Union Railways was duty bound to find out whether those impacts could be eliminated or
Column 801
reduced by local adjustment and Ove Arup was appointed as the lead consultant. It is impossible to devise a route that is devoid of environmental impact and the adjusted route for the section is described as "acceptable" by Union Railways' environmental consultants, compared with the description of "very difficult" for the alignment originally proposed by Ove Arup.As a result, more of the proposed route will be in Thurrock, but it is important not to base snap judgments on that fact alone and to consider the whole section from Gravesham to Ford when deciding on the preferred option. The cost saving on that section is about 15 per cent. of the cost--£70 million on £490 million--but the issue is that the route for consultation is markedly better in environmental terms.
I will deal with some of the matters affecting the constituency of the hon. Member for Thurrock. He mentioned Mardyke Park. I know the area well--the hon. Gentleman knows that we are all familiar with it. He was quoted in his local newspaper as saying that the scheme would ruin "the quality of life" for thousands of his constituents. His contribution to the debate has thus been to wipe hundreds of thousands of pounds off the values of homes on the Mardyke Park estate at one stroke. I remind him that no homes will need to be demolished in Thurrock. There will be a need for environmental mitigation measures. That has always been understood. There will also be a need to incorporate screening and whatever else may be necessary to prevent unnecessary impact on homes. It is entirely right and proper that we should consider such matters during the consultation period. I have no doubt that residents of the area will find that their concerns are met. It does the hon. Gentleman's constituents no favours whatever to turn this into a great anti-Government rant for his own party political purposes, given that it is their homes that are on the line.
Column 802
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : That's the trouble.
Mr. Norris : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for picking up that pearl of English usage.
The same is true of the industrial estate. The aim there will be to relocate any jobs displaced within the area. Considerable effort will be devoted to that and the rail link will also help to create substantial numbers of jobs in the east Thames corridor. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Thurrock is suggesting that there are enough jobs in Thurrock already. I have not heard him prosecute that argument before. I can tell him that my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and I would be more than happy to have those jobs ; perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would, too.
The basic thesis that the hon. Member for Thurrock has advanced is that the whole exercise has been conducted without reference to public interest or concern. That is a false premise. The hon. Gentleman does his constituents no favours by pursuing that line. What I advise him to do in future is to consider in detail, in a properly studied and measured way--
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Amendment to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill set out in the Lords Message of 18th March be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Madam Deputy Speaker : Debate to be resumed what day?
Mr. James Arbuthnot (Wanstead and Woodford) : Wednesday 14 April.
Column 803
Commercial Whaling
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As this is the last debate before the House adjourns, may I wish you the happiest of Easters--and long may I catch your eye. This is not the first time that I have raised in the House the subject of the suffering inflicted on animal life by that most cruel and barbarous of all living creatures--the human being. We believe ourselves to be the highest form of life on the planet and the most intelligent of all creatures. Wrong. We are not. We are simply the most powerful life form--converting intelligence into arrogance and unspeakable brutality. Human beings are capable of scaling the heights of sublime creativity and guilty of plumbing the depths of depravity. From rape and torture in Bosnia to badger baiting in Britain, there is a continuum of cruelty which, in my darker moments, makes me believe that it would have been better had human beings never evolved from our most primitive state. I can think of nothing that we have ever achieved that compensates for the cruelty and suffering that we have inflicted both on ourselves and on other living creatures.
Among the most wondrous of all living creatures must be the great whales. They evoke awe and fascination in those of us capable of such decent feeling. They have lived on earth for some 50 million years, in perfect balance with nature until the brutal intervention of those relative newcomers, human beings. There are some 80 species of whale, dolphin and porpoise. The blue whale is the largest creature ever to have lived on the planet--more massive than even the largest dinosaur. The brain of the sperm whale is the largest to be found in any creature, including man. The song of the humpback whale is intricate and evocative and capable of being transmitted hundreds of miles through the sea. The toothed whales use a form of sonar for echo location up to 95 per cent. more accurate than the most sophisticated sonar developed by humans.
Whales great and small are highly intelligent, communal, warm-blooded mammals with complex social behaviour patterns. They deserve to be studied and cherished. There are so many unanswered questions about them. How do they manage to survive at great pressure during deep sea diving? How do they communicate one with another? They have so much to teach us, yet over the centuries we have slaughtered these gentle, harmless creatures for such worthless purposes as turning them into pet food, candles and perfume. Even to the insensitive, exploitative human being, it eventually became evident that whales were being hunted to extinction. In 1982, the International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling, the ban coming into force in 1985-86. Since then, more than 14,000 whales have been slaughtered by certain whaling countries--either under objections to the ban or through so -called scientific whaling. Japan takes approximately 300 minke whales each year in the Antarctic. The Norwegians started their scientific whaling in 1992 and, in the period to 1994, they intend to take some 400 minke whales. The Norwegians now intend to go further and resume commercial whaling this year, regardless of the decision made by the IWC. It is that blatant disregard for the
Column 804
international community on the part of the Norwegian Government which has driven me to raise the issue this afternoon. I shall return later to the subject of Norway and its supposedly socialist and environmentally concerned Prime Minister, Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, but first I want to say a few words about the method of whale killing. Cruelty starts not with the firing of the harpoon, but with the chase of the animal. It causes great stress for those creatures because it can take up to an hour or more. Sometimes, the whaling ships use sonar to confuse and scare the animal so that it comes to the surface and thus presents itself as an easier target to hit with the harpoon.In 1980, the IWC humane killing workshop agreed on a definition : "To cause death without pain, stress or distress perceptible to the animal."
At the same IWC workshop in 1993, the pro-whaling nations said categorically that such a definition could not be achieved in whaling operations. The solution, therefore, to people like myself, the Minister and others is simple, obvious and logical. If whales cannot be killed humanely, they should not be killed at all.
Despite all that, the slaughter still goes on. Japan and Norway are probably the worst offenders, followed by Iceland, but there are others. Japan and Norway attempt to camouflage their limited commercial whaling by calling it scientific whaling. It is a perversion of the word "scientific". It is rather like Dr. Josef Mengele experimenting on live human beings in Nazi concentration camps in the name of science.
What do those countries discover in their scientific whaling? When they have slaughtered the whales, they find that there are fewer whales in the sea than when they started. What happens to the meat? Surprise, surprise-- if you happen to have a preference for whale meat, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I know is anathema to you as it is to me, that meat can be purchased in good restaurants in Tokyo and in supermarkets in Oslo. So much for scientific whaling.
What sort of cruelty are we actually talking about? The weapon used to kill whales is an explosive harpoon. Its head has two or four barbs, to which is screwed an explosive grenade. As the harpoon enters the body the grenade explodes, scattering whatever organs and tissue with which it happens to make contact. For the hunting of minke whales, the species now targeted by whalers, a different explosive has been developed for use in the harpoon. It is called penthrite--a powerful explosive that damages less of the whale meat than traditional explosive harpoons. Whales are mammals with a highly developed nervous system, comparable in many ways to that of land mammals, including man. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that they are capable of feeling pain to the same extent.
I want now to return to the determination of Norway to recommence open commercial whaling later this year. In February, at the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, the Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, addressed us. There were questions afterwards. I and two Conservative Members--one from the House and one from the other place--together with a German Member of Parliament asked why Norway was determined to ignore an international agreement on whaling. At that point, Mrs. Brundtland went nuclear. She gave us a long, rambling, incoherent, inaccurate and, indeed, devious reply. I have circulated copies of it to hon.
Column 805
Members. In my opinion, Mrs. Brundtland, who parades her green credentials around the world to polite applause from liberal-minded audiences, is nothing short of a hypocrite.Mrs. Brundtland accused the IWC of being unscientific in its use of evidence to protect the North sea stock of minke whales. In 1991, the scientific committee of the IWC concluded that the north-east Atlantic minkes had been continuously declining throughout Norwegian whaling between 1953 and 1983. Norwegian scientists did not contest that fact. Mrs. Brundtland then accused the IWC of breaking its own rules, but Norway's killing of minke whales with explosive harpoons actually contravenes Norway's animal welfare regulations. Having not succeeded up to that point, Mrs. Brundtland then resorted to the most bankrupt of all arguments. It was given to her by one of her officials, almost as an afterthought, and it would have been better had she not mentioned it. She said that whales had to be controlled because they eat too many fish. The depletion of fish stocks has nothing to do with whales and seals but everything to do with overfishing by man. I have heard the Minister speak about the matter on many occasions in the House and elsewhere. The answer lies in factory-ship fishing and the mismanagement of fish stocks. Before intensive fishing methods were employed, the seas teemed with all fish species. There was no fish shortage ; nor was there a whale shortage. Whales were not endangered before the activities of purblind, stupid human beings intervened. If Mrs. Brundtland does not understand that, I believe her to be a total fool.
Whales are migratory creatures. They do not belong to any one nation or to any group of nations. They belong to the planet and in that sense they belong to us all. No body and no nation has a right to kill them, especially not in defiance of international agreements. Neither Norway nor Japan has any economic justification for killing whales. After all, they are two of the wealthiest countries in the world.
I ask the Minister to say what action we should take against Norway if it goes ahead with commercial whaling. If I had my way, I would give the crews of the whalers five minutes to leave their ships and then I would blow them, the ships, out of the water. I suspect that the Minister might not wish to go so far on this occasion. I hope, however, that he will take an aggressive stand in respect of the Norwegians.
I put a question to the Prime Minister recently on whaling. It was a gentle question and I hoped that it would be given a helpful reply. I could have been my usual, aggressive person and gone for his throat. I had some good questions at the back of my mind. To myself, I said, "No, the right hon. Gentleman is a decent sort and he will no doubt say something helpful." He did not. I then regretted having asked him such a gentle question. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would oppose Norway's application to join the EEC if it persisted with its decision to resume commercial whaling. He just passed over the question. Unfortunately, his reply was not as good as the responses that I have been getting from his Ministers. Worse than that, the Prime Minister's answer was reported in the Norwegian press and taken up by Norwegian politicians on the basis that the British Government did
Column 806
not mind very much if the Norwegians went ahead with commercial whaling. That is how the right hon. Gentleman's answer was translated in the Norwegian press. I hope that the Minister will rectify the situation this afternoon and make the British Government's position clear so that no one can misinterpret their views. On this occasion, the Government will be speaking for us all.As I have said, I think that the Minister must be pushed into taking an aggressive stand against Norway. There should be no negotiation with Norway over its European Community application should commercial whaling recommence. Appropriate sanctions should be taken on Norwegian fish exports by all the Community nations. Norwegian ships should be banned from European Community waters. I should like to see a ban placed on all Norwegian exports, including oil and gas. The country must be made to pay if it is to defy world opinion. I am sure that animal welfare organisations will organise boycotts and demonstrations against Norway should commercial whaling recommence.
I say in a calculated way that Norwegian embassies in several European countries will undoubtedly become a focus for protest. All the public relations companies that the Norwegian Government are busily and, I understand, unsuccessfully trying to retain will not be able to repair the enormous damage to Norway's image should it defy the great weight of public opinion in Europe and north America. The British Government should not stop there. We still have to deal with Japan, which has continued to defy world opinion and the IWC for many years now. Worldwide measures must be taken to protect the whale.
I shall ask the Minister some specific questions. If he cannot answer them this afternoon, I will ensure that they reach him in written form so he can give me a considered response. Apart from myself, many citizens of this country and of others will be interested to hear his response. I believe that the United Kingdom should support the proposal of France that there should be a sanctuary in the southern oceans, including Antarctic waters. I received a welcome letter of support from the Falklands Islands Government. It was a thoughtful response and I will send a copy of that letter to the Minister.
The United Kingdom Government must rigorously and publicly oppose moves to reopen commercial whaling under the new revised management procedures. We must oppose it on the ground of cruelty. The British Government's voice must be heard unequivocally on the matter. We must not surrender to Norwegian and Japanese demands in order to save the IWC. That would be like giving way to terrorist demands.
Norway might be pushing for a negotiated position on the revised management procedures rather than seriously contemplating quitting the IWC. We must call Norway's bluff. Voting in the IWC must remain on the basis of requiring a three quarters majority. One knows that the Japanese are trying to secure voting on a simple majority basis and, I understand, busily buying up the votes of smaller countries to achieve that. It would be contrary to the convention to allow that to happen. Again, I hope that the British Government will speak out loudly on the matter.
Norwegian and Japanese Governments are spending huge sums of money on pro- whaling propaganda and a misinformation campaign. It all started with Mrs. Brundtland herself. It is essential that non-whaling
Column 807
Governments such as ours challenge the campaign and do not simply leave that challenge to the non-governmental organisations which are doing so much sterling work but lack the authority that a sovereign Government can bring to their statements.There is enormous all-party opposition in the House to the whaling activities of Norway and Japan. The British Government must reflect that opinion in their dealings with those two wickedly misguided countries. I have spoken on the issue before in the House. I have spoken in previous Adjournment debates. I have always had a good response from the Government because they know the depth of feeling in the House and in the country.
But we seem to be getting nowhere with Norway and Japan. We must not allow them to defy civilised opinion in Britain, north America and the European Community. They must take some hard lessons. I hope that the British Government will start the process of delivering hard lessons and will protect those wonderful creatures, the whales. I hope that the British Government will tell the Norwegians and Japanese that they will not be allowed to kill the whales. 2.46 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |