House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jun 1993

Column 519

hope that the commission will also consider some further changes, some of which have also been advocated by the Select Committee. Some of the most recent cases of press stories relating to public figures, especially members of the royal family, have rightly led to great public concern. In most cases, but by no means all, I accept the commission's comment that a tenable case for their publication can be argued, but the manner in which some of the stories have been obtained and the way in which they have been embroidered with lurid and tendentious detail is unacceptable. I therefore regret that the commission has not always felt able to comment and rule upon some of these aspects.

I understand that it is much more difficult for the commission if it has not actually received a complaint from any of the parties involved, even when it has gone out of its way to invite such a complaint, but it is understandable that in some of the cases the individuals involved should not wish to complain because to do so would simply prolong their ordeal. I do not think that in these cases the commission should then ignore the story and the issue that it raises.

On occasions the commission has felt able to make public comment without there being a complaint from the parties involved. In particular, it quickly and quite rightly condemned the publication of the Camillagate tapes. I hope that in future it will continue to speak out in condemnation of flagrant breaches of its code of conduct without waiting first to receive complaints.

There is also a suspicion in the public mind that not all editors agree with the view expressed by the commission in its submission to Calcutt that

"a critical adjudication by the PCC is seen as a serious failure". Instead, there is a feeling that editors in a highly competitive market and under pressure to boost circulation would regard an adverse ruling by the PCC as a small price to pay for the sale of an extra 100,000 or 200,000 copies. The commission stated in its submission that it

"does not wield and will not seek enforceable sanctions our powers are as weak or as strong as the moral commitment accepted openly by the newspaper and periodical industry under the Government's threat of statutory intervention."

It is that moral commitment which, rightly or wrongly, some people now doubt. I hope, therefore, that the PCC will consider taking stronger powers than it has now.

Since the motivation of editors is to sell newspapers and make profits for their proprietors, I agree that the commission should have the power to punish transgressions of its code in this area. I support the recommendation of the Select Committee that the commission should be able to impose fines and order the payment of compensation. Indeed, I would go slightly further : in extreme cases, as an ultimate sanction, the commission might be able to order that a newspaper that had blatantly disregarded its code should suspend publication for one edition. That would be not only financially punitive but highly visible to the public.

If the commission followed these recommendations, it would become a body that would still command the support of the newspaper industry, but it would also possess the necessary teeth. I should hope that there would be no need for further regulation, such as the statutory

Column 520

ombudsman proposed by the Select Committee. While marginally preferable to the statutory commission which some have advocated, such a post would still be in the gift of the Government and it would still carry with it the dangers that I have described.

Select Committee members who have spoken in the debate have stressed that they hope that the position will become a sinecure--that it would never require use--but there must be a danger, however small, that an ombudsman could become a state-appointed newspaper censor, and the commission would either have to become subservient to it or irrelevant and ignored.

The commission made several other recommendations with implications that go far beyond the press. It recommended the protection of privacy law. There is a strong case for that, but I share the view of those who have said that such a law must not simply be directed at the press. It must apply to everyone in the country and not be seen as an instrument to punish journalists.

Similarly, I should like to mention the laws of libel, which also need to be reviewed. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to initiate proceedings against the New Statesman and Society following publication of the outrageous and scurrilous story in that periodical. I am not sure, however, that it was right that the printing firm that printed the magazine --it is based in

Colchester--should also have had to pay. It seems unreasonable to expect commercial printers to take responsibility for every word of every newspaper, book or magazine that they print. I hope that that will be considered when we come to look at the law in this area. This subject generates strong feelings because it touches on one of the fundamental components of a free society. We should think carefully before doing anything to interfere with the freedom of the press. I welcome the recommendations in the Select Committee report. I do not entirely accept one or two of them, but generally they are extremely sensible and they would improve the present regime of self-regulation. I hope that when my right hon. Friend comes to make his decisions he will conclude that the regulation of the press is a matter best left to the press and that there will be no need for the Department to introduce legislation.

9.38 pm

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke) : This speech is being made at an hour when my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) told us it is impossible for anyone to say anything new. It will be a mixture of an initial response to the Select Committee and a wind-up to the debate on behalf of the Government.

I congratulate the National Heritage Select Committee on its successful application for this estimates day debate, which gives the House another opportunity to discuss the important questions of press regulation and protection of privacy against media intrusion. Except for a moment during the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), I have had the pleasure of hearing every word of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who has sat here throughout the debate without granting himself the indulgence of making a speech.

The debate has had the virtue of being wholly comprehensible to the Public Gallery. I do not know about

Column 521

other hon. Members, but I have found that even English-speaking foreign visitors often think our affairs here as incomprehensible as cricket ; but on this occasion we have been talking about a subject which would be comprehensible in any land.

The Select Committee report was published on 24 March, much of it in direct response to Sir David Calcutt's review of press self-regulation, which he submitted to me in January. The Government welcome the Select Committee's report as a distinguished contribution to the public debate on these exceptionally difficult issues. Governments should normally seek to respond to Select Committee reports within two months, and I regret that it has not been possible to do so on this occasion.

I have written to the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Manchester Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), to apologise for this and to explain the reasons. They are, quite simply, that the political range and importance of the Committee's recommendations, many going beyond the responsibilities of my Department, made a response within the normal timetable impossible. I assured the right hon. Gentleman, as I now assure the House, that the Government will do their best to ensure that their response is published before the summer Recess. We envisage a White Paper which, as well as responding to the Select Committee's recommendations, will set out the Government's final views on press self-regulation and report progress on those recommendations in Sir David Calcutt's review which, as I told the House in my statement on 14 January, the Government are able to accept.

Although it is not possible for me at this moment to set out the Government's final views on any of these matters, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I have listened to the debate carefully and that the Government will take full account of the points raised when we come to take decisions. I shall pick up some of the points addressed to the Government a little later, but, before I deal with the Select Committee's report, I shall set out briefly the Government's perspective on press regulation and self-regulation. The conflict between the freedom of the press to report and comment on matters of current interest and the rights and claims of individuals to be left alone is an old one, as students of the very vigorous press in the 18th and 19th centuries know well. But it is really only since the last war that the question whether, and if so how, the press should be regulated has become a hardy perennial. Successive royal commissions generally concluded that self-regulation was the best form of restraint. In this, they were following the long-established tradition of not seeking to involve the Government in restraining or controlling the content of the printed press, except in so far as the general law--whether it be the law on defamation, incitement to crime or court reporting restrictions--imposed limits. At the same time, the commissions generally concluded that self-regulation had not been fully effective.

More recently, that was also the conclusion of the privacy committee, under Sir David Calcutt's chairmanship, and of Sir David's own review of press self-regulation, published in January. As hon. Members will know from the statement that I made to the House on 14 January, the Government accepted Sir David's conclusion that self-regulation under the Press Complaints Commission was not working properly, and urged the

Column 522

newspaper industry to give attention to the failings that he had identified. We also accepted the case for new criminal offences of unwarranted intrusion, and for giving consideration to four other measures bearing on privacy. But we made it clear that we would be very reluctant to accept Sir David's central recommendation for a statutory press complaints tribunal, which would be a step of considerable constitutional significance, and we reserved our position on that. That remains the position, and we will report our conclusions on the tribunal in our response to the Select Committee. We are also considering the recommendations that the Select Committee has directed at the Government. As I have said, some of these go rather beyond my Department, but we will reply to them all in our response to the Committee. About half the Committee's recommendations are directed at the newspaper industry, which is also considering them. As hon. Members will know, both the Press Complaints Commission, and the Press Standards Board of Finance Ltd-- Pressbof--which funds the commission, issued statements on 4 May setting out their responses to some of the recommendations for better self- regulation which had been advanced by Sir David Calcutt and the Select Committee.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcomed those changes at the time, adding that the Government would keep a close eye on their implementation. No doubt both bodies are considering the merits of implementing the remaining recommendations. Our response to the Committee will take into account the totality of the industry's response to the recommendations contained in the two reports. In the stimulating debate that we have just heard, hon. Members repeatedly asked for the Government's views on the Committee's various recommendations--with engaging patience about when we might be able to provide them. I do not want to anticipate the Government's response to the Committee, on which hon. Members will have to be patient a little longer. However, I should like to consider the debate that we have had before making one or two general remarks about the report.

The right hon. Member for Gorton made a speech that was elegant, thorough and magisterial--adjectives which are also capable of being used about the Select Committee's report, even if they are not necessarily the words that leader writers used on the report's publication. The House will be grateful to him for the way in which he took us through the report of the Committee which he had so skilfully piloted. He gave us an insight into his advice to Lord Wilson to stop reading newspapers. I do not think that that advice would have been accepted by the first Earl Attlee, who relied on newspapers for reliable accounts of county cricket matches, as I do. The right hon. Gentleman believes that the Select Committee's recommendations have prompted the press concessions. We cannot make a conclusion one way or the other. I have a personal preference for the ancient Chinese view that one gets more done in the world if one does not mind who receives the credit. The important fact is that the press has responded to the public concern evidenced in pluralist ways.

In a measured and thoughtful speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) asked about the timing of any announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have sought to verify the answer during the debate, but I

Column 523

can only say that my best understanding is that he intends, as we do in our own response to the report, to bring his work before the House before the recess.

In a colourful and energetic speech, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made a passing reference to the Stasi. He is not here, so I cannot ask him whether he knows the joke about the Stasi. When their function as police in east Berlin came to an end, they all became taxi drivers. They were the best in the world as all one had to do was give them one's name and they automatically knew one's address. The hon. Gentleman recommended all-party action. There has been near-unanimity in the debate. If Parliament legislates, there is much to be said for it to do so on the basis of all-party support. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) made an uplifting speech. He said that any sober critic would say that the press was slipping. It is most important that that view should be rationally buttressed in order to carry conviction in any legislative action that might arise.

The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was a little more partisan. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) described it as an attacking speech. I found it not so much attacking as familiar--a comfortable old friend whose sampler stitch aphorisms I could now repeat in my sleep. I caught her saying that the Conservative party is against freedom of information and likewise heard her going on to say--and I paraphrase--that contempt for democracy marched hand in hand with a disrespect for freedom of information--the dying fall of implication being that the Conservative party is contemptuous of democracy.

During the Committee stage of the Bill of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I cited the occasion when Professor Joad--not then a professor--went to take a scholarship at Oxford and was asked to write for three hours on the question : can a good man be happy on the rack? To which he replied, if he was a very good man and it was a very bad rack, yes ; if not, no. He was awarded a capital alpha for his answer. I would have found the hon. Member for Cynon Valley a little more convincing if, when she described the Government and thus implicitly, myself, as secretive and authoritarian, she had not already included the editor of The Sun in a group that she categorised as well-trained sheep. I commend to her the editor's evidence to the Select Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham made a compassionate speech and said that he regretted that the hon. Lady had introduced a discordant note into the atmosphere of unanimity which had been reflected in the Select Committee report. Given the elaborate investigatorial and legislative programme she spelled out in a somewhat premature version of the Queen's speech, I can see her difficulties.

The hon. Lady's note of dissent was matched by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who, in an appropriately austere and discriminating speech, after paying tribute to the Select Committee, raised probing misgivings about the statutory ombudsman. The hon. Gentleman and I were contemporaries at Oxford with the Master of the Rolls whose views on the entrenchment of article 10 of the European

Column 524

convention on human rights has necessarily made a personal impact on me which I shall need to debate with him outside the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) made a reflective speech on a wide range of aspects of the Select Committee's findings. Although he correctly quoted the observation about the Englishman's castle, the original source of that stated fortification is Sir Edward Coke, the great lawyer of his age, who did not specify an Englishman but happily took a more generally Unionist view.

The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) made a self- confessedly generalist speech and in the process reinforced the view that anti-surveillance legislation should be generally rather than narrowly framed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North made a

characteristically robust, wide-ranging and individual speech which in its coverage and vigour will bear retrospective re-reading. He personally introduced me to a ringing quotation by John Stuart Mill, who was a former Member of Parliament for part of my constituency, although for a party other than my own.

When I made a statement on 14 January at the time of the publication of the Calcutt report, I said that we would delay our full response to Calcutt, not only until after the Select Committee had reported, but until after the debate on the Bill of the hon. Member for Hammersmith had run its course.

I express appreciation to the hon. gentleman for the contribution his Bill has made to our general deliberations. I served as the Minister in the Standing Committee. That was an unusual innovation and, in the absence of a Government Whip, it reminded me how much I had forgotten about the detailed conduct of a Bill since I left the Whips' Office 10 years ago, not least because of the way that he arranged the evidence to be taken at the prefatory hearings prior to the Second Reading of his Bill.

The hon. Gentleman has turned himself into an one-man Select Committee. He has on these subjects become, if I may coin a phrase, a personal walking appendix. He raised the historic inadequacy of the Police Complaints Commission. He will remember the failings that Sir David Calcutt identified and there is virtue in comparing how many of those criticisms Pressbof has responded to. His speech demonstrated the continuing interest he will take in the subject even when the summer is over.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) quoted Doctor Leonard Sussman, whom the chairman of the Select Committee had quoted at the end of the opening speech of the debate. My hon. Friend's speech, which was tautly relevant to the report, was also informed by his own personal experiences at the hands of the press.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) brought a different aspect of personal experience to the debate which helped to illuminate it from a different perspective. Indeed, all those who have spoken from a vantage point outside the Select Committee have added to our understanding.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) for his personal remarks. I shall tell my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) what my hon. Friend said. We have only two Ministers in our Department and the other half

Column 525

of the ministerial team is dining for the heritage tonight. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon that my hon. Friend's passion for deregulation has not deserted him. It was good of my hon. Friend to take part in the debate without either membership of the Select Committee or the journalists' profession and the debate has gained in the process.

I said that I would conclude with a remark about the report. In its opening paragraphs, the Select Committee report seems to me to expose admirably the dilemma facing a democratic society which has to balance the right of freedom of expression with other rights. Of the other rights, privacy is not the only one, though it is probably the most important one, and it is certainly the one whose abuse by the press has caused the most concern recently among the public and in the House.

As the report says, the right to privacy must not be exploited to withhold information necessary for making democratic judgments ; nor must it be ignored by those whose main interest is in providing a saucy story.

The Select Committee has been at pains to take and publish evidence from those claiming that their private lives have been harmed by injudicious, thoughtless or malicious reporting. I am sure that the House is grateful to the Committee for bringing those cases to its attention.

Whether the Committee's prescription for correcting press abuses is appropriate is another matter to which the Government will return in our response. I assure the House that meanwhile, in developing our policy we shall be concerned solely with seeking the best means by which to restrain abuses of press freedom and by which to achieve a proper balance between the often conflicting rights of freedom of the press and the rights of individuals.

The press argues that parliamentarians are preoccupied with defending themselves and that editors cannot identify a wider public concern about their behaviour. The freedom of the press becomes a talisman which is, at one and the same time, the covenant within the ark and the justification for all actions that the press may take. Parliamentarians have their own reasons for wishing the freedom of the press to be maintained. Our forebears in the House sought to create, to enlarge and to sustain that freedom ; it is one of our national glories.

The press periodically becomes apprehensive that Parliament is about to interfere with that freedom in greater or lesser degree, and the events of this year have embraced such a period. But I think it reasonable for Parliament to remark that the press is not serving the interests of freedom if it automatically, even casually and dismissively, uses the amulet of press freedom to justify whatever action it takes, especially when individual privacy is invaded. 9.55 pm

Mr. Kaufman : By leave of the House, I shall reply briefly. This debate will be read for many years to come, so may I first clarify a remark made by the Secretary of State about Lord Attlee's newspaper-reading habits? Lord Attlee read only two newspapers : the Daily Herald out of loyalty and The Times for the cricket scores. He otherwise paid no attention to what any newspaper said. He stayed in office for six years, and was a great and constructive Prime Minister. I once again recommend his practice to the present Prime Minister and to any of his successors in the remote future.

Column 526

The Secretary of State need not have apologised in his comprehensive winding-up speech for not responding speedily to the Select Committee report. We on the Committee would far rather that the Government listened before acting. I and, I am sure, all my colleagues on the Select Committee are grateful for the fact that the Secretary of State has listened, has been here throughout the debate and has paid most serious attention to what has been said. The Secretary of State said that the Government will take into account the totality of the response from the press before making up their mind about their course of action. That is satisfactory, and well and good. However, although that attitude is perfectly proper and appropriate, it must be taken into account, as has been acknowledged by many participants in this excellent debate, that in so far as progress has been made by the press in voluntary regulation, it has been made in anticipation of action being taken to the extent that the press itself does not take action.

Furthermore, my view is that if we have gone as far as we have, with the Government considering the matter carefully, with the Calcutt report, with Bills promoted by my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and with our Select Committee report, and no action is taken, the press will slide backwards in the belief that it has got through its crisis and that it is now all clear for it to return to some of the deeply objectionable ways from which, we hope, it is beginning to emerge.

I say to the Secretary of State and to the House that our Select Committee remains active on the matter. The Committee will, if necessary, return to the matter in the present Parliament, depending on the way in which the press decides to accept the spirit of the country and the spirit of the House. There is no doubt that there must be action and that that action should include not only greatly enhanced voluntary regulation by the press, but action of the kind that we suggest to the Government in our report. The House is ready for that action ; the House is ready for the Government's announcement, to which we look forward.

It being Ten o'clock, Madam Speaker-- proceeded to put forthwith the Question which she was directed by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 19 (Consideration of Estimates) to put at that hour. Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £26,720,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of paymentn on administration.

Statutory Instruments, &c

Madam Speaker : With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Double Taxation

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ghana) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th April.

Column 527

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (India) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th April. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ukraine) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th April. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Uganda) Order 1993 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 26th April.-- [Mr. Conway.]

Question agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Ordered,

That, in respect of the Representation of the People Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.-- [Mr. Conway.]

BROADCASTING

Ordered,

That Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory be discharged from the Broadcasting Committee and Mr. Greg Knight be added to the Committee. [Mr. Conway.]

FINANCE AND SERVICES

Ordered,

That Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr. Greg Knight be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. Conway.]

Column 528

Air Pollution

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

10 pm

Mr. John Austin-Walker (Woolwich) : I thank the House for the opportunity to raise this pertinent and topical subject at a time when there is widespread concern about pollution levels, especially in London. We are accustomed to alarming stories about pollution in Mexico, Los Angeles and Athens, but the popular mythology was that Britain had cracked it--we had pioneered clean air legislation, and the industrial grime and the killer smog of the 1950s were no more. However, today we face even more dangerous pollutants in the air that we breathe--pollutants that we often cannot see but which can cause a variety of symptoms, including hay fever, eczema and asthma, especially among children, but which are also responsible for various forms of cancer.

In Britain, we pride ourselves on having introduced air quality measures and on adopting standards set by the European Community and the World Health Organisation, but this week both EC regulations and WHO guidelines have been breached. Last week the Environment Minister launched a new Government air quality information service. I took the opportunity to dial Freephone 0800-556677. I was told that air quality was good in all parts of Britain except London and the south of England. I was advised that, if I was asthmatic, I should increase my treatment or talk to my doctor. Callers were advised to avoid exercise and to withdraw their children from games at school. The message went on to say that we could all play our part. It suggested that a major cause of much of the pollution was exhaust fumes from cars and lorries. Its advice was that we should not have bonfires, not drive too fast and not brake too sharply or accelerate too rapidly. While I am sure that those measures may help, they will have only a marginal impact. There is much more direct and dramatic action that the Government could and should take to stop London and other parts of the country choking to death.

The Government acknowledge that there are regular breaches of EC NO guidelines. In the 1991 White Paper, they recognised that the only way to reverse the trend of rising pollution levels was to reduce the amount of vehicular traffic, yet they continue with policies that are anti-public transport and encourage more road use. Britain has more vehicles for every mile of road than any other EC country with the exception of Italy, yet the Government continue with a policy of substantial road building while failing to sustain adequate investment in public transport.

When the President of the Board of Trade was Secretary of State for the Environment, he acknowledged that

"for all the personal mobility the car can bring, we must be aware of the debit side."

He told the Institution of Civil Engineers that the car was a major contributor of oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide, which he described as being harmful to human health and the environment. He faced fierce opposition from some of his colleagues. The former Secretary of State for Transport, Nicholas Ridley, said in 1984 : "If people want to commute into London, who am I to say they shouldn't?"

Column 529

To him, it was a question of consumer choice.

Nicholas Ridley's successor, Cecil Parkinson, felt that people's aspirations to use a car should not be "artificially constrained". But leaving aside the question of constraints, why do the Government adopt a policy of positively encouraging the growth in the use of private motor cars? Why do they have a policy that encourages the transport of freight by road rather than by rail or water? Why do they not recognise that any measures aimed at reducing car usage must provide more attractive alternative forms of transport?

In November 1992, when London Transport's investment programme was cut by one third, the roads programme remained intact. It was not someone from the Opposition Benches or from the environmental lobby who said :

"A demand-led approach begins by building a six lane motorway, in a few years moves to an eight lane motorway and not long afterwards, as is the case with junctions 12 to 15 of the M25, a 14 lane motorway." It was a true blue Tory. It was the then hon. Member for Surrey, East.

In the five years from 1986 to 1991, NO levels in the United Kingdom rose by 35 per cent. In the same period, emissions of oxides of nitrogen from motor vehicles rose by 38 per cent. In the Warren Spring laboratory survey in 1991, 107 sites in the United Kingdom exceeded the EC guide value for NO and, of course, of the 20 sites with the highest concentration, 17 were in London.

Successive studies have shown that London and the surrounding areas have higher NO concentrations than the rest of the country. But while central London suffers greatly, there are other areas of concern previously thought to be safe leafy suburbs. For example, Addlestone in Surrey, located close to the M25, had the largest increase between 1986 and 1991, rising by almost 100 per cent. Warren Spring laboratory predicts that the use of catalytic converters on new cars will reduce NO levels for a short period only, but they are predicted to rise again with the expected growth in traffic.

I understand that a decision has been made today by the President of the Board of Trade to amalgamate the Warren Spring laboratory with the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell. I hope the Minister will comment on the alleged leaked document which claims that the decision had already been taken to divide the work between the AEA I seek an assurance from the Minister tonight that that action and decision by the Department of Trade will not jeopardise the national air quality monitoring network which Warren Spring runs. Will he tell us whether the Secretary of State for the Environment, or his predecessor, the current Home Secretary, were consulted on the matter by the President of the Board of Trade? I suspect that the intention is to save money and fatten up Harwell for privatisation. In central London, nitrogen oxide levels are almost at the EC limit value, and way above the EC guide value for which EC countries are supposed to aim. In December 1991, the average concentration of nitrogen dioxide in London was more than double the World Health Organisation's guidelines. We know that exposure to NO causes lung irritation, bronchitis and pneumonia and increased susceptibility to viral infections. Like sulphur dioxide, it is a constituent of smog and a cause of acid rain.

Column 530

Carbon monoxide is another danger, most of which is attributable to vehicle exhausts from petrol engines. Already in London there have been occasions when the levels have reached double the WHO guidelines and the Government's own predictions are that, nationally, transport carbon emissions will rise from 38 million tonnes in 1990 to 62 million tonnes by 2010.

One of the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning is drowsiness, impaired brain functioning, slow reflexes and impaired perception and thinking. I wonder whether the Government's inaction in dealing with the problem may be attributable to a dose of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Ozone is another pollutant on the increase. This is a secondary pollutant formed when nitrogen oxides mix with hydrocarbons from vehicle exhausts in the presence of sunlight--the infamous photochemical smog. But although ozone is beneficial in the upper zone, where it shields us from harmful ultra-violet and other rays, at ground level it is a dangerous toxin, causing lung irritation, eye, nose and throat irritations and headaches.

To this lethal mixture have to be added hydrocarbons themselves, a third of which are directly attributable to motor vehicles. Emissions of hydrocarbons from transport sources rose by 60 per cent. between 1979 and 1988 and one of those hydrocarbons, benzine, is a dangerous carcinogen for which there is no safe limit. Benzine levels in London currently pose a threat to human health.

Monitoring the situation is not an end in itself, but it should be used by Government to define the measures that need to be taken to improve air quality. It should also be used as a basis for making decisions in planning and transport. Britain, however, has fewer stations to monitor nitrogen dioxide in compliance with EC directives than any other EC country except Ireland and Luxembourg. Last year, the Government announced plans to increase the number of stations in its advanced urban monitoring network to 24, which compares with 200 in Germany and more than 85 in France.

Another important factor is location. In 1990, London Scientific Services made the criticism that the Department of the Environment was not complying with the EC directive. Monitoring sites should be where pollution is likely to be highest, yet none of the United Kingdom sites is at the roadside, where concentrations of nitrogen dioxide are usually at their highest. Since the abolition of the GLC, monitoring in London has been haphazard. I admit that cost can be a major obstacle to effective local authority monitoring ; that is not just my view, but the view expressed recently by the Conservative Local Authority Association for London.

The London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities are co-operating with the South East Thames Institute of Public Health in presenting proposals for London wide air pollution monitoring. I must add that I consider the letter sent by Lord Strathclyde to the institute a regrettably negative response to a positive suggestion.

Above all, we need straight factual information, open government and honesty from Ministers. Air quality is defined in the bulletins as very good, good, poor or very poor. The National Society for Clean Air has criticised those categories, on the ground that the jump across the boundary from good to poor is too sudden ; it has suggested four bands-- good, moderate, poor and very poor. Under the present classification, the "good" category allows up to 100 parts per billion of ozone,

Column 531

whereas the World Health Organisation recommends a maximum one-hour guideline of 76 to 100 parts per billion. As the National Society for Clean Air has said :

"to describe ozone levels approaching 100 parts per billion as good surely requires the use of rose-tinted spectacles."

In response to criticisms from Friends of the Earth, the hon. Member for Loughborough, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, said :

"WHO has set guidelines which are intended to be levels above which action should be taken to reduce pollution. They are not indications of a health risk as they incorporate safety margins".

The World Health Organisation, however, says :

"Since the air quality guideline value incorporates little or no margin of protection, widespread acute effects of the respiratory tract may be caused. The frequent and repetitive nature of ozone exposure might contribute to the development of irreversible decline of lung function as well as to structural lung damage".

The WHO guidelines are frequently exceeded in the United Kingdom. Does the Minister stand by the remarks made by the former Health Minister, or will he now tell the truth? That would indeed be a breath of fresh air.

It must be recognised that pollutants have different effects on different people. What may be reasonably safe for a healthy adult may have catastrophic consequences for a young baby or a frail elderly person ; levels of atmospheric pollution that may cause the average person little discomfort can be crippling for someone with asthma or some other respiratory condition. There is also the question of the synergistic effect --the effect of different compounds acting together. I believe scientists call it the "potentiation factor" : relatively low levels of some toxic substances act, in the presence of others, with increased toxicity.

Day by day, we are learning more about the harmful effects. What may have been regarded as safe levels five or 10 years ago are now known to be harmful, so we must be somewhat circumspect when people talk about safe levels. A group of toxins that I have not mentioned is that comprising the dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls, many of which come from the incineration of domestic waste. I have not time to go into the subject tonight, but I draw the Minister's attention to the evidence given by Dr. Dean, the director of public health in the Cory inquiry, which will shortly be on his desk. She quoted Professor Bridges' study, which said that chlorine compounds can be transferred by the placenta to the developing foetus and through breast milk to the new-born child at 100 to 200 times the body concentration of the mother. That is a salutary piece of information, which we should bear in mind when talking about safe and acceptable levels of pollution.

I represent a constituency with a higher than average level of respiratory illness and asthma among children. Also, a school in Abbey Wood in my constituency was featured in the BBC television programme "First Sight". That programme pointed out the serious consequences of asthma and respiratory illness for the children of that school. Ten per cent. of the pupils are regularly on medication which has to be on supply in the school, yet, in that area with such high levels of respiratory illness, the Government plan to build the east London river crossing, contributing another 1,000 metric tonnes of gaseous and particulate pollution into the area. It will pass by eight

Next Section

Home Page