| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.23 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst (Braintree): Like the last few speakers, I shall apply the self-denying ordinance and cut down dramatically what I had intended to say. I am sure that that will be a blessed relief to most of the hon. Members who are now gathering in the Chamber, who will have come back in anticipation of the winding-up speeches rather than the last few Back-Bench speeches.
I wish to spend a moment or two speaking about Stansted airport and its proposed expansion. The consultation period is running to a close and will expire at the end of next month. There are a number of vital issues, and they can fairly rapidly be put before the House.
Stansted itself lies in the parliamentary division of the Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). My parliamentary division is some 10 miles distant, but a number of its villages are close to the area that would be severely affected if the expansion went ahead.
One can summarise very quickly the difficulties that would arise if one, two or three extra runways were built, depending on the final number that would be settled on if the worst occurred. With any number of runways, the first thing that would occur is an increase in flight traffic and the noise and other pollutions that flow from aircraft travel.
In some ways, aircraft travel is the smallest part of the problem. The motorised travel that follows on the back of it creates enormous environmental burdens for people living in the area. Not only will there be 25 million, 50 million or 60 million extra passengers—or whatever figure the planners have in mind—but there will be an almost unimaginable number of extra vehicles on the road system. Some people argue that the airport will bring extra jobs, but houses in picturesque and historic villages are not property that baggage handlers and other airport workers are likely to inspect, let alone be able to afford. Those houses will go to people commuting to Cambridge, London, Chelmsford or
further afield. The extra houses that will be built will be of no benefit whatsoever to the local community. Expansion will impinge on a countryside that, although it may lack the grandeur of the Scottish highlands or the romanticism of Dartmoor, is gentle rolling hill country with streams and woods—in many ways, it is an idealised picture of the way England once was. Within that countryside there are villages, historic houses and communities, all of which would go if airport expansion took place.We need to consider other issues. How do we deal with the airport problem if in fact somebody does not have to take a decision? I see that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who represents an area that would be affected by Heathrow expansion, is in the Chamber. I cannot see anyone from an area that would be affected by expansion at Gatwick. However, they would make a case similar to the one that I am making. There is a legal maxim that equality is equity. If we are to deal with the problem of airport expansion, the load must be spread as widely as possible and as far north as possible so that parts of the country that need regeneration can benefit, rather than the overheated economy which the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and I believe exists in our county.
I shall conclude with some observations on the expansion of Stansted airport:
- "I stood at numerous vantage points around and within the safeguarded area"—
- "and visualised the utter devastation which development would wreak on this virtually unspoiled and particularly attractive tract of typical Essex countryside . . . It would constitute an environmental invasion on a scale without precedent in the history of the UK . . . I am convinced that such a monster cannot and must not be inflicted on this precious landscape".
5.28 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham): I am delighted to speak in this traditional and amiably pointless debate. It is reassuring to see the usual suspects in their places. They are a fairly eclectic group—there are supporters of good causes, espousers of lost causes, local press release junkies, sad whingers and, of course, the mad professor types. [Hon. Members: "Which one are you?"] In my time, I have been in all those categories. I wish to raise two particular issues this afternoon. First, I shall speak in my capacity as a former world statesman, now fallen on hard times, and talk about the Olympic games. Secondly, I shall speak as a mad professor type.
There will be opportunities to discuss the Olympic games in future. I am delighted that the Government have announced that they will support the London bid. I have an interest to declare in that if we are successful, much of the site will be in my constituency of West Ham in the east end, and we will enjoy a legacy there. We will get the legacy of the Olympic village, which will provide good social housing in the area, and an Olympic stadium, which, I trust, will be the home of West Ham
United football club, or of Tottenham Hotspur or Arsenal: clearly, it must be a football legacy. The legacy of facilities is important and must be taken into account.The only other comment that I would make on the games is that it is easy for everyone to cheer us on now, but when difficulties are encountered—as they will be, given that every bidding city has experienced them—I hope that those who came along to the champagne receptions will stay with us. Alas, I fear that they will not, particularly the press, who will of course immediately start to blame the Government, and everyone except themselves, for the fact that we ever entered a bid in the first place. That is sad, but we need to bear it in mind. We are up against very stiff competition in the shape of Paris, where the Government take a much more direct and hands-on approach towards such big sporting occasions. Our Government—understandably, given that the dome and Picketts Lock are still around to haunt them—perhaps feel that they can take a more hands-off approach. Unfortunately, that will not work, because when difficulties are encountered, they will undoubtedly be blamed. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will keep a close watch on the issue. Let us hope that we are successful in our bid, because it would be great for sport, great for the country, great for London and particularly great for the area that I am privileged to represent.
Right hon. and hon. Members can easily read about my second point, which I raise in my mad professor role, if they turn to early-day motion 1252. For some time, I have advocated the establishment of a mandatory national register of DNA. It is about time we seriously considered that. It would be of enormous benefit in terms of crime detection and deterrence, and a valuable aid in identifying people who have been involved in catastrophes such as the twin towers. It is sad to have to mention such things, but we live in an increasingly dangerous world, with the continuing possibility of terrorist attacks. To those who say that it is an intrusion into civil liberties, one has to reply that the greatest civil liberty of all is the ability to live in peace and safety in our own countries and communities. A national DNA register would assist us in doing that. The process is non-invasive—it simply involves swabbing in the mouth. Of course, we already have a significant DNA register, but it does not extend to us all. Perhaps, as Members of Parliament, we should all volunteer our DNA to a register. Certainly for babies, it could be done at the same time as the registration of the birth.
I hope that Members will not see this as further evidence of my lurch to the right, but will realise that in a world that is more dangerous and where people move around far more freely than they ever have in the past, a system that would enable us to keep track, in a benign way, of all our citizens at home and abroad, would be of great advantage to the country.
5.33 pm
Ross Cranston (Dudley, North): I want to say a few words about two matters, the first of which is the apparent resurgence in the past couple of days of international Islamist terrorism. We must be thankful, of course, that in the past year there have been no acts of Islamic terrorism in this country, although we are designated a special target. Writing in The Times earlier
this week, Amir Taheri pointed out that acts of international terrorism have in fact declined, but rightly said that we cannot be complacent. We have taken effective action in several areas, and must continue to do so. The international Islamic terrorists have lost bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The article mentions terrorist finance. I want to ask the Treasury about two aspects of that.We have introduced effective laws for financial institutions and their disclosure obligations and we have also frozen considerable amounts of terrorist finance. However, there is a need for international co-operation and there are gaps in international controls on terrorist financing. Last year, Ukraine and Nauru were on the black list because they did not have effective controls on money laundering and terrorist financing. There is also the problem of the alternative remittance systems; the hawala money transmission systems. We have brought those into the regulatory net, but even in the International Monetary Fund there is doubt about whether we can ever effectively control payment through those systems. I should therefore like an assessment of the effectiveness of the controls that we introduced last year.
I turn to consider Iraq and our responsibilities there. Under the Hague convention of 1907 and the Geneva conventions of 1949, we are an occupying power. That means that, first, commanding officers of our armed forces are charged with the duty of maintaining peace and order, punishing crime, and protecting lives and property in the area of their command. An issue arose about United States forces and the protection of the national museum and national library. I do not have time to go into that and whether effective steps were taken. However, I note that several items have come back to the national museum under an amnesty. The draft United Nations Security Council resolution, which, I hope, will be passed this afternoon, imposes an obligation on all member states to take effective action to ensure the return of objects looted from the national museum and the national library. They will have to have laws to prohibit the trade or transfer of suspected items.
Secondly, we have responsibilities for the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war. In the past day or so, there have been press reports about an investigation into claims that a British Army officer has mistreated civilians and prisoners of war. I am sure that the Army's special investigations branch will scrupulously pursue those allegations. However, it is plain under the Geneva conventions that an occupying power has an obligation to prevent violence to life and person and the humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners of war and civilians.
Thirdly, there is a general prohibition on transferring civilians out of occupied territories. Prisoners of war and their civilian commanders can be transferred for trial for war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, but the transfer of persons to places such as Guantanamo bay, if they are detained without trial, is wrong. I raised that matter and the detention of Britons who were captured in Afghanistan in the Easter Adjournment debate. In a recent written answer, the Foreign Office said that the Government were pressing the United States at senior levels to resolve the position of the British detainees. I can only urge the Government to keep on pressing.
Fourthly, there has been some discussion about the legality of rebuilding Iraq without a UN Security Council resolution. I hope that such a resolution will be passed later this afternoon. The accusation that our actions in the past five weeks have been in breach of international law is misconceived. Under the Hague convention and the Geneva conventions, an occupying power is precluded from annexing territory and appropriating assets. It must respect and maintain existing institutions. However, there must be qualifications. For example, there can be no obligation on an occupying power to respect and maintain all the institutions and laws of a dictatorship.
We can have political arguments about the role of the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq. The draft resolution adopts a different approach from that in Kosovo and Afghanistan. However, it is important to note that in the draft resolution, the UN will play a vital role in humanitarian relief, Iraq's reconstruction and the restoration of institutions of representative government. To that end, the draft requests the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative. Paragraph 9 of the draft resolution underlines the important role of the special representative in rebuilding the political institutions of Iraq. The Secretary-General will also appoint someone to sit on the international advisory and monitoring board of the development fund for Iraq, which will be subject to international auditing. To my mind, therefore, there is clear transparency of the fund.
I also wanted to discuss the obscene levels of executive pay and the measures needed to control them. I was very attracted by the Bill introduced earlier this year by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is about to introduce a discussion document on the subject. I very much look forward to hearing what she has to say.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |