| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1336
to make regulations, which the Minister will be able to keep up to date, and to respond to further regulations issued by the IAEA in Vienna.Clause 2 sets out all the subjects to be covered by the regulations. My constituents will be particularly relieved that under clause 2(1) (a) the Secretary of State may make regulations "to prevent any injury to health, or any damage to property or to the environment, being caused by, or by an incident arising out of, the transport of radioactive material".
I particularly support clause 2(2) (a) which concerns
"the design of packaging for radioactive material and the manufacture and maintenance of packaging components"
That is important because the public need to be assured that, if there is an accident involving a vehicle carrying radioactive materials, there is no possibility of that packaging being damaged to the extent that radioactive materials could leak from the vehicle and contaminate people or goods. The packaging therefore must comply with strict design specifications so that it can withstand any impact that it is likely to receive as a result of a serious road accident. Clause 2(2)(b) relates to clear labelling. That is also important, because, in the event of an accident, it is necessary for the emergency services to be aware of the problem that they may face. Given the nature of radioactive materials, it is equally important that their storage and handling, as well as their transportation, are strictly regulated.
Clause 2(2)(c) relates to
"the placarding of vehicles used to transport such packages" That is important for two reasons : to aid the emergency services--the police and fire service--in the event of an accident ; and to reassure the public. The public are frightened of hazardous materials being carried in secret. It is therefore important that hazardous loads are clearly marked when transported.
Clause 2(2)(d) relates to
"the keeping of records and the furnishing of information". That is important not only for reasons of safety but for public confidence. It must be right that any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any regulation made by the Secretary of State should be guilty of an offence-- it could well be a serious one.
Clause 3 relates to prohibitions and directions. It must be correct for an inspector or an examiner to have the right to prohibit the driving of a vehicle which has been used to carry radioactive materials or packages if either that vehicle or any radioactive package carried in it fails to comply with the regulations made by the Secretary of State.
It is right that clause 3(1)(b) should enable an inspector or examiner to prohibit the driving of a vehicle if
"the vehicle, or any radioactive package which is or was being transported by it, has been involved in an accident".
The inspector or an examiner has a similar right under clause 3(1)(c) if
"any radioactive package which was being transported by the vehicle, or any radioactive material which was contained in such a package, has been lost or stolen"
It is vital that such dangerous materials should be transported in properly designed packages. It is therefore important for an inspector to have the power available to him in clause 3(2) to prohibit the transport of any radioactive package that he believes has failed to comply with the regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Column 1337
Mr. Holt : My hon. Friend has spoken specifically about the design of the packaging and the safety of the vehicle, but are there any constraints in the Bill relating to the person who will drive that vehicle? If a person passed his heavy goods vehicle driving test 15 or 20 years ago- -before he had his bronchitis, arthritis and his eyesight started to deteriorate--would he still be allowed to get behind the wheel of a vehicle transporting radioactive material? Are there no controls over such a person? If not, that is a weakness in the Bill which we should consider, even at this stage. We should ensure not only that the packaging and the vehicle are right, so that people are happy, but that the drivers are right. After all, most accidents occur as a result of human failure.
Mr. Townend : My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point which I do not believe has been dealt with in the Bill. It is a pity that my hon. Friend was not on the Committee as he might have tabled a relevant amendment. No doubt when my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington replies to the debate he will he tell my hon. Friend whether he has considered that point and whether there are particular reasons why there is no specific clause on that matter in the Bill. There is no doubt that it is no good going to all the expense of introducing safeguards for the packaging and labelling of the radioactive materials and the placarding of the vehicles if there are no strict controls over those who can drive the vehicles. That matter should be considered.
I want to make progress as I know that there is another important Bill before the House today. [ Hon. Members :-- "Keep going".] I am pleased that hon. Members find my speech so fascinating and want me to continue. I shall do my best to oblige.
If an accident occurs, the first requirement is to ensure the safety of the public and for that reason clause 3(4) is essential. It is vital that the inspector should have the power to remove a vehicle to a safe place. Subsection (4) states :
"Where an inspector or examiner imposes a prohibition under subsection (1) above, he may also by a direction in writing require the person in charge of the vehicle to remove it (and, if it is motor vehicle drawing a trailer, also to remove the trailer) to such place and subject to such conditions as are specified in the direction ; and the prohibition shall not apply to the removal of the vehicle or trailer in accordance with the direction."
That is an important power.
I have one further question to put to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington which I hope he can clarify. Does the Bill apply to Scotland? I notice that Northern Ireland is mentioned and has been dealt with separately, but it is vital that the Bill should apply to Scotland. I know that we have the queer situation in this place where sometimes we have to produce separate Bills for the two countries. When one imposes regulations, one must also consider the possibility of their being breached. In a serious situation involving health and safety the penalties for a breach of the regulations should not be insignificant. Clause 6(2) provides :
"Any person guilty of an offence under section 5(5) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
I am not sure what that level is, but I hope that that fine is substantial as it is important that the regulations are complied with because we need to keep public confidence in the transportation of radioactive material.
Column 1338
Clause 6(3) states :"Any person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall be liable--
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both ;"
That seems a reasonably stiff penalty. Subsection (3)(b) sets down the penalty on summary conviction as
"a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months or to both"
Subsection (4) provides :
"The court by or before which any person is convicted of an offence under section 2(4) or 3(8) above in respect of any radioactive material may order the material to be destroyed or disposed of and any expenses reasonably incurred in connection with the destruction or disposal to be defrayed by that person."
I was rather amused by clause 7, which reads :
"Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of this Act shall be payable out of money provided by Parliament."
I have not noticed whether that provision is in every Act, but it seems strange. Nobody would expect the Secretary of State to pay out of his own pocket the money spent as a consequence of the Act's provisions.
I shall close by saying that I am convinced--
Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : It would be helpful if the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) put it on record that his real interest is not in this Bill but in the one that follows. The following Bill is an important animal welfare measure to which the hon. Gentleman takes exception. Will he explain why he did not attend the Second Reading debate, which involved only a six-minute speech, and why he did not attend the Committee where the proceedings were completed in eight minutes? Will he also explain why he has not tabled any amendments up to Third Reading but has now made the longest speech on the Bill? Will he confirm that he has no interest in the Bill but merely seeks to delay proceedings so that he can kill the animal welfare measure?
Mr. Townend : The hon. Member is most presumptuous. He cannot have heard my speech. I apologised--as did my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South--for not being able to be present for the Second Reading debate as I had constituency engagements. On Fridays most hon. Members have engagements.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the next important Bill. If he looks behind him, he will see that there is nobody there. Therefore, the Bill cannot be that important to the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would have understood that, as busy roads from the ferry terminal and from the port of Hull run through my constituency, I have a legitimate constituency interest in this Bill. Because of the important chemical works and North sea gas terminals in my constituency, my constituents are more aware than those of most right hon. and hon. Members of the dangers of carrying hazardous materials.
The hon. Gentleman is right : I have a great interest in the next Bill because my constituency has the largest concentration of pig farmers in the country. If that Bill is passed, many of them will go bankrupt, so I am also here for that Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman was wrong and presumptuous to say--or to insinuate--that I have no interest in this Bill or no right to speak on it. He went over
Column 1339
the top when he spoke about attendance at the Committee. He knows as well as I do how rarely hon. Members who are not members of Committees attend those Committees.Mr. Ron Davies : The record is accurate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was listening to his speech at the Bar of the House and I followed his arguments carefully. I did not suggest that he had no right to speak on the Bill. I recognise and uphold that right. I was questioning his motives rather than his right. I am grateful that he has confirmed his objection and his wish to kill the animal welfare measure which follows the Bill.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that he has an important constituency interest. I should have thought that his cause and the interests of his constituents would best be served by bringing the debate to a close so that we can proceed to Third Reading and hasten the Bill's passage into law.
Mr. Townend : Again, the hon. Gentleman is presumptuous. If my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Spalding--
Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston) : Not Spalding anymore.
Mr. Townend : If my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) listens to my amendments and has a heart for the poor pig farmers in my constituency, he will accept them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We must not anticipate debates that may come later.
Mr. Townend : I apologise, but, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) accused me of having said that I wished to kill the Bill. I did not say that. I am saying that, if the amendments were accepted, I should be happy to vote for the Bill because they would mean that our pig farmers would not be at a disadvantage compared with European pig farmers.
It is important for my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington to see that all hon. Members who vote, vote for the Bill. I shall give him the opportunity to see that by calling a Division. I am convinced that the Bill will be passed and I do not expect anybody to vote against it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. After a relatively short time in Parliament, he will have made a small piece of parliamentary history by having successfully introduced and steered the Fishburn Bill through the House. I strongly support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South about the importance of nuclear energy. There is no doubt that the industrial revival in France is very much based on cheap energy
Column 1340
which comes mainly from nuclear power. As she said, as we advance into the nuclear age, the safe transportation of nuclear waste will become increasingly important. In a few years the people who do not realise it now will realise then what an important contribution the Bill will have made. There is no doubt that many people in this country have suffered from hydrocarbon fuels. We know the problems about coal mines which my hon. Friend mentioned.I shall not detain the House any longer as we have important business to do, but again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington.
10.57 am
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope) : If I correctly detect the feeling in the House, it is that we should move as quickly as possible to conclude Third Reading.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on successfully steering the Bill to Third Reading and confirm the Government's full support for his efforts. It is an important Bill and, were it not for my hon. Friend's generosity in giving up his place in the private Members' ballot for this measure, we should not have been guaranteed that it would be on the statute book this Session.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) raised a number of issues. She explained to me that she must attend a constituency engagement- -as I, too, must do shortly--so I shall write to her with the details of those issues. However, most of them were irrelevant to the core of the Bill. She was especially interested in the issue of inspectors. At the first stage, there will be approximately 10 inspectors and 215 traffic examiners. That is the correct level of enforcement to begin with, but it will be kept under review. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House. 10.59 am
Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on introducing the Bill. However, he has done so on behalf of the Government. With respect, I must say that this is not a private Member's Bill ; it is a piece of Government legislation. As it is a piece of Government legislation, we should be debating it not on a Friday morning, but properly in Government time. It should be introduced by a Minister and opposed by the Opposition and we should debate it in that context. Although it may have been slightly offensive to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) made a contribution, we must put it on record that although we congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington on getting a Bill through the House of Commons, we believe that it is not a private Member's Bill, but Government legislation. Is it good or bad Government legislation?
Column 1341
Guy's Hospital
11 am
Ms. Harriet Harman (Peckham) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I have given you notice. Will a Health Minister make a statement to the House about the cut of 600 jobs at Guy's hospital? Will anyone take responsibility for that, or is the Government's attitude, "Guy's? It has opted out and is nothing to do with us any more"? Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, use your influence to bring a Minister to the House to answer for the shortage of funds that has led to the jobs being axed, or is it the case that now that Guy's has opted out, the only accountability is to the balance sheet, not to the patients or the local community? The Prime Minister is to have a health summit tomorrow. Scrapping the national health service changes must be at the top of his agenda.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would be helpful if you could tell the House whether you have been given any idea of the Government's response to the knowledge that they were given this morning that requests were being made for Ministers to come to the House to answer the complaints about the sudden announcement of the cuts at Guy's hospital, which is in my constituency.
The case raises an issue for the first time. It is the first such announcement since self-governing hospital trusts came into operation on 1 April. The constitutional problem may be that Ministers are reluctant to come to the House because they are suddenly saying that they are no longer answerable for self-governing hospital trusts. If that is why the Secretary of State or his Ministers are not here--I understand that although the Secretary of State may not be in London, Ministers are in the Department today--it cannot be right. The argument for self-government is that the hospital is now directly accountable to the Government and that the local health authority has been cut out. The House needs an assurance that at the least on Monday if not today, because we must give the Government the opportunity to get their argument together, given that they will meet at Chequers tomorrow to discuss health service policy, the Secretary of State will come to the House to explain how it is possible for 600 jobs, one eighth of the work force, to go from the local hospital without a reduction in care for the community.
I am often in the hospital--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order. He cannot go into the merits of the case, especially during private Members' time.
Mr. Hughes : I will be brief. Ministers need to come to the House because the statement made on behalf of the hospital yesterday--not publicly, as there has been no communication with elected representatives and no alerting of local Members of Parliament--is that there will be no reduction in care. It has even been said that the cuts are being made to advance the care of the patients. That cannot be true. Someone must explain to the House how it is possible for employees of the public health service to make what is clearly a misleading statement from which many people are likely to suffer. If we can have an announcement today that there will be a statement on
Column 1342
Monday, it will at least be possible to question the Secretary of State on what could be a matter of precedent affecting many people, many hospitals and many workers in the health service throughout England and Wales.Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) : The self-governing trust to which hon. Members have referred is Guy's and Lewisham, so the cuts affect Lewisham hospital in my constituency. I have had no notice of the cuts and I have not been consulted. I wish to add to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) for a statement in the House so that we may question Ministers. In Lewisham, we face the closure of Sydenham children's hospital and the moving of its facilities to our site. Will that be placed in jeopardy? Will phase 2 of our hospital be placed in jeopardy? We cannot tell, but we are told that the cuts are across the board. A 10 per cent. cut in staff at Lewisham hospital would be extremely deleterious to our health services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said, Ministers must be made responsible for the action. I beg you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use your good offices to ensure that Ministers come to the House either today or another day to answer for what will be, I am sure, a severe reduction in the health services available to my constituents.
Mr. John Townend rose --
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking on the same point of order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Please speak very briefly because we are cutting into private Members' time.
Mr. Townend : Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These things happen all the time. One should not always accept the idea that because staff are cut, services will be cut. One might consider the catering side of hospitals--
Ms. Ruddock : This is not a point of order.
Mr. Townend : It is a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We cannot debate the matter now. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order for me, I will hear it.
Mr. Townend : It is quite unreasonable for the Opposition to demand on a Friday that a Minister should come to the House. There is no urgency in the matter. A Minister could easily make a statement next week. There is no urgency for a statement to be made before the weekend. Ministers are supposed to be running the country, so it would be inconvenient for them to come to the House today. The demand is unnecessary.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I recall that the trusts were established by delegated powers. As far as I can recall, there were no provisions in that delegated legislation for the removal of parliamentary accountability and the responsibility of Ministers to make statements to the House when there were such enormous, cataclysmic and catastrophic announcements of 600 redundancies at a given hospital. I thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you were making inquiries on behalf of the House, which is
Column 1343
anxious to have a statement from the Government, it should be borne in mind that Ministers still have responsibility for the catastrophe.Mr. Deputy Speaker : There has been no request for a statement on the matter, but no doubt what has been said will have been heard by members of the Government Front Bench. The hon. Members concerned will be able to seek other opportunities to raise the matter.
Column 1344
Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill
Mr. Holt : I drove past Guy's hospital this morning and I was amazed by the amount of capital building work that is going on there. Having seen that and then having listened to remarks about 600 job cuts did not make sense to me. However, I should be told off by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I digressed for one minute from the Bill. I have already congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and I was making the point that the Bill was really Government legislation. As such, coming on a Friday, it interferes with genuine private Members' time. The Bill will not be subjected, as was the Bill concerning the Tees and Hartlepool port authority which I sponsored, to being thrown out on the capricious whim of a few Members of the other place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington drew attention to his constituency in relation to the transportation of atomic waste. I represent Teesside, where the chemical industry is at the heart of what we do. We have tremendous problems. We have the largest fire service in the country. Recently we have been involved in detailed and long talks over the marking of all the vehicles that come into Teesside from all round the world. In Cleveland, we used the British marking while everyone else used the European standard marking. The Government urged us to go over to the European model. We tried to convince the Minister that the signs used in this country, and widely accepted in this and some other countries, were better than European signs and that argument raged over the transportation of chemicals. Will we have the same arguments over the movement of atomic waste, raw materials, isotopes and so on? If so, we could find ourselves in an expensive bargaining game.
It is all very well to have before us this type of Bill, either privately or supported by the Government, but I wonder how long it will be before the European legislature decides to impose its own rules, regulations and markings and whether we shall have to change all over again. In those circumstances, it might have been wise to leave the matter until the Europeans have determined the issue, in the same context as the movement of chemical and hazardous materials in the Teesside area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington referred to people's perceptions and feelings about atomic waste and atomic power stations. On Teesside we have Hartlepool power station, which is producing electricity cheaply for distribution on the national grid. It is an excellent power station. I recall not long ago the people responsible for the welfare and well-being of the toughest youngsters in the Durham area--those who in old-fashioned terms would have been called borstal boys--taking a group on a visit to Hartlepool atomic power station.
The tough lads and lassies were ushered into a bus in Durham and transported a few miles to Hartlepool. It was found, on arriving at the power station, that the youngsters would not leave the bus. Although only a few brick walls lay between the bus and the power station, they did not want to go in. It was as though they were near Chernobyl. Although they were told that they were at no risk, their perception was such--the same applies to many members of the public--they did not like the idea of being at the power station.
Column 1345
Such is the aura surrounding atomic energy and we must remove that fear. One way to do that is through the type of measure that is before the House today. We must constantly examine and update legislation. Much has happened between 1947 and 1991. If we do not re-educate the public in this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, we shall fall behind our European competitors, particularly France, in the provision of cheap electricity.The British furniture industry, for which I speak in the House, recently had new legislation imposed on it for fire prevention which involved the use of new types of foam in upholstered furniture. The result is that, at great expense, all furniture manufacturers in Britain have installed new equipment and employed new production methods. We are now producing furniture which is safer than furniture produced anywhere else on the continent.
Yet the European Parliament is about to introduce new regulations affecting furniture manufacturing. That will involve foam, chemicals and all other matters used in that industry, but the new European regulations will not be as strict as those that now exist in Britain. That puts the Minister in a dichotomy ; does he uphold our stronger laws or accede to instructions from Brussels?
If, having passed this Bill, the same happens over the movement of atomic waste, we shall find ourselves in a legislative maelstrom. Indeed, we might as well have stayed, legislatively, where we were in 1947. Have the changes that we have made over the years given us the best that we could have? Even at this stage of the Bill, I question whether my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, acting on behalf of the Government, or even the Government themselves, have thought through the whole question of the marking of vehicles.
It is important to know what consideration the Government have given to controls that may be imposed on the drivers of the vehicles involved. For example, will there be an age limit and will drivers need medical examinations, including regular eye tests? It is all very well to say that a vehicle must have an MOT test every few years to ensure that its tyres, gears and so on are in good working order and that it has all the necessary equipment. But what about the human beings who drive the vehicles?
Our experience on Teesside, which involves the movement of many chemical lorries, is that invariably accidents occur not through mechanical failure but through human error. Sometimes the roads are slippery, but all too often accidents occur through human error such as tiredness or lack of concentration, or because drivers have been listening to the radio or thinking about last night's football match or episode of "Eastenders". As a result of the multitude of matters that go through people's minds, accidents occur.
When there is a chemical accident on Teesside, there is a major alert and all the emergency services immediately go into action. I fear that hellish travel and traffic problems also occur. Indeed, in a recent accident on the main roundabout on the A19, traffic was held up for many hours. That involved the spillage of only a small amount of toxic material, but we cannot afford to take chances with the movement of toxic, dangerous and nuclear material.
We have a debt to the general public. That has led my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington to introduce the Bill, although hon. Members will agree that we were not over-convinced by the Minister's contribution. Could we
Column 1346
have been convinced by Government explanation, apology and enlightenment involving only one and a half minutes of explanation from the Minister?Mr. John Townend : Does my hon. Friend feel that a covert deal has been done by the Minister? He did not give a proper reply to the debate or answer the questions that were put to him. Could that be because he is anxious to get on to the next debate, the Government having decided to back the Bill which will cause many problems for my pig farmers? I have been accused by the Opposition of manoeuvring. Does my hon. Friend think that this is a case of parliamentary manoeuvring?
Mr. Holt : My hon. Friend tempts me to discuss that issue, but would he expect me to ascribe such motives to the Minister? Heaven forbid that a Minister would do anything that could be called gerrymandering--
Mr. Ron Davies : Does the hon. Gentleman mean filibustering rather than gerrymandering?
Mr. Holt : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which shows that he is more familiar than I am with the use of such words.
Mr. John Townend : My hon. Friend represents a constituency which contains many chemical works. Has he had problems on the roads over the transportation of hazardous loads and are his constituents as worried as mine about such matters and do they require reassurance? Is it likely that loads of nuclear waste will be transported through his constituency?
Mr. Holt : That reminds me that I should put on record the fact that I am a director of a chemical company with production units on the river in Teesside. Therefore, I have much first-hand knowledge of the chemical industry and know what we must consider by way of environmental practices. Without a shadow of a doubt, my company's No. 1 priority is safety and I believe that to be true of ICI and all the other major chemical companies in Teesside. On my visits to various chemical companies, I have always made a point of meeting the transport manager and seeing the safety experts because there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) said, a widespread fear and concern that we are dealing with material that is liable to be volatile at any time. There is also a power station in the constituency.
Sir Richard Body : Will my hon. Friend give hon. Members some guidance on what they should do in the forthcoming Division for which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has said he will call and for which Tellers will be provided? Will my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) vote against the Bill? Does he feel that the Bill goes far enough? Will he give us guidance on which way we should vote because, in view of what he said earlier, it seems that some of us should be persuaded to vote against the Bill when my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington presses it to a Division?
Mr. Holt : My hon. Friend will have to be patient. When one learns how this place works, one often finds that as more and more legislation progresses, hon. Members take more interest. There is so much legislation that they cannot always be fully aware of and involved in every detail.
| Next Section
| Home Page |