§ Mr. Anderson
I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 45, leave out'may, if he thinks fit',and insert'shall establish a British Antarctic Licensing Commission whose purpose shall be, in appropriate circumstances and subject to the provisions of this section, to'
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)
With this we shall discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in page 3, line 1, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4) and insert—
§ '(2A) The British Antarctic Licensing Commission shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and shall comprise five members, including at least one representative from each of International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, International Whaling Commission, and the Commission for the European Communities.
§ (3A) The Chairperson and two other members of the Commission shall be persons appearing to the Minister to have no financial or commercial interests as are likely to affect them as members independent of the mining industry.
§ (4A) An application for a license shall be accompanied by such fee (if any) as may be prescribed and an environmental impact statement.
§ (5A) An environmental impact statement comprises a document or series of documents providing for the purpose of assessing the likely impact upon the environment of the activity proposed to be carried out the information specified in (6A) below.
§ (6A) The specified information is—
- (a) a description of the activities proposed, comprising information about the site and design and size or scale of the activity;
- (b) the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which that activity is likely to have on the environment;
- (c) a description of the likely significant effects, direct and indirect, on the environment of the activity, explained by reference to its possible impact on—
- human beings;
- the landscape;
- the inter-action between any of the foregoing;
- material assets;
- the cultural heritage;
§ (7A) An environmental impact assessment may include, by way of explanation or amplification of any of the specified information, further information on any of the following matters—
- (a) the physical characteristics of the proposed activity, and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;
- (b) the main characteristics of the prospecting activities proposed, including the nature and quality of the materials to be used;
- (c) the estimated type and quantity of expected residues and emissions (including pollutants of water, air, or soil, noise, vibration, light, heat and radiation) resulting from the proposed activity when in operation;
- (d) (in outline) the main alternatives (if any) studied by the applicant, appellant or authority and an indication of the main reasons for choosing the activity proposed;
- (e) the likely significant direct and indirect effects on the environment of the activity proposed which may result from—
- (i) the use of natural resources;
- (ii) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances, and the elimination of waste;
- (iii) the forecasting methods to assess any effects on the environment about which information is given under the subparagraph (e); and
- (iv)any difficulties, such as technical deficiencies or lack or know-how, encountered in compiling any specified information.
§ In paragraph (e), "effects" includes secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent, temporary and negative effects.
§ (8A) Where further information is included in an environmental statement pursuant to (7) above, a non-technical summary of that information shall also be provided.
§ (9A) The British Antarctic Licensing Commission shall not grant a licence to any person unless it is satisfied
- (i) that the person is suitably qualified to hold a licence; and
- (ii) that the carrying on by that person of the authorised activities will be consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.
§ (10) A licence shall be granted for a maximum period of two years and subject to such conditions as the British Antarctic Licensing Commission thinks fit.".'
§ No. 20, in page 3, line 5, after 'with', insert 'all'.
No. 27, in page 3, line 6, at end add
`and that such a licence shall not be granted unless the Secretary of State is completely satisfied that no pollution will result from its implementation'.
§ No. 22, in page 3, line 16, leave out 'such loss or', and insert 'any'.
No. 24, in page 3, line 17, after 'activities', insert
`such loss or other damage'.
§ No. 25, in page 3, line 17, leave out 'and'.
§ No. 29, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'providing for' and insert 'requiring'.
No. 26. in page 3, line, 19, at end insert
No. 28, in page 3, line 19, at end add
(d) and that a bond equal to twice the sum required for insurance purposes shall be deposited before a licence is granted and which shall be forfeited if there is any oil spillage or other significant pollution as a result of or during the exercise of that licence'.
No. 46, in page 3, line, 19, at end add—
'(d) any licensee must give a report each six months to the Inspectorate and the Environmental Protection Agency on the effects of the exploration and its environmental impact.'.
No. 47, in page 3, line 19, at end add—
'(e) the numbers of persons involved in the exploration shall be agreed with the Secretary of State and names involved submitted and agreed by him.'.
No. 48, in page 3, line 19, at end add—
'(f) all license applications must be reported to Parliament by the Secretary of State and his subsequent decisions.'.
No. 49, in page 3, line, 19, at end add—
'(g) the license shall specify the exact quantities of minerals that may be extracted for samples; all extracted minerals remain the property of a license commission appointed by the Secretary of State to oversee all licensees.'.
No. 50, in page 3, line 24, at end add—
'(7) No person found guilty of an offence under section 10 below shall be permitted to apply for a licence.'.
No. 30, in clause 4, page 3, line 30, after 'complied with' insert
'or is likely not to be complied with'.
No. 31, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, at end add '
(c) that evidence provided by individuals or organisations maintaining interest in these matters is such as to suggest that the exercise of the licence may or will have disadvantageous effect upon the environment.'
No. 45, in clause 4, page 3, line 36, at end add—
'(4) Before any licence is operated there shall be an opportunity for environmental protection groups to visit the site(s) and at any other time during the life of the licence.'.
No. 51, in clause 8, page 4, line 36, at end add—
`There shall be sufficient inspectors to ensure that each licence has a detailed inspection of its activities every six months in whatever part of the Antarctic it is sited.'.
§ Mr. Anderson
This is a crucial series of amendments. They are the key to providing safeguards in the Bill and a test of the Government's environmental intentions through the Bill and the convention.
We oppose the Bill in principle because circumstances have changed, but the Government have been inflexible and not prepared to move in tune with those changed circumstances. Although we voted in favour of the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, our prime motives since then have been to "green" the Bill, to put each clause through an environmental sieve and to provide as many environmental safeguards as possible. We also want, as far as possible, to remove the discretions available to the Minister.
118 The amendments relate to the licensing provisions. They are essential because, as the Minister confirmed in Committee, Britain is further down the legislative road towards implementing the convention than the other countries which intended to ratify it. The safeguards that we build into the Bill will therefore set a precedent for other countries to follow.
When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will confirm that that is so. As we are leading the field, it is all the more important that we get the Bill right, build in safeguards and not allow loopholes to remain which are ripe for exploitation by people with no concern for the Antarctic's unique ecosystem.
The purpose of the amendments is to establish the British Antarctic Licensing Commission and set out its terms of reference, which include an obligation on companies seeking licences to provide an environmental impact statement of their intentions before their licences can be considered. The concept of a licensing commission is not new, in either international or domestic law. The convention itself proposes a commission to regulate the exploration and exploitation of Antarctica. Under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, for example, the Cable Authority is charged with allocating franchises on criteria which include standards of decency and impartiality. The British Antarctic Licensing Commission, or BALC, will be accountable to the Secretary of State, though its decisions are more likely to come under judicial scrutiny. Clearly it would be more practicable for the commission's decisions to be taken by way of judicial review than by the Secretary of State. We envisage the accumulation by case law of much more stringent environmental safeguards.
Other amendments relate to the commission's terms of reference. They are set out in extenso in amendment No. 19, but it is not my intention to describe them in detail. Suffice it to say that the amendment begins by setting out the commission's proposed membership. It stressesThe Chairperson and two other members of the Commission shall be persons appearing … to have no financial or commercial interests …Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed the extent to which people with commercial interests could easily intrude, particularly in respect of licence applications.Amendment No. 19 goes on to stipulate:An environmental impact statement comprises a document or series of documents providing for the purpose of assessing the likely impact upon the environment of the activity proposed to be carried out".The information required for the environmental impact statement is also detailed, and the amendment describes certain discretionary activities.
Finally, amendment No. 19 states:A licence shall be granted for a maximum period of two years and subject to such conditions as the British Antarctic Commission thinks fit.It is important that the licence should not be held indefinitely. The suggested maximum of two years will concentrate the licensee's mind, and provide a requirement additional to that in clause 4, which empowers the Secretary of State to revoke or suspend a licence if he is not satisfied with the activities of the licensee.
Amendment No. 19 also sets out organisations which could suitably be represented on the licensing commission. They might include the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the International Whaling Commission, the Nature 119 Conservancy Council, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Commission for the European Communities and the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research.
We believe that the requirements set out in the amendment, although lengthy, are very reasonable and are standard environmental impact assessment criteria. The format has not been snatched from the air or devised by people whom Conservative Members might label eco-freaks. It has been drawn from the Government's own precedent—the statutory instrument, Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. Those considerations for environmental impact assessments on new developments in the United Kingdom are a legal requirement.
We feel that the criteria developed in Britain are equally relevant internationally. Although the Government may be tardy in translating such criteria from the domestic to the international stage, we believe that that translation must inevitably come. In any case, the convention requires contracting states sponsoring prospectors to submit advance notification of prospecting, along with an environmental impact assessment, which must be circulated to all contracting parties.
In our judgment, this is not an onerous requirement, but rather a litmus test of the Government's commitment—so much trumpeted of late—to the environment. As I said earlier, our Government have taken the lead in terms of implementing the convention domestically. They now have the opportunity to set a worthy precedent for other Governments to follow.
§ Mr. Hardy
I shall try to make a shorter speech than I made on the previous set of amendments, but I think that it would be appropriate for me to make some comments, as amendments Nos. 27 to 31 are in my name.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that these were the most crucial amendments before the House, as they—quite properly—sought improved safeguards for the Bill. I remind the House that, in the short time that has elapsed since the debate started a little after 7 pm, at least a dozen species on the planet have become extinct—species that may have lived on earth for a thousand years, or perhaps for as long as the ice has existed in Antarctica. That pace of extinction is normal on our planet.
§ Mr. Hardy
I have certain reservations about zoological gardens.
Britain has a reputation as the country where conservation was born. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East has reminded us, we are the lead Government in that regard. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that we give a new lead in seeking to retain the position that we once enjoyed.
We have been pretty cavalier with the environment in many parts of the world. I have referred to the tropical rain 120 forests and the encroaching desert. I have only to look at parts of my own constituency to see what untrammelled commercialism can do, as 1,000 acres of land have become derelict and very little is being done.
§ It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
§ Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
§ Mr. Hardy
We have enough evidence in these islands of what can happen if greed is untrammelled, legislation is unsatisfactory and Government priorities are inadequate. We are fearful of what may happen in Antarctica. When he replied to the debate on the previous set of amendments, the Minister expressed some anxiety about what might happen if there were inadequate controls.
To ensure that we set an example as the lead Government, we have tabled amendments which would toughen environmental protection within the Bill. The five amendments in my name would require the Secretary of State to be completely satisfied that no environmental damage would follow the issue of a licence. My amendment seeks to remove the word "providing" and replace it with the word "requiring", which makes the restriction a little tighter. In my view, a bond is required to ensure that there will be sufficient resources to make good what damage is done and at the same time to build another hurdle against the force of greed.
Antarctica should remain an international reserve or wilderness area as we do not have enough of those. I have never visited Antarctica, but I once had the magnificent opportunity to fly over the North pole on an extremely clear and cloudless day. That gave me ample ground to intervene in the debate to say that, when we consider the environment of Antarctica, we should consider the topography and the landscape, which should not be cluttered with all the rubbish that may be produced even by scientific research which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, is inadequately controlled.
I am also concerned about the retention of species. Most people are aware that there are penguins in Antarctica; the Minister will know that there are seven species of penguins there. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West has already referred to the gentoo penguin raiding the cold store of a vanished scientific station.
Altogether, 43 species of birds are seen regularly in Antarctica. Some of those birds range far more widely than the Southern ocean. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe is not in his place, because he is a highly skilled ornithologist. Earlier today I asked him whether he had ever seen the wandering albatross, which is a bird of the Southern ocean, and he was fortunate enough to have seen one. It is a very large bird with a 11 ft wingspan. Even birds with 6 or 7 ft wingspans, such as the other members of the albatross family which are large and formidable creatures, are extremely vulnerable to loss of food reserves or the despoliation or poisoning of habitat.
§ Mr. Corbyn
Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a belief that "The Ancient Mariner", written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, was inspired by Cook's voyage to the Antarctic and that one interpretation of the voyage of the 121 ancient mariner is that we should protect the natural environment and not destroy what we do not know or understand?
§ Mr. Hardy
There is a line in that fine work of literature which says:Water, water, every where … nor any drop to drink.We are not suggesting that water will disappear, even if it is privatised, but it may be unfit to drink. DDT and other pesticides are already found in Antarctic waters.
The degree of commercial exploitation on which some seem eager to embark could lead to the destruction of krill, which is the basic food supply of many of the species that inhabit Antarctica. The development of commercial exploitation in Antarctica will not merely disfigure the environment and make an area that should remain an outstanding international wilderness ugly and unpleasant, but that it will eventually destroy the food supplies and poison the environment of the four types of seal to be found there and the 43 species of birds based there, although they sometimes visit European areas.
The cape pigeon is one such bird. It was seen in the Netherlands not long ago. I am sure that it is a true pigeon, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe could comment on that. It is an interesting species. If it sees itself under threat or likely to be treated badly, it spits at those who present the threat. I wish that we had some cape pigeons in the House this evening.
§ Mr. Corbyn
Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems of wildlife in the Antarctic when the first human beings arrived was that they had no fear of them? The penguins stood still while sailors walked up, one after another, and clubbed them to death in their thousands. The seals were treated in the same way, because they came across an enemy about which they had no notion.
§ Mr. Hardy
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many penguins today are not very suspicious, although, as he has explained, they have great cause to be. I remember taking some children to a zoological garden. It was many years ago, because I have been in the House for a long time. One boy asked me, "Sir, are penguins dangerous?" I said that they were not. I picked one up and the children handled it. They expected it to be oily and unpleasant, but it was quite attractive. That penguin should not have allowed any human to pick it up because we have treated that species barbarously. We have treated all the wildlife of our planet barbarously until relatively recently. The green movement that we have discerned in Britain relatively recently suggests that an increasing proportion of the population requires the higher standards that I hope are embodied in our amendment.
§ Mr. Tony Banks
My hon. Friend was referring to penguins in the Antarctic. I have an extract from Time magazine of 23 January which talks about the destruction of 1,000 Adele penguins through the construction of the French research base at Dumont-D'Urville. An airstrip is being built at Pointe Geologie. There is a picture of the earth movers and the penguins are standing there being destroyed. They obviously do not know what is confronting them. I wrote to the Minister with a number 122 of questions about the destruction of the penguins at Pointe Geologie. I know that it is the responsibility not of the British Government, but of the French Government. However, it emphasises what my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth is saying.
§ Mr. Hardy
As my hon. Friend will be aware, from time to time we disagree with some of our French colleagues in the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I can think of a good reason, as can my hon. Friend, to pursue that aspect of French Antarctic policy at a relatively early stage, perhaps when we meet next in September. We could draw this matter to the attention of the French Government, especially since Mr. Mitterrand—rightly in this connection—holds up France as a model. Despite what my hon. Friend has said, I am sorry to say that the position of the French Government is a great: deal more attractive and honourable than our own. Therefore, we should suggest to our French colleagues that their position would be improved by stopping the destruction of the Adele penguin.
I am worried about the seals. Although I said that there were four types of seal, the elephant seal is not strictly an Antarctic creature. The seals are vulnerable. Although their numbers may not have been reduced on the scale of the seals in the Mediterranean, where the numbers deteriorated fairly rapidly not many years ago and are now a matter of serious concern for European conservationists, a threat does exist, not merely because of disturbances to the environment, but because of the other problem in the Antarctic, which is the proper control of the resources of the marine heritage—the krill and the fish. If there is overfishing greedy eyes are certainly fixed on that marine resource—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members disputing that, because only a few years ago some experts demanded the annual harvest of thousands of tonnes of krill, which could not have been supported for more than a short period.
We are entitled to expect the Government to recognise that, as my hon. Friends have said, they are in a lead position in relation to the environment. We should not surrender that lead and watch Australia and France adopt entirely commendable positions while laying ourselves open to serious criticisms as a nation.
The amendments do not go anywhere near as far as some people might like. However, as was the case with the previous batch of amendments, I believe that they have merit and should command attention from this Administration, together with the acceptance that we must demonstrate that Britain will retain high standards, that we fully recognise the environmental inheritance that the Antarctic offers and that we will not, through inadequacies in our own legislation, provide a threat which future generations—and perhaps, in time, our own—will find grievously unacceptable and utterly inadequate.
§ Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)
I apologise for not having participated in much of the debate. I feel a good deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and with the natural desire to keep the Antarctic in its virgin state for longer. I see that point. However, there are vast resources there that cannot easily be extracted. They are under the ice cap, but they could help millions of people, such as the millions of 123 people in Africa and elsewhere, who are suffering from drought or hunger or war. We must strike a balance in this matter.
The whole object of the treaty is to make it possible to exploit the wealth that is in the Antarctic, although that it is difficult to do. My noble Friend Lord Shackleton—perhaps I should not call him my "Friend" because he is a Labour Peer, but I have worked with him for many years—Lord Buxton and others have left me in no doubt that extracting the wealth is an extremely difficult operation.
That wealth exists and we should not make it impossible to develop the resources of Antarctica in the interests of mankind as a whole, particularly when we consider what has happened in Ethiopia, Somalia or the Sudan. I intervene in this debate partly from filial piety. My father annexed great chunks of the Antarctic to the British empire. He did that because he thought that nothing could be done with it in those days, but he wanted to stake a claim in case an opportunity arose in time to develop the wealth in that part of the world.
Less than 10 years ago, we had a conflict with Argentina over the Falklands. The Falklands are the nearest that I have ever been to the Antarctic. The Argentines and the Chileans also have claims on Antarctica, some of which overlap with ours. I have sometimes wondered, in the interests of Anglo-Latin American friendship in the south Atlantic, whether we might enlist the co-operation of Argentina, Chile and other countries in the gradual development of Antarctica and its resources as laid down in the treaty. The Falklands under British sovereignty could provide a base for doing just that, with their airfield and improved naval facilities. The Falklands are perhaps the nearest modern developed location to the Antarctic continent.
We should not forswear the possibility of co-operation with Latin American countries and others which have interests in the ultimate development of Antarctica, so long as that is well policed and organised under the Antarctic treaty. The resources of the Antarctic might be made available for the benefit of all mankind and perhaps specifically benefit this country and our citizens who participated in its development.
§ Mr. Hardy
If the right hon. Gentleman is taking the long view and saying that, in X number of centuries, we might need the reserves in Antarctica, perhaps I could agree in large measure with what he has said. However, our anxiety is that man's greed outstrips his common sense at the moment. Although the Exxon oil disaster off the Alaskan coast was some distance from civilisation, it was a great deal nearer the technical and physical resources necessary to contain the spillage. Even so, it had a dramatic impact on that part of our planet. If such an experience was repeated in the present state of man's capacity and knowledge in the Antarctic peninsula or in the Bellingshausen or Weddell seas, the damage might be colossal and we would not have sufficient resources close enough to such a disaster to respond to what would be a tragedy.
§ Mr. Amery
I do not suggest that we should wait centuries. It may be wise and possible to tackle the problem sooner. However, if we followed the hon. 124 Gentleman's recipe, we would not exploit anything. The Californian, Latin American and South African goldfields would not have brought wealth to the local populations or to the world as a whole. We cannot ignore the need of people who are dying today in central Africa and sub-Saharan Africa simply to preserve a national or universal park for ever. As I understand it, the Antarctic treaty offers all the safeguards that are required for a reasonable and logical approach to the problem.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
I abstained in the Division on the last amendment. I find myself somewhat out of tune with hon. Friends whose causes I normally support. I should like to explain to them and to the House why that is so. The convention is the best that we are likely to get—and heaven help us if we do not get it, because people could run amok.
I am greatly influenced by the good fortune of having been able to attend a conference on the Antarctic at Ditchley about a year ago. At that conference I listened not only to the Americans arguing strongly and with considerable information the case for such a convention, but also to the best of my recollection to the representations of the Germans and certainly—without doubt, because I checked my notes—to the representations of the Australians. It is a bit rich for Australian politicians now to say that they want to keep the Antarctic in pristine condition when we all know very well that the real influence was the victory in Tasmania of five Greens in a local election. That does not reflect great credit on Australian politics or on the Australian politicians of all hues who tried to appear as knights in shining armour.
I am concerned about certain problems. I have a strong recollection of the powerful argument advanced at Ditchley and Edinburgh by Dr. Steele, the distinguished Scottish-American director of the Woods Hole laboratory. He said that the problem of waste is very real. I agree with my hon. Friends that the shit of Gentos penguins is not so bad as human excrement or many of the things that will remain for years.
First, what will be done about waste? Secondly, I am somewhat put out—I put it no higher—to see my hon. Friends producing the Scott letter. I agree with them that there must be some answer, and when Sir Peter Scott writes such a letter there must be a fairly full reply. Equally, powerful colleagues of ours, of whom Eddie Shackleton is one, take the view that I and others put forward—and not, in many respects, the view of my hon. Friends. However, there are distinguished experts on both sides. I should like an answer to those questions.
§ Mr. Corbyn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for setting out his views. I have an enormous respect for his work in exposing the Government's deviousness over the Falklands and on many other issues. I am sorry to say that I do not agree with him on this issue, but I have great regard for what he says. Essentially, his argument boils down to the fact that he and I agree on the need to preserve in its entirety the environment of the Antarctic. He believes that the convention which is on offer is the best way to protect that environment, because he thinks that it is achievable and can be done now. A few years ago, many of us might have agreed with that view, but things have moved on. We have 125 seen the change of view by the Australian Government, who say that they now support the wilderness park idea that New Zealand promoted some time earlier.
The amendment proposes a licensing authority, which would be free from the commercial pressures, as far as that is possible, that we think are implicit in everything that the Government have so far put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that amendments Nos. 17 and 19 were the important ones in the group—which they are. Amendment No. 17 provides for the setting up of a British Antarctic licensing commission. Amendment No. 19 goes through the details of that commission and the environmental impact surveys that it will he expected to undertake. As my hon. Friend pointed out, everything said on environmental impact surveys in the two pages of the amendment—it is one of the longest that I have seen—is taken from existing British Government legislation—the regulations contained in the Town and Country Planning Acts. Therefore, it is all eminently sensible and achievable.
We are saying that, before any exploitation, be it prospecting or what we believe will lead on to the exploitation of minerals in the Antarctic, an environmental impact assessment must be made. It must go into all the aspects involved, such as the type of activities proposed, information on the site, the size and scale of that activity and the data that will be necessary to identify the main effects, and then it must consider the possible effects of all the matters mentioned.
It is easy to say that what we are talking about is the search for minerals, but clearly many other matters arise from that. If there is mineral exploration in a particular ice-free or partially ice-free area of the Antarctic, inevitably that will also be the wintering ground for many birds and other wildlife. If there is any human habitation, that could drive the wildlife away—which, of itself, may upset the ecosystem.
For example, if shoals of fish are driven away, penguins may leave too, because there will be insufficient fish for them to eat. They may go somewhere else where there is insufficient food, so they, too, may start to decrease in numbers. That phenomenon is recognised in many other places.
There must be a serious examination of all the effects. We must not just examine the possibility of oil spillage from a ship going to the site, serious as that would be, but we must examine all the knock-on effects on the wildlife. It is for those reasons that we have put forward a detailed series of proposals. I would be disappointed if they were not accepted by the Government as a reasonable basis for the survey.
Equally important, we say that the members of the proposed licensing commission shall be people who do not have a commercial interest in what is going on in the Antarctic. We do not deny, and we never have, that we are prepared to support and recognise the use of the Antarctic as the basis for scientific research. Indeed, if it had not been used for such research, we would not know of the damage that we are already doing to the environment through the destruction of the ozone layer. We would not know much about the increase in carbon dioxide within the atmosphere, because we would not be able to take accurate samples of air that has been untouched for possibly 100,000 years. It is essential that it be pure research and that the information gained should be publicly and freely available.
126 As I said before, I am concerned about the fact that the Greenpeace survey of scientific sites in the Antarctic showed that considerable damage has already been done to the environment immediately around them, and that requires rectification. The Minister in Committee and again on the Floor of the House has promised to take up our concerns at the October meeting.
Another worry is what will be the cut-off point between scientific research, which will provide information which is freely available in the public domain, and mineral exploration which becomes a commercial benefit. I believe that the Bill crosses that Rubicon, which is why I and many others are so worried about it. The Bill paves the way for commercial exploration, the results of which would not be in the public domain but would be commercial secrets available to only those companies which had invested considerable sums of money in the search for that crucial information.
One cannot imagine that a company the size of Exxon, BP, Consolidated Gold Fields, Rio Tinto-Zinc or Lonrho—or any large mining exploration companies—would be prepared to invest the millions necessary to undertake the research in the Antarctic if they did not feel at the end of the day that they would get something out of it. That would be the purpose of going there. It might be a bit of a shock to Conservative Members, but none of the companies I have mentioned are charities. They are dedicated to making large sums of money out of the mining industry. They have no charitable intent. That is why the difference between publicly funded scientific research and privately financed exploration is so crucial. In that regard, the Bill is seriously defective.
Together with amendments Nos. 17 and 19, I tabled other amendments, designed to strengthen the environmental protection agency that I envisage or the licensing commission that is envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East. It is important that a number of criteria are laid down. It is important that such an organisation should report regularly on the effects of exploration an its environmental impact. That does not mean that those reports would be made at the end of the period of a licence—such a licence could run for several years—rather, that the effects of any exploration should be investigated and reported upon as it goes along.
We should be clear about who is in the Antarctic and what they are doing there. It is all very well for the Minister or for the Secretary of State to grant a licence to any one company to undertake exploration in the Antarctic. The company may or may not be reputable, but that remains to be seen. The company, however, may be the subject of a takeover and in the subsequent takeover battle the value of its prospecting licence could be brought to bear. The nature of the exploration could then change significantly, as could the character of the personnel. Amendment No. 47 asks that the numbers of personnel and their names be agreed with the Secretary of State.
Clause 10 deals with the penalties for people who infringe the conditions of the licence or damage the environment. If such damage is to be avoided and such persons are to be prevented from taking part in another exploration at a later date, there must be a register of those who initially go to the Antarctic. That is why amendment No. 47 asks that the Secretary agrees all the names of those who go to that region and that a register of them be kept. 127 If any of those people are found guilty of infringing the terms of the licence or of wilfully damaging the wildlife, flora or fauna, they could be prevented from going to the region again under another licence. That is an important consideration.
We also believe that the Secretary of State should report to the House all the licence applications that he has received and his decision on them. In that way those applications and the subsequent decisions would be in the public domain.
It is also important to specify the volume of minerals allowed to be extracted for sample purposes. As my hon. Friends have already said, scientific whaling is the grossest abuse of science. That whaling is commercial; it is a deliberate attempt to thwart the intentions of the International Whaling Commission that has finally banned such whaling. Whaling is continuing under the guise of science, and it is a cruel deception. I do not want to see something similar happen in the Antarctic.
§ Mr. Tony Banks
It is worth placing on record the efforts that have been made in this regard by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as it shows that our attitude to the Bill and, in this respect, to the Government, is constructive. The Parliamentary Secretary has stood up to defend the interests of the world's whale population against the approach adopted by the Norwegians, the Icelanders and, in particular, the Japanese by their slaughter of the minke whale.
§ Mr. Corbyn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whenever we pass conservation measures, such as those to stop the slaughter of whales, commerce finds a loophole. Exactly the same will happen if the ban on ivory sales is successful. In a short time, someone will say that it is necessary to slaughter some African elephants for scientific reasons, and that will rapidly become a basis for commerce.
The licence must state clearly what volume of minerals can be extracted under research conditions. Minerals that are extracted for sample purposes should not become the property of the commercial organisation that dug them out, but of the licence commission, so that there can be no commercial benefit in someone extracting excessive quantities, perhaps beyond the terms of the licence.
What I propose in amendment No. 50 may already be covered in the Bill or in regulations. I read the Bill carefully during the weekend and I did not see any such provision, so I tabled the amendment. It is obvious that, if the convention system is to work—some people believe that it can—and punishment is to be meted out to those who wilfully destroy the environment and go beyond the licence, they must be denied the opportunity to commit those crimes again.
Amendment No. 50 would not permit such people to apply for a licence under their own name. Amendment No. 47 proposes that the names of all such people should be submitted to the Secretary of State. There is, therefore, the possibility of strict control of what is happening to the environment.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 45 are similar. Non-governmental organisations must have a right of inspection. Without Greenpeace's work in the Antarctic and the 128 North sea on nuclear dumping, for example, we would not know what is happening. It is under-resourced, but I pay tribute to its contribution to monitoring. It has shown that the damage that has already been done to the Antarctic environment would be a thousand times worse as a result of mineral exploration. It is therefore essential that non-governmental organisations should be able to visit sites.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East proposed a commission which is not commercially dominated. I would not have much confidence in an Antarctic environmental protection agency whose board members were representatives of all the major oil and mining companies in the world. They would quietly carve the Antarctic up between them. Such an agency has to include people with no commercial interest but with a deep scientific knowledge of the continent. Sir Peter Scott would make an excellent member of such a commission.
Non-governmental organisations must have the right to investigate and inquire into what is going on. Amendment No. 45 proposes:Before any licence is operated there shall be an opportunity for environmental protection groups to visit the site(s) and at any other time during the life of the licence.".At present, if Greenpeace undertakes another expedition around the Antarctic to visit all the sites—I hope that it does—it does not have to be allowed to visit all of them or to go into all the detail necessary to write a report. It experienced some difficulty at some scientific sites that it visited during its last expedition in 1987–88.
Amendment No. 51, which is crucial too, refers to the number of inspectors who shall be appointed. Perhaps due to an oversight, the Minister did not reply to that point earlier; perhaps he will this time. Those of us who have been active in trade union matters for many years have experienced the factories inspectorate. It is not that we dislike it; it is just that we find it inadequate. There are never enough inspectors, and they do not come often enough. The employers often know when they are coming, in any case. We want a large number of independent inspectors who can visit not only the sites licensed by the national Governments on their territorial claims, but every other site throughout the continent. We want them to communicate what they find every six months. Their report will give an account of all activities in that time.
This may seem expensive and excessive, but the issue is so important that we need this degree and regularity of reporting. If we let commerce dominate the commission and the exploration that goes on, and let it own the information that it obtains, that will lead to ecological disaster. Unlike temperate climates, in which partial recovery from such disaster is possible, in the Antarctic there can be none.
In Antarctica one can see the petrified remains of a husky that Captain Robert Scott rather short-sightedly destroyed. Had he used dogs instead of ponies, he might have got to the south pole, probably before Amundsen, who relied entirely on dogs. Scott ended up towing his sledges himself. The dog is petrified in the ice for ever more because it was frozen suddenly. It is mummified, like an Egyptian mummy or like the bodies found in the northern deserts of Chile. So any serious spillage would not biologically degrade as it would in a more temperate clime—it would remain. Oil would freeze into the ice for ever more, just as any other pollutant would.
129 I hope that the Minister accepts that our amendments are designed to protect this fragile environment. We recognise the work done in the past by the British Antarctic survey, which I do not want to be involved in private enterprise. It should be entirely publicly funded and in the public domain. We applaud the work done by Greenpeace to draw to our attention the fragility of the Antarctic environment.
When Captain Cook first set eyes on the Antarctic, he realised what a special, fragile place it was. Tragically, he did not live long enough to be able to write enough about his discoveries, but all the signs from his letters and diaries are that he was appalled at what was done afterwards to the places that he discovered—in a European sense—in the name of commerce.
I hope that tonight we will decide to play our part in protecting the Antarctic and not to allow it to be divided up into national claims, and subdivided into commercial claims. I hope that we shall support the idea of a world environmental park, and eventually take the continent out of the hands of the treaty nations and make it part of a truly international park, owned for ever through the United Nations, and exploited never.
§ Mr. Tony Banks
It was appropriate that as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned the "Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner", the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) seized his cue and rose to make a speech. Conservative Members will know that the opening lines go:It is an ancient MarinerAnd he stoppeth one of three.`By thy long grey beard and glittering eye, Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?The right hon. Gentleman has a fine grey beard and a glittering eye. I am glad that he stopped us, because he has shown us that we were right to have said all along that the Bill is about exploitation—something that the Minister has been denying. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he thinks that we should extract the wealth of the Antarctic for the benefit of the world. That is not what we want to do. We do not accept that that is necessary. The Bill has no mechanisms that make it likely that the wealth that is exploited is used for the benefit of mankind. Multinational mining companies will go in there and make money for their shareholders.
§ Mr. Anderson
My hon. Friend may have forgotten the debates in the other place, in which the Government spokesman let the cat out of the bag. He said that the objective of the Government was to get the largest possible share of the economic returns from the activities in the Antarctic.
§ Mr. Banks
It was always clear to us, but it is becoming manifestly clear to all, that whatever the Minister is saying, for whatever reason he is saying it, we are not being given the whole story. We cannot accept that this is only about exploring, not exploitation. The Bill talks about exploration, but that is only the thin end of a very obvious wedge. The Minister cannot expect us to accept his bland statements, which do not match what was said in another place, or by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. In his robust and honest way, the right hon. Gentleman stated what we know to be the philosophy behind the Bill. We are indebted to him.
130 The Bill has no mechanisms for making sure that if the mineral resources of the Antartic are properly explored—that is what we are moving towards with the Bill, which is merely the first step in the softly, softly approach to exploitation—mankind as a whole will benefit. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the trickle effect, which the Prime Minister has mentioned—one allows the people at the top to make vast sums of money and, magically, it will trickle through to everyone. We know that that does not work.
Why should we exploit the resources of the Antarctic? As far as I can see, there is no shortage of the minerals that are in the Antarctic. They are in abundance everywhere, waiting to be exploited. Why do we need to move to virgin territory? The right hon. Gentleman said that minerals are difficult to get out, but mining technology is changing. Lessons have been learnt in Alaska by British Petroleum and other mining companies, so they have the expertise to get over many of the difficulties of extracting minerals from the Antarctic. Such expertise is increasing by the day. There is no economic reason for such exploitation, and it is not needed to benefit the world.
We know what would happen, and I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman knows it, too. If there is exploitation, there will be pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth has already described in some detail the destruction of the wildlife in the area, with consequences that we are not competent to judge. We at least know from experience of events elsewhere that when human beings start exploiting, they pollute and destroy. There is no reason for us to believe that anything (Efferent will happen in the Antarctic, if there is the exploitation that the right hon. Member for Pavilion expects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not only not in his place now, but he is not with us on this Bill, which is a disappointment to Labour Members. As he said, we usually stand shoulder to shoulder on matters such as this. I still find it difficult to grasp his position on the Bill. I note that my hon. Friend comes timely upon his entrance. I can now say to him directly that I am disappointed that he is not with us. He said that the agreement is the best that we can get. He said, in effect, that there will be exploitation and that it is better that it should be regulated. That comes close to what the Minister is saying. Surely that is a counsel of despair—as we cannot stop it, let us regulate it. I think that we can stop it. We can take great heart from the position adopted by the Australian and French Governments, and by the Belgians. There is the possibility of establishing an international wilderness reserve because of what has been said in Australia and by President Mitterrand.
There has been rapid change since the Bill appeared in another place. There was a massive green vote in the Euro elections, and I do not believe that that was a vote for the Green party. Instead, it was a declaration by the electorate that the environment is at the top of the political agenda. The time is ripe for us to return to the drawing board. Let us reject the Bill and re-examine these matters.
§ Mr. Banks
That is something that can be developed. If an international wilderness reserve is declared in the Antarctic, under the supervision of the United Nations, for example, or a special environmental protection agency, 131 all the countries that have an interest in the Antarctic could fund the necessary policing to ensure that intruders are kept out and that the area is used for scientific research that is in the interests of mankind. We do not need exploitation by multinational mineral companies. Let us have scientific exploration in the name of true science, of real knowledge. We can learn from the past. Much that remains frozen in the permafrost would tell us a great deal about the early days of the planet. To destroy all that to extract base metals and oil, which exist in abundance elsewhere, would be destruction on the grand scale.
If there is a political will among the nations to preserve the Antarctic as an international wilderness reserve, the means can be found. That is what national or international politics are all about. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow takes such a defeatist attitude. He is such a spirited attacker of the abuse that he sees in this country. It is strange that he is not prepared to defend the Antarctic in the robust way that he has tried to defend the rain forests of Brazil. I am surprised at my hon. Friend, but I am sure that we shall be able to talk him round.
The climate of opinion has changed since the Bill emerged in another place. The declaration at the G7 summit in Paris was the final piece of evidence that we needed. It was unique for such a group of countries to produce a statement in which the environment played such a major role. That is why we ask the Minister to examine the amendments and to meet our point.
If amendment No. 17 were accepted, it would establish a British Antarctic Licensing Commission—
§ Mr. Corbyn
It occurs to me that the Group of Seven's declaration was essentially one of setting enterprise loose on the remaining open spaces of the world so that it could destroy them. I accept, of course, that it states at the end that it is concerned about the environment. With the policies that most of the Seven are following, it should be concerned about it.
§ Mr. Banks
That is true, but at least the Seven have had to pay lip service to the environment. That is something that they have not done previously. It is for national Parliaments and public opinion to turn the lip service of G7 into political reality. World opinion on environmental matters is changing, and it is in that hopeful climate that we can move forward.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the G7 statement. Although it acknowledges the need for environmental protection, it says that it should be scientifically well founded and economically well based, or words to that effect. Does my hon. Friend agree that the words "economically well based" could be dangerous? If it proves easier to exploit the resources in the Antarctic than in other land masses, the economic base becomes one of cost. There may be no economic base at all in protecting the environment; indeed, there may be an economic penalty. The G7 declaration could simply be dangerous lip service.
§ Mr. Banks
The matter becomes more complicated. We could be talking about the difference between short-term and long-term economic gain. There could be a great deal of long-term economic gain from leaving the resources unexploited because that would save all the horrendous 132 problems of over-industrialisation and over-exploitation that are coming home to Europe and other parts of the world.
I am not so green as to believe that all are genuine in their sudden conversion. Once again it is a case of politicians, whether in Britain or elsewhere, understanding votes. They have recognised the sea change in world opinion that is pushing environmental matters to the top of the political agenda. It would be a very, very stupid politician—there are many of them around—who wilfully chose to ignore that public demand. I repeat that the climate is different from that which existed when the Bill first surfaced.
Amendment No. 19 is exceedingly long, but it tests the Government's sincerity. It proposes that an environmental impact statement be attached to any form of exploration in the Antarctic. The EEC has proposed that any form of environmental scheme should have an impact assessment attached to it. Even in this House, we have said that private Bills relating to dock work and the building of railways should have environmental impact asessments attached to them. That is in line with EEC proposals, and something which the Government will no doubt follow. It would be appropriate to apply that to the Antarctic.
I do not want to go into detail about the amendment. I hope that the Minister has read it. If he accepts it, that will show the House that what he has been saying is what lies behind the Bill, not what has been said in another place and by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. There is a dichotomy between what the Minister has said in Committee and today and what was said by the right hon. Member for Pavilion. I hope that the Minister will tell the House why his right hon. Friend is wrong. If he is not wrong, the Minister would be well advised to accept the amendment.
§ 11 pm
§ Mr. Eggar
It may be for the convenience of the House if I first deal with the points made by Greenpeace. It states in its letter that the convention means that in the interim there will be no international supervision of prospecting activities. That is wrong while the moratorium survives in the period prior to the convention coming into force.
Greenpeace asks who will ensure that prospectors comply with the convention in the area of overlapping claims, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). As I said in Committee, each of the three states will be able to ensure that their nationals, and anyone else in their claimed territories, comply with the convention—and each state will be able to inspect the other licensees' activities. Greenpeace asks also who will ensure that non-United Kingdom nationals will not be engaged in explorations in United-Kingdom claimed territory. Greenpeace has lost sight of the fact that the convention is specifically designed to prevent exploration until a decision is reached by consensus.
Greenpeace states that prospecting could be a hazardous undertaking. It is of course right—and that is precisely the reason why the convention has been negiotated and why we want to ratify it. Greenpeace makes the nonsensical assertion that United Kingdom implementing legislation will be only as good as the worst implementing legislation in another country. That is incorrect.
133 Finally, Greenpeace claims that we shall be unable to control events in our own Antarctic territory. To the contrary: the convention provides the means to do so in respect of mining.
§ Mr. Eggar
No. I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a brave speech, which showed that he has followed events in the Antarctic for a considerable number of years. Without wishing to offend any other right hon. or hon. Member, the hon. Member for Linlithgow knows most about Antarctica. He has studied the situation there and followed the negotiations on the convention over a long period of time.
The hon. Gentleman asked me, quite reasonably, to comment on Sir Peter Scott's letter to right hon. and hon. Members. He pointed out that the other son of that famous pair, his noble Friend Lord Shackleton made in another place a strong speech in support of the Bill. Sir Peter Scott's letter was similar to that which he wrote to The Times. A few days after it was published, Mr. Nigel Bonner, who at one time was deputy director of the British Antarctic survey, replied. It may assist the hon. Member for Linlithgow and other right hon. and hon. Members if I quote the critical paragraph of Mr. Bonner's letter:Without CRAMRA"—the convention—and without a World Park, some governments may regard themselves as unrestricted in the search for minerals. Sir Peter and Australia may find that by refusing to support CRAMRA, they have deprived Antarctica of the very protection they wish it to receive.That is the bald answer to Sir Peter Scott.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked also about rubbish disposal. I agree with him that there is a critical difference between rubbish disposal and sewage. I was trying to make the point that there is little to distinguish between the excrement of gentoo penguins and that of humans. Rubbish disposal relating to scientific discovery is a significant problem in Antarctica, and for that reason we and other parties to the Antarctic treaty have been working on an agreement to govern rubbish disposal there, which will be discussed at the meeting in Paris in October.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), whose questions I always try to answer, raised the issue of inspectors. The Government intend to appoint sufficient inspectors, and we shall have to examine the particular terms of the licence application to ensure that we have the right inspectors in each case. The Bill makes it clear that inspectors will be appointed on an ad hoc basis to deal with specific licence applications
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, rightly, that Opposition amendment No. 19 goes to the core of the difference between the Opposition and the Government. There is no difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition: we both wish to ensure that the necessary environmental safeguards exist in Antarctica. The amendment, however, provides us with a number of difficulties.
First, the proposed procedures simply are not consistent with the convention. Secondly, and very critically, the adoption in British law of any such procedures at this stage would bind the hands of future negotiators in the commission who sought to elaborate on 134 reasonable and acceptable environment impact assessment procedures. The hon. Gentleman, I think, recognises that those procedures are critical.
§ Mr. Anderson
Is the Minister saying, in terms, that any of the criteria set out in the amendment are unacceptable?
§ Mr. Eggar
What I am saying is that it is entirely wrong to seek to bind the negotiators in the way proposed in the amendment.
Other features of the amendment—which the hon. Gentleman himself has said is based on domestic legislation—are not likely to be appropriate: rules that apply in Swansea are not necessarily appropriate in Antarctica. Many elements in that amendment will, however, be covered. This brings us back to what was said in Committee should the need for flexibility—the need to consider specific approaches in detail rather than imposing an inflexible framework.
For those reasons, the Government are unable to accept the amendment, and others in the group whose intent is similar.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 190.136
|Division No. 301]||[11.07 pm|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Macdonald, Calum A.|
|Beggs, Roy||McFall, John|
|Beith, A. J.||McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||McWilliam, John|
|Buckley, George J.||Madden, Max|
|Callaghan, Jim||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Mallon, Seamus|
|Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)||Meale, Alan|
|Clelland, David||Michael, Alun|
|Cryer, Bob||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Darling, Alistair||Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Molyneaux, Rt Hon James|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)||Mowlam, Marjorie|
|Dewar, Donald||Nellist, Dave|
|Dixon, Don||Parry, Robert|
|Dobson, Frank||Patchett, Terry|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Pike, Peter L.|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Richardson, Jo|
|Flannery, Martin||Ross, William (Londonderry E)|
|Fyfe, Maria||Skinner, Dennis|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Gordon, Mildred||Spearing, Nigel|
|Graham, Thomas||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Hardy, Peter||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Haynes, Frank||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|Home Robertson, John||Turner, Dennis|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Vaz, Keith|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||Wallace, James|
|Howells, Geraint||Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)|
|Illsley, Eric||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Wilson, Brian|
|Kennedy, Charles||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Lestor, Joan (Eccles)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Livingstone, Ken||Mr. Elliot Morley and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)|
|Allason, Rupert||Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Ashby, David|
|Amess, David||Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)|
|Amos, Alan||Batiste, Spencer|
|Arbuthnot, James||Beaumont-Dark, Anthony|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Kilfedder, James|
|Benyon, W.||King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Knapman, Roger|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Knight, Greg (Derby North)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Knowles, Michael|
|Boswell, Tim||Latham, Michael|
|Bottomley, Peter||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Lightbown, David|
|Bowis, John||Lilley, Peter|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Lord, Michael|
|Brazier, Julian||Lyell, Sir Nicholas|
|Bright, Graham||Macfarlane, Sir Neil|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)||McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Malins, Humfrey|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Mans, Keith|
|Burns, Simon||Maples, John|
|Burt, Alistair||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Butcher, John||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Butterfill, John||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Carrington, Matthew||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Carttiss, Michael||Miller, Sir Hal|
|Cash, William||Mills, lain|
|Chapman, Sydney||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Chope, Christopher||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Mitchell, Sir David|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Cope, Rt Hon John||Morrison, Sir Charles|
|Couchman, James||Moss, Malcolm|
|Cran, James||Moynihan, Hon Colin|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Nelson, Anthony|
|Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)||Neubert, Michael|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Day, Stephen||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Devlin, Tim||Norris, Steve|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Dover, Den||Page, Richard|
|Durant, Tony||Paice, James|
|Eggar, Tim||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Evennett, David||Portillo, Michael|
|Fallon, Michael||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Favell, Tony||Raffan, Keith|
|Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Fishburn, John Dudley||Redwood, John|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Franks, Cecil||Rowe, Andrew|
|Freeman, Roger||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|French, Douglas||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Gale, Roger||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Gill, Christopher||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Gow, Ian||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Shersby, Michael|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Gregory, Conal||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Speed, Keith|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|Hague, William||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Stern, Michael|
|Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)||Stevens, Lewis|
|Harris, David||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Hayes, Jerry||Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Stokes, Sir John|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Sumberg, David|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Summerson, Hugo|
|Hunter, Andrew||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Irvine, Michael||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Jessel, Toby||Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Thurnham, Peter|
|Key, Robert||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Twinn, Dr Ian||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Viggers, Peter||Wilkinson, John|
|Waddington, Rt Hon David||Wilshire, David|
|Waller, Gary||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Warren, Kenneth||Wood, Timothy|
|Watts, John||Yeo, Tim|
|Wheeler, John||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Whitney, Ray||Mr. David Maclean and Mr. John M. Taylor.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.