 the west of Cambridge involving out-of-town shopping. The result will be a new town of 14,000 people, which is equivalent to Huntingdon or St. Ives in the county. That is sheer madness. The object of fresh development, as the Department of the Environment and everyone else agrees, is to provide housing and employment opportunities for the north of Cambridgeshire. The west development will merely attract yet more commuters working in London. I have nothing against people living in Cambridge and working in London because, after all, that is what I do. However, it is contrary to the strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants. It will do nothing to ease the problems of people working in and around Cambridge, especially to the north in the Fens which is where the problem really lies. By contrast, the panel advising the Minister supports the view that development to the south of Cambridge should be restrained. Paradoxically, that will be the effect if the modifications are confirmed.
make matters worse and increase the sum of human misery. That will be exacerbated particularly as commercial travel increases in 1992 and vehicles seek to gain access to the M11.
The important regeneration of the villages of Papworth Everard and Caldecote, where new housing is already under construction or planned, will be threatened by the new development. I am informed that in the village of Bourn there are drainage problems and that flooding could occur in Bourn Brook as a result of the development. That is according to the most recent information from the Anglian water authority. To add to all that, three sites of special scientific interest would be damaged.
Those arguments and many more are set out in more detail in the response sent to my right hon. Friend by the new settlement action group involving 14 villages. I beg the Government to study the response with great care. The important point is that there has been no consultation or opportunity for anyone to consider the vast new alteration and all its implications. That is contrary to my idea of local democracy and the freedom to which the Government subscribe. The proposal for the huge new settlement on the A45 west of Cambridge can be summed up by saying that it is incompatible with the strategy accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Department. It will be devastating to the amenities of the existing population. It will increase the danger to life and limb, to say nothing of congestion on the A45. It will do nothing to meet the new housing demand generated from the Cambridge area and there has been no opportunity for those affected to make their case. In short, the proposal is stark, staring crazy.
I shall not be merely negative tonight, strong though my arguments are. I recognise the need for housing in the county and I believe that there is a solution. Development to the east of the A45--and I have in mind a site near Nine Mile hill--would conform to the strategy. Employment opportunities are to be found to the east of Cambridge, not to the west. All roads out of Cambridge are operating to full capacity except the 1303 leading east. The area to the west is more costly than the east for services and education needs can also be more easily met.
Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : As my hon. Friend knows, Nine Mile hill is in my constituency. Does he agree that already a large number of people commute to Cambridge from further north and the Fens? The Fenland district has been allocated only 7, 150 houses under the Secretary of State's proposals, although it wants 10,000. Would it not be more sensible to push the proposed development a little further north into the Fens, where it is wanted by the local councils and where the prosperity that it would bring is needed?
Sir Anthony Grant : It is quite true that that would be another alternative. Indeed, a development to the north would be exactly the same distance away from Cambridge as a development to the west. It was included in the original structure plan, which took two years of consultation and deliberation to develop. The whole point was muddled by the panel that has reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is certainly an alternative to the current unsatisfactory proposal.
affected and the whole of the Cambridgeshire county council, Conservatives, Labour and Democrats, are opposed to the proposal. The whole planning problem is nationwide, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows from the strong representations from my hon. Friends. I am a strong supporter of the Government and I have been a Member of Parliament for many years. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot give any answers tonight, but I want him, my right hon. Friend and the Government to be under no illusions. They are sitting on a keg of dynamite throughout the south and east of our nation, which will explode with devastating results unless the Government heed the wishes of the people they serve. I pray that Ministers will heed my words tonight and think again on the subject of Cambridgeshire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) for the helpful and constructive way in which, as always, he deployed his arguments. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), whose contribution was a gloss on my hon. Friend's speech. The fact that they were not ad idem shows the problems that the Government face in solving difficult planning issues.
This is a one-sided debate in two senses. First, all speakers are on the Conservative Benches, although that is not unusual. Secondly, I cannot tonight answer the points that have been raised. All that I can do is assure my hon. Friends that their submissions and arguments will be taken into account as relevant evidence on the structure plan proposed modifications. I congratulate my hon. Friends on their excellent timing. Ministers will be considering responses to the recent consultation within the next few weeks.
Perhaps in the time available I might briefly remind the House of how the structure plan process operates. It is a long and often painstaking process, but it is designed to produce the right conclusion, and certainly to enable everybody to put their point of view and to have it properly considered.
Structure plans provide the necessary framework for development control and the co-ordination and direction of development. They give a general indication of where development should be located and its size. The end product of the development plan process should be a clear and concise statement of policies and proposals for development which strike a satisfactory balance in land use between immediate availability for development, provision for future contingencies, and conservation. It is essential that the policies contained in an approved plan are closely monitored and kept up to date to cater for the needs of the county.Energy-Efficient Resource Allocation for Relay-Assisted Backscatter Communication Systems

In this paper, we investigate energy-efficient resource allocation in relay-assisted backscatter communication systems. We employed a backscatter user device, and a relay device that supported to operate in different modes, i.e., the backscatter communication (BackCom) mode and the harvest-then transmit (HTT) mode, respectively. We formulate the system energy efficiency (EE) maximization problem by jointly optimizing the power and time allocations. A dual-layer iterative resource allocation algorithm that separates power allocation from time allocation is presented. The inner-layer is responsible for optimizing power allocation, while the outer-layer determines the time allocation strategy. Finally, an algorithm is proposed for jointly determining the optimal solution. Simulation results show that the proposed resource allocation algorithm can increase the system EE.Old school platform gaming meets the old school of martial arts in this latest swift kick-em-up for the Game Boy Advance. Return of the Legend gives players the opportunity to step into the shoes (or whatever sock-type things it is that he wears) of the one and only Bruce Lee and wander around, kicking bottom and generally looking really cool about it.
Developed by Vicarious Visions, this fast-paced, 2D action-adventure boasts a series of compelling mission-based levels. Taking control of the kung fu king - who in turn plays the role of a skilled martial artist called Hai Feng - you must guide the young student through wave after wave of adversaries as he attempts to find the assassin responsible for killing his master. Not the most original of plots, but always a good reason for knocking out some bad dudes nonetheless.
As the game progresses, you must perfect a variety of martial arts moves, including the jaw-dropping fists of fury, whilst also learning to master the use of a variety of traditional weapons, such as knockout darts, the bo staff and nunchakus. In your quest to uncover the evil assassin, you travel across the globe to international locations of mystery and intrigue, all rendered in glorious, side-scrolling 2D.
Bruce Lee: Return of the Legend is an entertaining little title, which reintroduces the classic arcade beat-em-up action of the 16-bit era along with a fair share of modern gameplay elements, such as fighting technique and stealth.Okay first off - your skin is IMPECCABLE. So fresh looking! I wouldn't say you need pretty much anything in the way of coverage. 

To achieve a more awake/finished look - Clear brow gel can help comb and tame brow hairs to give a slightly more "polished" look without looking like wearing any makeup at all. 

- You could try a more dewy or glossy lip product? Your lips already don't appear dry or anything, but a little gloss could make you look super hydrated! 

- To look more awake specifically, a light