House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Jan 1991

Mr. Cryer : The order arises because of powers given to the Minister many years ago to alter, by order, primary legislation passed by this House in previous years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such powers are not a good idea, and that we should change them?

Mr. Trimble : I entirely agree that our procedures should be changed. They are indefensible. I take issue, however, with the way in which the hon. Gentleman framed his intervention. Obviously, he believes this to be secondary, not primary, legislation. But it is primary legislation. Technically, any provisions relating to Northern Ireland, not only those which could be transferred under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, can be dealt with in this way. There are signs--I hope that they are not followed through--that the Northern Ireland Office will now try to extend the ambit of Orders in Council to cover matters that have been dealt with by the House in normal and proper legislation. A Minister recently issued a consultation document in which he proposed to legislate by Order in Council to amend an Act affecting Northern Ireland, passed less than a year ago, where only a technical change was necessary.

Mr. Cryer : The hon. Gentleman is right. If it is any consolation to him, this procedure, under which Ministers are granted power to change primary legislation through

Column 1073

statutory instruments, can be used for legislation applying to the whole of the United Kingdom. The Education Reform Act 1988 gave the Minister powers to change that Act by means of statutory instruments that did not have to come before the House. That is wrong.

Mr. Trimble : The hon. Gentleman is right. Consequential amendments are made not only to legislation affecting Northern Ireland but to other legislation, such as the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, the Value Added Taxes Act 1983 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which deal with the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that, while he is right, I do not feel much sympathy, because, if this sort of debased legislation is supposed to be fit for us, I do not see why it is not fit for him as well.

Before I was interrupted, I was commending the behaviour of the hon. Member for Wigan who had made more time available for Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to speak by not speaking himself. Sadly, I cannot commend the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for the same behaviour. He has the unenviable record of having spoken the longest on this subject. This is remarkable, given that he does not represent anybody in Northern Ireland. Indeed, his party will not even allow people in Northern Ireland to join it, but that is another matter.

Mr. Peter Robinson : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like his comments to be misconstrued, and that he will agree that we enjoy the contributions of hon. Members who represent all parts of the United Kingdom. We wish that more of them would attend debates on Northern Ireland. I am sure that the point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make is that the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen could have done a great deal more to ensure that we had three, not one and a half, hours for the first debate.

Mr. Trimble : The hon. Gentleman is correct. We welcome contributions from all hon. Members, and should like to see all hon. Members being treated equally, regardless of party, and given the same opportunity for participation in Committees. We should also like all citizens of the United Kingdom to be treated equally, rather than some of them being discriminated against, as some are.

The order is consequential to the changes that are being made to the health service in Northern Ireland and to those made in Great Britain. Change is not always a good idea, and an unnecessary change is a bad idea.

Rev. Martin Smyth : Conservatism.

Mr. Trimble : I thought that conservatism was about preserving things from unnecessary change, and making only those changes that, from time to time, become necessary. In many respects, that is a wise philosophy. We should appreciate the extent to which changes are unsettling to people whose primary concern should not be with change. Bureaucrats love change because then they are drawing up new organisational charts, moving people around, and so on.

When there is change, the number of bureaucrats and their salaries and status always seem to inflate. But for the

Column 1074

people delivering the service, who in the health service are primarily the doctors and the nurses, change is undesirable. I do not think that people fully appreciate the extent to which changes such as this cause confusion, uncertainty and demoralisation within the health service. I am deeply conscious of that having met and spoken to some of the staff in Lurgan hospital in my constituency. Some are close to distraction with worry that is consequent on the changes. In some respects, the health service is being handbagged forgive me for using that term. I do so bearing in mind the time when the changes were initiated and the mental attitude that lay behind them. The term refers to the desire attributed to the previous Prime Minister to hit any established institution with her handbag. I would have hoped that, with the arrival of the new Prime Minister, who seems to want to demonstrate a kinder and gentler approach, the opportunity would have been taken to re-examine the changes. I do not think that they will benefit the health service or the patients and within the next year or two the Government will have to unscramble elements of the changes, not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. Again, we will have the sort of change that disrupts the service.

Paragraph 3 contains a series of amendments to the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I understand that the change contained in paragraph 3(a) was made to include within the list of offices which result in disqualification from membership of the House not just the chairman, who was previously disqualified, but other members of the new boards. I presume that that reflects the changes in the character of the boards. It would not previously have been appropriate for the other members to be disqualified, because they involved a range of persons, including elected representatives. But as a result of the change there will be a different character of person on the boards ; a person who is to a large extent a creature of the Minister, a person appointed by the Minister, who is in no way representative. The change gives rise to some worries, but one particular worry that I have concerns another hospital in my constituency, at Banbridge, where the geriatric unit, known as Spelga house, presently accommodates some 35 elderly persons who are incapable of looking after themselves and need constant medical care. For some time, the board has had before it a proposal to close Spelga house, but that proposal has not yet been implemented. The board knows that, if it attempted to bring about that closure without making adequate provision for the inhabitants, the elected representatives on the board would certainly not agree and would almost certainly find ways of blocking the proposal.

That proposal, which has been dormant for some time, was suddenly brought into the limelight again a few weeks ago in December, causing considerable upset to the patients and their relatives with the prospect of a move to they knew not where. Following representations, it now becomes clear that the proposal to close the unit will be brought to the new board for active consideration in April or May. With the old system, which allowed for elected representatives, the community had an opportunity to influence the board's decision, and was confident that it would be sensible. Consequently, officials did not bring the proposal to close that facility before the old board. However, it will be put to the new board, which will not be

Column 1075

representative. Many fear that that is being done to effect a closure which would not otherwise have been achieved. If that closure occurs--I hope very much that it does not--it would be entirely appropriate for article 3 to be amended to include within the range of disqualified persons the relevant Northern Ireland Minister. Reference has been made in another context to the principle of subsidiarity, which the Government use to argue that decisions currently made by the European Commission should be devolved to national government. Subsidiarity involves devolving decision making to the lowest possible level consistent with efficiency and other considerations--which can mean not only regions but local authorities. However, the proposed changes will mean decisions being taken at a higher level. The board and committee structure is being altered, and their membership reduced, which will mean that the Department will take more decisions.

Article 7 makes reference to the new national health service contracts, and I am concerned that principal legislation will expressly provide for those contracts to be non-justiciable. Contracts that would normally be legally binding will not be, but will be enforced in other ways. It is unfortunate that a special form of law is being created in respect of those contracts, and that touches on another area of concern. The Minister made reference to the number of persons who will serve on the new councils--24 on some, 30 on another, and so on. However, that membership is not specified in the legislation. The measure describes certain provisions in general terms, but the Minister speaks as though there were hard and fast regulations, when none exist. That is an inappropriate and undesirable form of legislation, and its provisions should be spelt out in much greater detail.

One would like to deal with other aspects of the measure, but our debate is limited to the consequential amendments only. Therefore, I will merely repeat my earlier assertion that the provisions will do nothing to improve the quality of Northern Ireland's health service--and the way in which they are being introduced does nothing for parliamentary democracy.

12.58 am

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) : My one hope about tonight's proceedings is that the mean-spirited business managers of this House will look upon the fiasco here this evening and learn something from it. In effect, they have gained nothing in terms of time. It would have been better by far had they given us three hours on the first order, on which we could have had a much wider debate, rather than being restricted and contained on the second order, as we necessarily are.

I wonder whether there was method in what would appear to be the business managers' madness. Was it their intention to push through the House an order which is clearly so absurd and objectionable that there would have been three hours of objections from hon. Members on both sides? Did the Government think that they would curtail that opposition to one and a half hours in the hope that little would be said about the second order?

It is clear that the views of the people of Northern Ireland, as expressed by their elected representatives--albeit in two short debates--are clearly against the order. However, it seems to mean nothing to the Minister that, as a representative of a community outside Northern Ireland,

Column 1076

he is imposing something upon us that elected representatives from both sides of our community do not want. That is the heart of the matter that I want to discuss.

I should have liked to pay tribute, in the three minutes allocated to me in the earlier debate, to the Minister's Department, and especially to the nurses and doctors of Forster Green hospital. In the past few weeks I had an experience which allows me to pass comment on the state of our health service in Northern Ireland. My late father lay in Forster Green hospital for at least three months, and during that time, as I stayed at his bedside in the late hours and overnight, I had a first-hand glimpse of the health and social services at work. I do not for one minute believe that the nurses and doctors at that hospital are any different from those in other hospitals and, without the slightest doubt, I can say that they showed a degree of care, compassion and concern that one could never write into employment contracts for any nurse or doctor. They did a tremendous job and worked extremely hard, and they went far beyond their contract of service.

However, during that time, I must inform the Minister that I noticed how rundown our hospitals are becoming. I noticed buckets along the corridors to catch rain that was coming through the roof, because the hospital could not afford the money to repair it. I noticed the hours that staff have to work--some of the nurses went way beyond what they were contractually paid for, simply to do the job. I noticed a rundown service, and the Minister should realise that it will be a false economy if more money is not injected into the health service in Northern Ireland. I shall stop there. I should have liked to comment on that in much greater detail in the earlier debate, but now we are dealing with consequential amendments, and I can go no further down that road.

There is a consequential amendment which I think that the Minister should have included in the order, but which is not contained in it. During my earlier remarks I said that this order more than simply tinkers with the way in which health and social services are dealt with in Northern Ireland- -in effect, it is a constitutional change. I shall explain that, because I think that necessary changes will be required to the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973 as a result of this order.

Since the Stormont Parliament was taken away Northern Ireland has been governed by direct rule. The only form of democracy that we have had for many years is the ability of elected representatives to speak in the House on Orders in Council in the time frame provided by its business managers-- usually at this time of night, which is why I am now speaking at 1.4 am. Those concerned with the way in which Northern Ireland was being governed therefore thought it necessary to provide some form of democracy in the Province : they rightly regarded the way in which Northern Ireland was being treated at Westminster as an inadequate response. They knew that elected local representatives had a far greater input on health and personal social services in other parts of the United Kingdom, and that district councils had a much bigger say. Therefore, an essential part of the contract contained in the 1973 Act was the provision of a role for district councils in housing, education, health and social services and other functions covered by the Department of the Environment. In some instances, they had a consultative role in the council itself ; in others, they were given a direct role on the boards that would control the various functions.

Column 1077

In the passing of the order that we are discussing, we have already seen a breach of that contract. As yet it has not happened in other spheres, but I have no doubt that the Minister is setting a pattern. He is taking away Northern Ireland's democracy and removing any say that elected representatives might have in health and social services. No elected representative in Northern Ireland will be a member of the board that will govern those services ; no Northern Ireland Member is likely to be the Minister in overall charge of that Department-- unless, of course, we have a Northern Ireland Assembly ; like the Minister, I will pray hard for that. As Unionists, we are waiting to see the response of others : perhaps we shall, before the week is out. But I shall not pursue that line, as a constitutional debate about the Anglo-Irish Agreement might try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The contract that existed under the 1973 Act, as amended, provided for local democracy by way of area boards for both education and social services. The Minister has changed all that : he has taken on himself the full power to appoint whomever he wishes to the top level of health and social services in Northern Ireland, and--as a throwaway measure--he will give a minority of places on a council below the level of the board to elected representatives. I believe that the figure is 40 per cent. The Minister has given control to those whom he employs and pays.

Mr. Hanley : Forty per cent. of members will be appointed by district councils. They do not have to be elected representatives ; that is up to them.

Mr. Robinson : Will those whom the Minister appoints to the boards be able, of necessity, to exclude members of district councils, or is he prepared to include them, even if he will not allocate a precise number of places to them?

Mr. Trimble : The Minister says that 40 per cent. will be elected by district councils. That is not in the legislation. The Minister is merely referring to regulations that he may make, and may intend at the moment to make ; the regulations may be made in a different form.

Mr. Robinson : I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Article 3 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order talks about prescribed numbers, but does not prescribe a number. The Minister might be in a good mood today and agree to 40 per cent., but tomorrow he might be in a bad mood and agree to none. That order does not require any elected representatives.

I note with disappointment the way in which members of the health and social services councils are referred to as being public representatives, as if there were some form of democracy. The truth is that they may be members of the public, but, unless they are elected representatives, they have no mandate to speak on behalf of the public. The Minister has removed the democratic principle from health and social services in Northern Ireland. The House will have taken ill his comment that, because he has had some consultation outside the House, "Democracy had been served." He allows for consultation outside the House, but it does not matter what happens inside. He believes that democracy has been served.

Column 1078

Rev. Martin Smyth : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such democracy is not even practised in Hong Kong, where the Legislative Council has a greater say in debating issues than Northern Ireland Members have here?

Mr. Robinson : The hon. Gentleman is right. Is not it sad that eastern European countries could give the Minister a lesson on how democracy should work in Northern Ireland? He is lagging behind those who in the past he would have criticised. There is more democracy perhaps almost anywhere else in the world than in Northern Ireland. This facade of Orders in Council only serves to show-- [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) was going to make a contribution earlier, which we had looked forward to, but he did not do so.

A change is required in the order to include changes to the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act, because the Government have squeezed democracy out of Northern Ireland and, under the order, implemented a dictatorship.

1.13 am

Mr. Hanley : I shall attempt briefly to summarise some of the points that have been made.

The speech of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) should be a model for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. It was generous, factual, intelligent and perfectly judged.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that change is always unwelcome. The change under the order will mean better management to deal with the increasing demands on the health and personal social services, and it therefore should be welcomed. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) spoke of the Antrim hospital and the future of the Moyle hospital. The board has deferred a decision on the pattern of services to be retained at the Moyle post-1993 and has given a commitment that, for the time being, it will seek to maintain the services that are provided there. I spoke to the board's chairman about that only last week. Final proposals on future services will be subject to the approval of the Department, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the action committee will be afforded an opportunity to make any representations that it considers appropriate.

The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) spoke of the different structure of the council and the new boards. They are different bodies ; one is an executive management body and the other is advisory. Therefore, the difference in size is acceptable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the House's sympathy on the loss of his father.

The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) referred to professionals on boards. It is open to any board to appoint professionals to executive posts if it wishes and I would expect that most boards would want to do that. There is such a wide variety of people on the councils that there should be no reason why their views are not heard.

The hon. Member also referred to the duty of the councils. Those duties will include keeping under review the operation of health and social services in a council's area, making recommendations for improving services of the relevant board and commenting on the board's plans particularly in relation to substantial developments or

Column 1079

variations in the provision of services. Councils will be able to act on behalf of patients and clients in connection with complaints. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone also raised a very good point which should be stressed. I pledge tonight that I will ensure that health and social security councils will have power to obtain information from boards, and that will include making board members answer questions directly, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. He also mentioned fund raising. We regard that as an important part of the health service. There is no reason why one should want to quench voluntary donations. However, any funds raised as a result of the new powers will be additional to statutory resources and not instead of them. No one will suffer because of the generosity of those who want to spend money in that way.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) wanted to know why there was an extension to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. That arises because the new board members will now be receiving salaries. They will be in receipt of an office of profit. Therefore, as the chairman is disqualified at present, so those new board members would be disqualified. With regard to the Vehicles (Excise) (Northern Ireland) Act 1972, the current exemptions from duty will continue and there will be no significant financial consequences.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to disputes and queried the need for this new body of law. But it is not a new body of law. There are plenty of incidents in English law--and I use the term advisedly--where disputes may be sent to arbitration. There are examples in which the parties have agreed that they should not resort to going to court over an issue. As I tried to explain earlier, the disputes are not really disputes between two completely outside contracting parties ; they are disputes between people within an organisation and therefore internal arbitration would seem to be more sensible.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann also referred to the 24 and 30 membership for councils. That proves that consultation achieved something. We have increased the number, although the figure is not yet carved in stone. We have shown our intention to allow the Eastern board to have 30 members and that decision was taken as a result of consultation over a considerable period.

I have listened carefully to the points and questions that have been raised and I hope that I have dealt satisfactorily with them. I shall examine the Official Report and, if any points have not been covered, I will write to the hon.

Column 1080

Members concerned. I thank all hon. Members for the interest they have shown. I sympathise greatly with their frustration. This is an important issue and, in spite of the shortness of the debate, the order should be supported by the House.

Mr. William Ross : Does the Minister appreciate the number of orders that are outstanding for discussion between now and the summer recess? He can look forward to many late nights.

Mr. Hanley : As quite a lot of them are coming across my desk, I hope that the hon. Gentleman sympathises with me as much as I sympathise with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

Mr. Maginnis : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the Order Paper there is a motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Brooke relating to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. It is not the desire of my party to impede anything that may be beneficial to the people whom we represent, but we now have a further example of a lack of information from the Northern Ireland Office. I can conjecture what the motion may be about, but I have no assurance of what it is. It may be something that I shall regret in future. Until we know what the motion is about, it will be incumbent on members of my party to object. In doing so, we regret that we may be holding up the business of the House or the Committee, but it illustrates our point about the lack of consultation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I shall be putting the motion. The hon. Gentleman is quite right--it is not possible to debate it after 10 o'clock. If he wishes to object to it, he is within his rights to do so.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL Motion made, and Question put,

That it be an Instruction to Standing Committee B that they have power to amend the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill so as to make, in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom, provision for and in connection with the exercise of investigation powers by persons other than constables.-- [Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Hon. Members : Object.

Column 1081

Clinical Waste Incinerators

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

1.21 am

Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale) : I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for the fact that it is now 21 minutes past 1 o'clock. I am sorry if I have kept him out of bed, but the issue that I am about to raise is of great interest and concern to my constituents.

A long-running saga has caused and is causing great concern in my constituency. It relates to a proposal for a clinical waste incinerator for Greater Manchester waste disposal authority, which seems to be the only body that wants it. In January 1988, when Trafford was a huge council with a Labour chairman of the planning committee--Councillor Mrs. Merry--outline planning permission was granted. We must remember that point because it is vital. I mention the political complexion of the council at that time, because some people are trying to score political points. They have a very poor case and they would be much better employed in trying not to turn the issue into a political one.

In March 1989, when the Conservatives had regained control of the council, the plans were voted out. In May 1989, the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority lodged an appeal. In November 1989, the planning inspectorate decided to hold a public local inquiry, and, on 1 December 1989, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment decided to determine the appeal himself. The inquiry was due to start on 26 June 1990. That was then changed to 12 February 1991, at the request of Trafford council and the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority, to allow time to consider amended proposals by Greater Manchester waste disposal authority.

However, in December 1990, on legal advice the council reluctantly accepted that it was not feasible to revoke the outline planning permission. Not surprisingly, the possibility of the councillors being surcharged a substantial amount had a sobering effect. It puts all of them under great pressure. The chairman of the health and housing committee stated that he did not have that sort of money in his bank account.

The chairman of the local Labour party, who, I think, will be the candidate for the ward in the local election, went public and said that he believed that there was no danger that councillors would be surcharged. I can only suggest that he puts his money where his mouth is and offers to pay the surcharge that could be imposed on councillors. It is very silly of people to make such statements about a very serious issue.

I appealed by letter to Councillor Dennis Fogg, the chairman of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority. I asked him to get his authority to look for another site for this incinerator--a site well away from a residential area. I asked him also whether he would come to the area to meet the local residents and hear what they had to say, but the invitation was politely declined. I stressed to Councillor Fogg the anxiety of the people in the area, but he stated that the local concern was misplaced.

Ironically, another Labour councillor--Jane Baugh--takes a contrary view. In a letter to the Sale and Altrincham Messenger, she stated :

Column 1082

"What the Labour party is saying to concerned residents is Do not be deceived. It is propaganda attempting to allay the fears of local people.'"

We must continue to campaign against the siting of a new clinical waste incinerator for the sake of the future health of the people of Trafford.

Which councillor should we believe? Should we believe the Labour chairman of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority, who says that there are no health risks, or should we believe Councillor Jane Baugh, who does not believe her socialist colleague? All that I know is that there are great anxieties among my constituents, and that these have not been allayed in any way at all. In fact, a group of them have set up an organisation called BRASH--Broadheath Residents Association for Safety and Health. BRASH sent the councillors who are members of the planning committee a letter dated 2 January 1991. That letter says :

"We would ask that the following be taken into consideration before a decision is made on the above application."

On the issue of clinical waste, it says :

"No decision should be taken until we have had time to contact HMIP"--

Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution--

"to allow them to justify their reasons for adopting the European Commission Council directive 89/369 EEC of the 8th June 1989 for this incinerator. This is applicable to municipal waste incineration plant ONLY and explicitly excludes incineration plants for medical waste from hospitals."

A note in the letter says :

"We have passed the above details on to the Director of EC Environmental Commission and we await his reply on this matter." On the question of siting, BRASH says :

"The Council's own policy for incinerators' states that incinerators shall not be sited within 1,000 metres of any main residential areas.

The current proposal will be within 600 metres of a highly populated residential area." I suppose that the founders of this organisation include people from all parties and from none, but they care desperately about what is going on in the area. They are not trying to score political points. They have done a great deal of work and research. That shows just how concerned they are about what they believe could be the damaging effects on the health of people in the area in which the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority wants to locate this incinerator.

I am told that over 5,000 residents have signed a petition opposing the plan. People are incensed because they feel that the council has had to change its mind as a result of the threat of surcharge. In other words, they believe that the council has had to change its mind under duress. They are asking that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment call in the application for review. I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on that point. I should be grateful also to hear his thinking about a waste disposal policy guidance note. This is an idea that has been mooted for quite some time.

Waste disposal is a controversial subject. Everyone admits that the waste must go somewhere, somehow, but no one wants it in his back yard. People today are rightly more environmentally conscious. But if the idea of distributing a planning policy guidance note is realised, it would offer clear guidance to both developers of waste

Column 1083

disposal sites and the planning authorities. It would certainly have prevented the tangle that has arisen in my constituency. The planning policy guidance note would cover all forms of waste disposal, including incineration, landfill and recycling and would clarify the current planning guidance that is to be given for each option. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, the Government have tabled amendments on waste disposal to the Planning and Compensation Bill. Those amendments will ensure that the county planning authorities prepare waste disposal development plans and thus ensure that there is a strategic plan for waste disposal in the county's boundaries. I understand that the Government place increasing emphasis on development plans as the framework within which individual planning applications should be considered. Where development plans provide a clear framework, they can reduce the controversy and delay that planning applications and appeals could face.

Of course, it is essential that the plans take into account the environmental protection waste disposal plans and establish land use policies and proposals for waste disposal which are consistent with the nature, quantity and distribution of waste, as forecast in the environment protection plan. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give some consideration to a waste disposal planning policy guidance note.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment can call in for review the proposal which has caused so much anxiety in my constituency. People simply cannot understand why an incinerator which is wanted only by Greater Manchester waste disposal authority can be foisted upon us because Trafford council made a serious mistake by granting outline planning permission way back in January 1988.

I must admit that I have been deeply disappointed by the attitude of Councillor Fogg, the Labour chairman of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority. I received a letter from him dated 18 January 1991 in which he stated :


                   |1985-86|1986-87|1987-88|1988-89|1989-90|1990-91        

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Academic staff                                                             

Non-clinical       |5.25   |16.6   |7.4    |<1>-   |7.0    |10.0           

Clincal            |6.3    |8.8    |8.25   |8.1    |8.0    |9.0            

Support staff                                                              

Technical staff    |5.3    |5.5    |5.8    |5.1    |11.0   |9.0            

Clerical staff     |5.4    |5.9    |6.0    |5.0    |8.3    |10.6           

Manual staff       |6.3    |8.3    |7.2    |<2>14.0|-      |9.6            

Computer operators |5.25   |5.7    |5.9    |6.1    |8.3    |9.0            

<1> The pay settlement for non-clinical academics agreed in March 1987     

provided for an increase of 16.6 per cent. from 1 December 1986 and a      

further 7.4 per cent. from 1 March 1988.                                   

<2> The settlement reached in 1988 for manual staff provided for an        

increase of £4 per week from 1 April, and assimilation to a new pay        

structure from 1 December 1988 with a minimum increase of £7 per week.

Later, he said :

"Our major regret has been the delay in reaching the present stage. The costs of the equipment and the civil and other associated works are likely to have risen by 30 per cent. since the original tenders were invited in 1988".

I hope that my hon. Friend can see from that the outlook of someone who feels that he has the whip hand. He has refused to listen to the local people. He has pooh-poohed the criteria that Trafford has adopted for the siting of incinerators. His major regret is that, because of opposition to his scheme, it will be more costly than he envisaged. He should be reminded that the health worries of local residents have not been allayed in any way by his bland assurances. I trust that my hon. Friend can say something about how protection can be offered to my constituents whose concern I share. I am anxious to know whether the Department of the Environment has any powers to deal with a case like this. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some reassurance in his reply.

1.35 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry) : I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue on the Adjournment. He is, as always, a tireless champion of the interests of his constituents and has, as ever, made his points extremely well, concisely, comprehensively and with considerable clarity. I will do my best to respond to his concerns and to the concerns of his constituents.

Waste is an inevitable product of our society, and how we dispose of it reflects on the quality of society. We may try to minimise the amount of waste that we produce and recycle as much as possible, but a substantial proportion will still remain, and we cannot avoid providing the necessary facilities properly to dispose of it. That applies just as much to clinical waste as to other types of waste. The issue which my hon. Friend has correctly identified is not therefore whether but how and where we should provide disposal facilities. I should like to deal with the "how" before coming on to consider the "where".

The majority of waste in this country is landfilled, and this remains an option for a good deal of clinical waste. However, certain types of clinical waste are not suitable for landfill, and it is not always practicable to separate such wastes from other clinical wastes. It has become normal practice to incinerate all clinical waste from hospitals-- frequently on site in one of around 600 hospital incinerators. Most of these are fairly small, and many will have difficulty meeting the new European Community and Environmental Protection Act 1990 standards when they lose Crown exemption in April. Both the private sector and waste disposal authorities are, therefore, taking a greater interest in the provision of larger centralised facilities to serve a number of hospitals, and incorporating advanced incinerator techniques and standards. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with incineration as a method of waste disposal, provided that operating conditions and flue gas emissions are strictly controlled. Indeed, in many countries incineration is considered more environmentally acceptable than landfill for all types of waste, and is the predominant method of waste disposal.

Column 1085

It is clear that the public here are less favourably disposed towards incineration. They are understandably concerned about such things as possible emissions of dioxins and other pollutants. I am, therefore, glad to have the opportunity of reassuring my hon. Friend and his constituents that the new controls which we have introduced will set the highest and most rigorous standards for the incineration of all types of waste, and will ensure that incinerators--wherever they are located--present no danger to public health or the environment.

In future, the main controls will be applied through the provisions of part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This applies a new system of integrated pollution control to all incinerators with a capacity of more than one tonne an hour and will come into effect from 1 April this year. Operators of such incinerators will be required to apply to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for authorisation before the plant can commence operations, or whenever a substantial change is proposed. Those authorisations will specify the conditions under which plants must operate, including combustion conditions and appropriate techniques for controlling releases to air, water, or land. This integrated approach will ensure that all the environmental effects of a process are considered together. Operators will be required to use the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs to prevent and minimise toxic emissions, and to render harmless those emissions which cannot be prevented. The inspectorate is producing a series of guidance notes on best available techniques not entailing excessive costs, setting out the minimum standards that it expects plants to adopt, and these standards will be reviewed at least every four years.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the standards imposed under those arrangements will be extremely rigorous indeed and will in some cases go beyond the requirements of the new European Community directives on incinerator emissions. Dioxins--which are produced from the uncontrolled burning of plastic materials and which are perhaps the greatest concern-- will have to be reduced to below the level at which they can be effectively measured. The Department of the Environment's pollution paper No. 27, "Dioxins in the Environment", published in 1989, pointed out that in well- managed incinerators emissions of dioxins were reduced to negligible levels --in fact, far below the background level in the atmosphere as a result of wood burning, car exhausts and so forth.

However, I fully appreciate that the imposition of high standards does not mean that we can ignore the siting of incinerators. No one wants an industrial plant sited near him, whatever its purpose. That is where the planning system comes in and, of course, no incinerator project can go ahead without planning permission.

Greater Manchester waste disposal authority's proposal for a clinical waste incinerator at Altrincham has gone through that process, and Trafford borough council has, as my hon. Friend mentioned, recently given planning permission for it to go ahead. Therefore, there is no locus for the Secretary of State to be involved. Planning permission has been granted and that is where the matter stands. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on that. Nevertheless, I understand that the proposed incinerator will have a capacity of more than 1

Next Section

Home Page