| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mrs. Taylor : If the gaps that the Minister is referring to are the fact that the Department of Transport is doing nothing and that the Department of Energy has done virtually nothing, those are significant gaps.
I do not want to get into a discussion about whether some of those claimed achievements are trivial. I want to be constructive about the debate and, to a certain extent, to sympathise with the Minister. One of the largest gaps in environmental initiatives in the recent past is the lack of any mention of the environment in the Queen's Speech. Nor was there anything on the environment in the Prime Minister's speech on the Queen's Speech. In contrast, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, not for the first time, mentioned many environmental issues when he spoke during the Queen's Speech debate. I hoped that the Minister would have accepted our sympathy. We are also disappointed that the autumn statement was not quite as rosy as the Minister was leading us to believe. When the Chancellor produced his autumn statement the figures showed that spending on environmental services is planned to decline during the next few
Column 697
years from a total of £1,370 million in the current year to £1,290 million next year, £1,280 million the next year and £1,260 million the year after that. That is the picture as the Chancellor presented it.I was going to sympathise with the Minister, but he was trying to turn those statistics on their head. We are especially disappointed about the absence of legislation on the environment in the Queen's Speech, because we believe that so much could be done.
As there are gaps in the legislative programme I am sure that the Minister is extremely disappointed that more has not been done, for example, legislation that would have had the co-operation of Opposition Members as well as the support of many Conservative Members--legislation on an environment protection agency or on implementing the Common Land Forum proposals. Many people outside the House are extremely disappointed about that. That was a manifesto commitment in 1987 and I was amazed to hear the Minister say on the radio recently that the reason that the Government could not introduce legislation on that issue was because they felt that they could not get it through the House of Lords. That is a remarkable admission. I wonder whether the next Conservative manifesto will be cleared with their Lordships or whether Government Ministers will make decisons for themselves.
Mr. Spearing : On the subject of admissions, the Minister had to admit to the Oxleas wood farrago. Has my hon. Friend noticed that no opportunity has been taken to put the tunnel under the wood, although the opportunity has been taken to change the design of the bridge? Does not that show lack of action?
Also--on a non-party point--should not all environmentalists examine the proposals in the Queen's Speech to give the final word on railway schemes to a Secretary of State of any Government and take it away from a long-stop position of the House? Perhaps that Bill should be scrutinised closely when it is introduced so that the House may at least be given some long-stop opportunity and not be left the victim of Secretaries of State, as has happened in the past.
Mrs. Taylor : My hon. Friend speaks from a position of expertise on both those issues. His arguments about the tunnel and the bridge show that often when Governments reconsider their policy they do so from a narrow standpoint and do not look at the full picture.
I think that the proposed changes in procedure will have to be scrutinised carefully to ensure that proper environmental considerations are safeguarded when decisions are taken on the types of programme that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
One statement that was made in the summer gave us a glimmer of hope that the Government might be coming round to the decision to take the scale of action required to offer proper environmental protection. The Minister and the House will recall that in July the Prime Minister changed Government policy and announced that they would be committed to the introduction of an environmental protection agency. He did a U-turn and that left us with a glimmer of hope that progress would be made. However, since then we have become extremely disappointed because the Minister will recall that, during the previous debate on the environment in the House, on 12 July, I asked him why it was necessary for there to be
Column 698
a further period of consultation about the implementation of the environment protection agency when there was such widespread support both inside and outside the House for progress in that direction. Indeed, I followed that up in a letter to the Secretary of State, offering the co-operation of the Opposition to push legislation through the House quickly if that was what the Government wanted to do.Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : Being helpful.
Mrs. Taylor : We were trying to be helpful, as my hon. friend points out. The Minister wrote back on the day that the consultation paper was issued, when the Government had already made up their minds that there would be no progress in legislation this year. That was a great disappointment. We were hoping that progress on an environmental protection agency could be made during this Session of Parliament. I understand the Minister's difficulty and the fact that one of his Cabinet coleagues, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, had territorial ambitions, but it seems strange to Opposition Members that a policy that was endorsed and announced by the Prime Minister could not be implemented and was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech simply because one Cabinet member wanted to divert attention away from his other problems and place a territorial claim on other functions.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : My hon. Friend referred to our concern at the lack of progress in setting up an environmental protection agency. Is not one of the issues of great concern to us the fact that organisations such as the National Rivers Authority that would be incorporated into such an agency have already stated that in some of their actions they may use only persuasion and do not have powers to implement them? The longer that we allow that position to remain and do not given an organisation such as the environmental protection agency the power to deal with problems, the worse they will become and the longer it will take to solve them.
Mrs. Taylor : My hon. Friend, who has long been interested in the issue, is right. It is a fact that the National Rivers Authority has embarked on more prosecutions recently, but both it and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution have tried to avoid prosecutions and rely on persuasion. I am afraid that such an approach has had limited success so far.
Mr. Trippier : The hon. Lady will recall that she repeated again and again that we had rushed into enacting the Environmental Protection Act 1990 instead of taking it more slowly. From what she has just said, it seems that one cannot win if one is determined to enact correct legislation and so take the matter to full consultation, which I should have thought was laudable. Will she give the House a specific statement on where the Labour party stands on the Government's proposal to take the regulatory function of waste control out of the hands of local authorities and put it under the control of the agency? A clear statement on that would help us enormously.
Mrs. Taylor : The Minister will recall that I mentioned that matter in my previous speech on the subject on 12 July. We believe that the right way to deal with waste is for the regional tier of government--which we want to see established and which we will establish--should be
Column 699
responsible for determining the region's strategy on waste. However, we think that it is a regulatory function of the environmental protection executive to monitor all such actions, and the agency will have a policing role. The strategy adopted in relation to waste in any district will be determined by the regional tier of government. As for the Minister's remarks about not rushing the issue of the environmental protection agency, we did not say that the Environmental Protection Act was rushed, and were happy to see progress on it, although we wanted proper consultation throughout. The Government have been in power for 12 and a half years and were the last people to accept the need for an environmental protection agency. If they had not been the last people to do so, there would have been legislation on the issue a long time ago. I hope that in a few months' time, when roles are reversed and we are in power, we can look forward to co-operation from the then Opposition when we introduce our environmental protection executive with the strong powers that we intend to give it.The Minister mentioned the Environmental Protection Act and, in particular, integrated pollution control, as a step forward and something on which we should build in future. When we discussed the Environmental Protection Act in Committee, on which both the Minister and I served, we had some positive debates on that aspect because there was general consensus that integrated pollution control was the way forward. Although some of us thought that the Government were not tough enough, we wanted to see progress on the implementation of integrated pollution control. We expressed much concern that there were great pressures on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and were worried that the way in which IPC was being introduced would add to those burdens. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution was then understaffed and overworked and IPC undoubtedly presented new pressures and burdens, even though it was welcome.
The Minister said today that staffing at HMIP would be improved. The figures that he announced today do not actually meet the targets and needs laid down in the National Audit Office report earlier this summer, which outlined the operations of HMIP and problems such as failure to inspect, reluctance to prosecute and the difficulty of meeting targets. That report and the management information system for Ministers report--MINIS 12-- showed that time and again HMIP, as presently constituted and supported by the Government, was unable to meet the targets and carry out the work it should. HMIP has had to farm out the production of guidance notes on many processes simply because it was so stretched. Often, companies in the private sector had to write the guidance notes on how the new rules were to be applied in future.
Following the Minister's statement, I am still worried that HMIP will be under too much pressure to carry out all its responsibilities and deliver the level of environmental protection that is obviously required. I am also concerned about what is happening in local authorities which must monitor the processes of integrated pollution control relating to pollution in the atmosphere. When the Environmental Protection Act was introduced, local authorities were not given the resources required for pump priming and setting up the system.
Column 700
Can the Minister confirm that local authorities are finding that for more than half of the industrial processes for which applications for authorisation should have been made, companies have not bothered to apply, which is serious ? If companies have not even bothered to apply for authorisation, they are technically operating illegally. Can the Minister confirm that reports of such occurrences are correct ? I should be happy to give way if he wishes to do so now, although he may wish to return to the subject later.If such incidents have taken place, I wonder why, and what the Government who introduced the legislation intend to do about the problem. Responsibility for the matter must lie with the Government who gave insufficient instructions to industry and allowed inadequate resources to local authorities. I do not know what the Minister expects local authorities to do. Will they have to face the extra work and cost of taking out hundreds of court actions against companies that have not registered and have not applied for the authorisations which form one of the cornerstones of the Government's policies as described by the Minister ? Time and again, industry in this country acts outside the law and local authorities are left to make decisions about whether to prosecute, with no support, direction or instruction from the Government. IPC has obviously got off to a shaky start, which is extremely worrying, especially for those of us who thought that it was not tough enough in the first place. The Minister referred to river quality. We should all be alarmed about a leaked report concerning river quality. The first report of the National Rivers Authority, a survey of river quality, is to be published shortly. Not surprisingly, because of its importance and also because so many people are concerned about river quality, the report has already been leaked. The NRA report states that thousands of miles of rivers in England and Wales are poisoned and that the situation has become worse since 1985. That is causing great concern within the NRA. It is also causing great concern to water users and to all of us who are worried about the environment.
The deterioration in river quality has taken place in almost every region. Water quality has declined in 6,323 km of rivers, canals and estuaries--all this at a time when the country is in recession. The length of rivers grossly polluted has risen. The quality of drinking water supplies in 15 per cent. of all the rivers monitored has deteriorated. The NRA report states that there was a trend towards a small but steady improvement in water quality between 1958 and 1980, but that the trend has not continued since then. That is very serious. It means that this Government have presided over a deterioration in water quality. If the National Rivers Authority is concerned about it, I am surprised that it did not feature in the Minister's speech.
The environmental issue that has attracted most attention in recent weeks is the letter from the European Environment Commissioner, Carlo Ripa di Meana, about the failure of the British Government to ensure British implementation of the European Community directive on environmental impact assessments. The matters involved are significant, but I must admit that even I was taken aback by the amount of attention that the issue received. That was not due to the letter--nor, alas, because of interest in the environment. The letter received so much attention because of the way in which Ministers reacted to it.
Column 701
I realise that the Minister of State may be in a difficult position. He attends some of the meetings in Brussels ; he knows the Commissioner ; he discusses these matters with him ; he knows that the Commissioner is a reasonable and fair-minded man. I am sure that the Minister of State wishes to dissociate himself from some of the more outlandish remarks of some of his colleagues. At least, I hope that he does, given what he knows to be the truth of the matter. I wonder whether the Minister can explain why his ministerial colleagues, including the Prime Minister, reacted as they did and why they said what they said. Like the whole country, the Minister of State will be aware that the Prime Minister described the Commissioner's letter as "astonishing". The Prime Minister said that the Government had had no previous notice that a problem existed. The Minister of State knows that that is not so. Therefore, I ask him to use this occasion to set the record straight. I shall gladly give way to him.Will the Minister of State confirm, first, that the European Commissioner is not trying to dictate planning decisions? He is not telling Britain what to do about specific projects. Will he confirm that the Commissioner is trying to ensure that the European Community directive is applied and that relevant environmental impact assessments are made?
Mr. Trippier : Is the hon. Lady seriously asking me to reply point by point to her speech after I have sat down, or is she asking my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, to do so when he winds up the debate? My hon. Friend intends to deal with this issue in his speech. Would the hon. Lady find that satisfactory?
Mrs. Taylor : As the Minister of State, rather than his junior colleague, goes to Brussels, it would help if he could confirm these points. If he would like me to give way again so that he can confirm that that is the nature of the letter from the Commissioner, I shall gladly do so. He may, however, prefer me to make all the points and then to deal with them. I repeat that I shall be happy to give way now on my first point if the Minister wishes to clarify that the Commissioner is not dictating planning decisions but asking Britain about the implementation of the European Community directive.
Mr. Trippier : That is correct.
Mrs. Taylor : I am grateful to the Minister. At least we agree on the first point. That being the case, will he confirm that, contrary to the Foreign Secretary's statement, the Commissioner is not "dictating" through which field a road should go?
Mrs. Taylor : I am pleased that the Minister of State has contradicted the Foreign Secretary. It shows that he knows more about European legislation than the Foreign Secretary does, which perhaps should not surprise us.
Thirdly, can the Minister help the House by confirming that the Prime Minister was mistaken when he said that the letter was the first time that the Government had heard anything about the problem.
Mr. Skinner : That is an A-level question.
Column 702
Mr. Trippier : Actually, it is a degree question. The Prime Minister never said any such thing in the first place. The Prime Minister was quite right to react so fast and so forcefully to Commissioner Carlo Ripa di Meana's recent letter. There is a clear convention that communications between the Commission and member states should be confidential. The leaking of the article 169 letter weeks ago and of the separate personal letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport were just the last in a succession of leaks on the subject throughout the summer. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a satisfactory reply from Mr. Delors. That should have some impact on the hon. Lady--that Mr. Delors did send a letter which, by any standards, was a letter of apology to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Taylor : The Minister of State found that question harder. He did not answer it. He did not say whether the Government knew that a prosecution was pending.
Mr. Trippier : That is not the point as to why the Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Delors. The hon. Lady knows that very well.
Mrs. Taylor : The hon. Gentleman says that that was not the point of the letter. What the Prime Minister said at the time of the announcement was that the Government had not had any warning that this situation had arisen and that the Government had not known about it whatsoever. It is clear that the Government were well aware, and it ill behoves Ministers to criticise leaks, especially after the resignation today of a member of the Select Committee on Health, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. Win Griffiths : Former member.
Mrs. Taylor : Former member of the Select Committee.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : Former Member for Harlow.
Mrs. Taylor : Soon. My hon. Friend is anticipating events. As the Secretary of State for Health's Parliamentary Private Secretary was also involved in the leak, Ministers cannot complain about leaks from other sources.
The Minister has not confirmed that he knew that such a letter would be sent to the Government, but it is clear that one would be, not least because in the environment debate on 12 July the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I referred to the likelihood of prosecution.
The Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister should not be surprised by the Commissioner's action, because almost a year ago to the day a senior member of the Conservative party wrote to the Commissioner asking him to intervene and said, "I shall be delighted if he reacts positively." Perhaps some members of the Conservative party do not speak to each other, but Ministers speak of the need for accesss to information so information should be available between one senior Conservative and another.
Mrs. Taylor : The Minister is asking who it was, because he obviously does not know what is going on in the Conservative party. I am happy to refer him to a cutting
Column 703
from The Times of 16 November last year, which mentioned a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Peter Price.Mr. Trippier : I am amazed that Mr. Price would suggest himself to be a senior member of the Conservative party.
Mrs. Taylor : Perhaps the Minister of State belongs to that wing of the Conservative party that sets no weight by Members of the European Parliament. Perhaps he is entering into that debate more than our debate today.
Mr. Skinner : Is the Minister still vice-chairman of the Tory party?
Mrs. Taylor : My hon. Friend asks an interesting question. The Minister was vice-chairman at the time of the last European elections. Therefore, perhaps he should have known where some of his colleagues stood on these issues.
I hope that today's debate will not be the last word on the environment in this Session. The Minister's comments have not reassured us that environmental issues will move further up the Government agenda. He said that it is for business to sort out our environment problems. That is not right. We require a more positive lead from the Government, but it will not come from the Conservative Government and we look forward to sitting on the Government Benches and giving a proper lead.
10.43 am
Mr. Gwilym Jones (Cardiff, North) : I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the environment, which was so ably opened by my hon. Friend the Minister. Most hon. Members attach the highest importance to their local environment and I wish to draw attention to two problems in my constituency that deserve resolution. The first is perhaps not the most obvious, as it involves not an industrial process but one of the four excellent hospitals in my constituency. We are well served by our four hospitals and the finest must be the University hospital of Wales, which, as its name implies, is not only a large and important national health service hospital but a teaching hospital, part of the University of Wales. As such, its medical facilities are highly valued by its neighbours and by people from further afield. Sadly, the hospital has been a significant cause of environmental problems and pollution, especially for my constituents who live immediately alongside it. The most obvious is the consequence of traffic growth. Since it was opened about 20 years ago, health care has continued to grow and to be more successful every year, but traffic has grown even faster. As a consequence, the residential roads adjacent to the hospital have had to suffer an intolerable burden--one far worse than they might have reasonably expected. Until the early 1980s, the only access to the hospital was by King George V drive from the east or by Rhydhelig avenue from the west. Fortunately, some 10 years ago new access to the hospital was opened via Eastern avenue, a major dual carriageway running alongside it. Although that provides access, it does not provide egress from the
Column 704
hospital and has not contributed significantly to reducing the steadily increasing burden of traffic that continues to use the residential roads around the hospital.In turn, we have had significant problems of overspill parking as the number of cars seeking to use the hospital has spread beyond the hospital site into surrounding roads. Some years ago, that necessitated the imposition of a residents' parking zone. Somewhat surprisingly, and for reasons that have never been well understood by residents, it was withdrawn by South Glamorgan council, which claimed that it was not justified and was under-used. I am glad to say that, because of the excellent hard work of councillor Tony John, who represents the area, there will be a new parking zone.
Mr. Win Griffiths : What about Rhydhelig avenue?
Mr. Jones : If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I am happy to give way. Otherwise I shall ignore his sedentary comments.
Mr. Griffiths : What is the hon. Gentleman's view on access and parking on Rhydhelig avenue, St. Augustine's avenue and St. Alban's avenue?
Mr. Jones : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question because I suspect that he has considerable sympathy for the problems that my local councillors and I are fighting to deal with. Perhaps he would join me in urging South Glamorgan council, the highway authority, to show more concern for local residents. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
Traffic and parking are not the only environmental problems that are consequences of the University hospital of Wales. Perhaps far more worrying is the spewing out of pollution from the chimney of its incinerator. Local residents living in the wards of Heath and Gabalfa have become increasingly apprehensive about what is coming out of the chimney and what the pollution is. They know that they have been polluted, but they do not know what the pollution is. As much as anything, it has become a fear of the unknown. Certainly there have been visible incidents of pollution, and complaints to the hospital have flowed almost as quickly as the smoke coming out of the chimney. As a result of the pollution and the problems of traffic and parking, the hospital has lost considerable good will among the people who live immediately around it. It has lost that good will not because of its medical facilities but because it has not been a good neighbour to those who live nearby. Local councillors felt forced to adopt a policy of opposing any further expansion of the use of the site of the University hospital of Wales until there were at least some positive proposals to deal with the various problems that the hospital had occasioned.
I applaud the work of local councillors, including the senior member, councillor Clive Milsom ; councillor Granville Tatham, who is very experienced ; and our newest colleague, Dr. Peter Donnelly, who practises at the University hospital of Wales. I must also mention councillor Watkiss, who died just before the local election in May this year. He lived in King George V drive and took a keen interest in the problems of the University hospital of Wales. He was a former lord mayor of Cardiff, acting chairman of the Association of District Councils, and the leading light of local government in Wales.
Column 705
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we have all become increasingly concerned about our local environment, and that concern certainly extends to such problems as the hospital incinerator at the University hospital of Wales. We recognise that we need higher standards and more openness about the operation of facilities such as hospital incinerators. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister because the Government have led the way in making the necessary environmental protection improvements.The new environmental protection legislation will bring hospital incinerators under the higher standards which are necessary. In addition, the pollution emitted by such chimneys will be monitored and the results recorded with, in this case, the environmental health department of Cardiff city council. That information should be held on a register that is open to public inspection. In that way, the neighbours of the University hospital of Wales would at last know exactly what was going on.
South Glamorgan health authority has responded to the new requirements, installing a new incinerator at the University hospital of Wales. The health authority tells me that it has spent almost £2 million on putting in that new incinerator and almost £5 million on the boiler house. I have some pleasure in knowing that the health authority has responded to the new higher standards set by the Government because it should mean an improved environment for those of my constituents who live in Heath and Gabalfa.
The health authority has sought to maximise its investment in the new incinerator and the boiler house. It submitted a planning application to Cardiff city council, whereby practically all the refuse from all the hospitals in South Glamorgan could be incinerated at the University hospital of Wales. I can understand that a health authority would want to make the maximum possible use of any new investment, and on that count the incinerator is no different from any other investment. However, I do not welcome the authority's choice of the University hospital of Wales to maximise the incinerator operation. I do not understand why the health authority would choose that as the site for centralised incineration. The population around the University hospital of Wales is the most densely situated in South Glamorgan. Waste from other hospitals must be trucked in, involving several large lorries coming in every hour of every day to keep the incinerator fed. Why should the health authority choose the busiest area in Cardiff for that centralised operation? I would not want to wish this problem on any other hospital in South Glamorgan. I do not want to say, "Not in my back yard" and wish it on someone else. But I wonder whether there are other hospitals with far fewer neighbours that might have provided a much better site for this operation.
As might be expected, the proposal about increased incineration at the University hospital of Wales immediately raised great fears among my constituents and their local representatives, the councillors. They were concerned about not only the increased volume of refuse which was to be incinerated and what that would mean to the local environment but the pollution which might result from some hospital waste--for example, material with traces of radioactivity. The health authority made a commonsense response, suggesting that no health authority would want to pollute any hospital and certainly not the University hospital of
Column 706
Wales. The concern about the environment of the hospital extends to concern about those living around the hospital. But, by now, residents in Heath and Gabalfa are not swallowing that answer easily, in the same way as they are not swallowing easily the emissions from the chimney of the University hospital of Wales.Local councillors have felt it necessary--I have supported them--to continue their policy of oppositon to any intensification of use of the site of the University hospital of Wales. Recently, we had the opportunity to meet representatives of South Glamorgan health authority. The health authority made a good response and immediately admitted what we have been claiming for a long time--that the hospital has not been a good neighbour to those who live alongside it. The health authority recognised that the hospital had been a source of major traffic problems and overspill parking and promised us that, in response to those problems, it would provide new access to Eastern avenue, which would provide the egress that the existing route does not provide, and new multi-storey car parking to increase parking within the hospital site. The health authority said that it hoped that those measures would be in place within about two years. I very much welcome those moves and the positive attitude behind them. In the meantime, my constituents are afraid that they may suffer even greater problems. While the multi-storey car park is built, existing parking might be displaced, further inconveniencing the residents of King George V drive, Rhydhelig avenue and other roads around the University hospital of Wales which are named after saints.
We persuaded the health authority to withdraw its planning application providing for the incineration of all the extra refuse from all the other hospitals at the University hospital of Wales and, before it submits another planning application, at least to consult all the residents. The health authority has written to every immediate neighbour of the hospital inviting them to a public meeting next week in the hospital at which they promise to respond to every concern and to try to answer every question that is raised by neighbours. Those are steps forward in trying to improve our local environment in Cardiff, North. The problem of increased use of the incinerator must still be resolved--that must be a matter for Cardiff city council in making a decision about the planning application and for the new, far tougher standards of environmental protection which will be monitored by the environmental health department. At last, the health authority is showing the right approach.
Any belief that we were going forward on all fronts and confidence that we were making progress was, however, rudely disrupted a week ago. South Glamorgan council suddenly revived a proposal to establish a medi-centre on the site of the University hospital of Wales. That medi-centre will not be part of the NHS but will be purely commercial in operation. It will involve a development of 20,000 sq ft. There is a certain irony. If anyone other than a Labour-controlled council had come forward with this commercial operation for the campus of a national health service hospital, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and other Labour Members would be jumping up and down and shouting, "Privatisation". This Labour council not only is applying for planning permission but intends to determine that application. It is not the
Column 707
planning authority--planning is usually the role of Cardiff city council. I understand that South Glamorgan county council will even be involved in the development.Mr. Win Griffiths : During the passing of the Planning and Compensation Bill, Labour Members tabled an amendment to stop local authorities giving themselves planning permission in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman described, but we were not successful in getting that amendment through. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should talk to Ministers about that point.
Mr. Jones : I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps we have common cause in the whole-hearted will that exists in Wales for a move towards single-tier authorities in order to avoid the confusion of one council giving itself planning permission that might be in contravention of another council.
South Glamorgan council will be judge and jury and, perhaps, beneficiary of the commercial operation at the University hospital of Wales. We are threatened with a fait accompli, and it is feared that there will be little or no consultation with local residents about the latest intensification of the site of that hospital. Of course, South Glamorgan council is the highway authority. The planning application for increased incineration, which has now been withdrawn, would have entailed 20 heavy lorries a day going in and out of the hospital, so South Glamorgan council recommended that that application be turned down. A commercial development of 20,000 sq ft on the hospital site must surely entail many more vehicle movements than 20 a day, so it would be hypocritical if South Glamorgan council reversed its earlier judgment merely to give itself planning permission for a commercial development with which it is involved. I felt that we had reached a stage at which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales needed to be involved--as far as he could be--in the matter. On Monday I led a delegation of local councillors to see him. We told him of the environmental problems caused by the University hospital of Wales. Although he doubted whether he could call in the latest planning application for a medi-centre, he promised that he would consider calling it in if it involved national matters, but local matters fall solely to the two local councils. However, he recognised the problems and instructed his officials at the Welsh Office to do what they could when South Glamorgan health authority made its proposals for new car parking and for access to Eastern avenue. He advised that the medi-centre should be part of the consultation process, and we look forward to its being on the agenda at next week's public meeting so that those who live around the hospital may have their say on that issue as on the incinerator. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his concern about the problems.
My constituents have endured too much. The environment around the University hospital of Wales which they might reasonably have expected has been ravaged. I believe that the proposal for the medi-centre is the final straw. Such proposals should not over-intensify the use of sites such as the University hospital of Wales where there is precious little room and too many adverse consequences for those who live alongside. Instead, there are the exciting plans for the redevelopment of south
Column 708
Cardiff. Such proposals should be encouraged there. I still believe that the much expanded incineration should not go ahead at the University hospital of Wales. However, I am conscious that many steps have been made in that direction and that much investment has already been made. Any increase in incineration should at least be delayed for two years when the health authority hopes that the extra multi-storey car parking and new access to Eastern avenue will be in place so that there will be the least further environmental disturbance to my constituents. Even so, my constituents want the most stringent tests carried out under environmental protection legislation. My constituents in Heath and Gabalfa deserve the best guarantee that we can look forward to a better--not worse- -environment because of the new incinerator at the University hospital of Wales. I urge the two local councils--Cardiff city and South Glamorgan councils--to have as their prime consideration a regard for my constituents who live alongside the hospital. There should be no fait accompli or hypocrisy. Similarly, I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales taking any action that he can take on these important environmental problems.Finally, I refer, briefly, to a no less important matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) mentioned this morning. He said that the number of green belts in England had doubled under a Conservative Government. We have no green belts in Wales, as the same legislation does not apply there, although that is being reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. He has some sympathy with many of us who have campaigned for a statutory green belt policy. I look forward to the result of his review, which I hope will come soon.
Wales needs the protection of green belts and my constituency is an obvious candidate for such protection. My constituency extends from the central part of Cardiff to the mountain rim that forms the northern boundary of the capital city of Wales. There is little room for development in my constituency and any possible developments should be encouraged to go to or should be exclusively in south Cardiff. The M4 motorway should be regarded as the absolute limit of further development. There should be no developments north of the M4 as they would despoil the mountain edge of Cardiff which should be protected by a green belt. There are open green spaces south of the motorway between Lisvane and St. Mellons, but there is now a threat of development there. I should like to see that area protected by green belt legislation.
There should be a form of planning purity. All too often I hear of cases in which a developer proposes a form of planning gain in return for obtaining planning permission. That has been mentioned with regard to interchanges with the M4 in my constituency. However, the two matters should be entirely separate. A developer may apply for planning permission to the planning authority, but that application should be judged and determined solely on its merits. If the developer wants subsequently to pay for his own interchange with the motorway, that should be an entirely separate matter which should in no way influence the giving of the planning permission.
On the matters that I have brought to the House's attention, and in general, I support the stance outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister for the need to maintain and improve our environment.
Column 709
10.56 amMr. Tom Cox (Tooting) : It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), because he has mentioned issues to which I intend to refer, including the burning of hospital waste. I agree with all that he said--the same problems exist in my constituency and I am sure that many hon. Members will join me in supporting the action for which he has called.
This has been--and, I am sure, will continue to be--an interesting debate. It is an important one, because every aspect of the environment in which we live is of interest to us as individuals and is certainly of interest to the people whom we seek to represent. The issues involved in a healthy environment grow year by year. I represent a constituency very near Westminster and I bring to the House many groups of youngsters from schools. They are full of enthusiasm and questions, and the environment-- our environment and the world environment--is top of the list of their questions. That is good for the country, as, I hope, is the legislation.
I welcome the increase in European Community legislation. I am a member of Parliament's delegation to the Council of Europe. The Minister for the Environment and Countryside is no longer here--I make no criticism of him for that--but I listened to his opening remarks, and I know that he will speak to colleagues in Brussels. I have never seen him at the Council of Europe and I serve on the social, health and family affairs committee, which he has never attended. Perhaps a colleague will convey my remarks to him. The Council of Europe and the social, health and family affairs committee comprise delegates from many countries and of various political persuasions. If the Minister attended and attempted to make the type of speech that he made here he would be laughed at.
The Council of Europe covers a much wider area with a much greater population than that covered by the European Economic Community. Many of the countries in central and eastern Europe now enjoy guest status in the Council. Sadly, under the old systems in those countries, protection of the environment did not figure highly. It is evident from the work in our committees that the environment is now of great importance to those countries. However, it is also evident that much greater co-operation is required between western European countries, which for a long time have been concerned about the environment, and the countries of eastern and central Europe. We need an exchange of ideas and those countries need help to improve and protect the environment.
The Minister of State did not touch on that. What is the Government's policy about helping emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe on this crucial issue? As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said, the environment knows no frontiers. The nuclear accident at Chernobyl affected this country even though we are hundreds of miles from the reactor. Pollution in rivers travels long distances. Therefore, we cannot say that the environment elsewhere does not concern us.
I am concerned about the Government's attitude to many things European, and certainly to the whole area of environmental protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury challenged the Minister to say where he stood on the criticism by the Environment Commissioner, Carlo Ripa di Meana. The current edition of the European
Column 710
Parliament--EP News contains a major article headed "Environment Commissioner defends action". The article states that the Commissioner"came before the House to defend his action of insisting on proper respect for EC environmental impact assessment legislation. He rejected the charge that he had acted with bias against the UK. This he described as offensive and unjust'.
Adding that he would not allow himself to be intimidated, he pointed out"--
as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury--
"that legal proceedings were pending against ten of the twelve EC countries for failure to respect EC rules on the assessment of large-scale works."
The European Environment Commissioner is not singling out the British, even though the Minister and other senior Ministers seek to attack this honourable Commissioner.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : One of the proposals affected is the road through Oxleas Wood. The major constitutional issues are whether British law complies with the directive and whether the transitional arrangements are adequate. May I plead with the Commissioner to reply to letters? I have not had a reply to a series of letters that I have sent, nor has the prospective Labour candidate in my constituency. Better communication might clear up some of the problems.
Mr. Cox : I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure that all hon. Members are annoyed when they do not receive replies to letters. If he wishes me to try to speed up replies, I shall certainly do so. The hon. Gentleman has been a Minister and is conversant with the systems that operate here. He has a local European Member of Parliament and I am sure that he is aware of ways by which he can speed up replies.
I can cite many examples of Government attacks on EC reports of the Government's actions. Some time ago, there were reports about pollution on British beaches. The Government complained about the cost and said that it was not a matter for them or that matters were not that bad. They also complained about unfairness, but there was no willingness to look at the charges or to have proper consultation with local authorities to see how they and the Government could work together to improve the general standards of our beaches. Lord Stanley Clinton-Davis is a former European Commissioner and for many years he was in the House. I have read his highly critical speeches in the other place about the difficulties that he repeatedly encountered when trying to pursue European legislation and the obstruction that emanated from senior Ministers. A current example, the social charter, gives a clear indication of the Government's continuing hostility to anything European. The charter covers not only salaries, a minimum wage and maternity benefit but deals with many issues. The minutes of the Council of Europe, which were published in October, refer to the fourth environmental action programme of the European Economic Community and the Council of Europe. Under the heading "Protecting the Environment, the Worker and the Public", the minutes state :
"The Single European Act and the Fourth Environmental Action Programme make clear that the environment is an integral part of the Community's economic, social, industrial, agricultural and other policies. The Action Programme declares the Commissioner's intention of making maximum use of contributions made by the Foundation whose work programmes have already included issues such as hazardous wastes, contaminated land, and voluntary initiatives in the environment."
| Next Section
| Home Page |