House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 Nov 1991

Column 711

That shows that, despite what we are told by Conservatives, the social charter is not solely about salaries and general working conditions on the shop floor but also plays a major role in the environment. The document also states that the charter intends to broaden work on the urban environment, industry, local communities and general safety at work. It refers to urban decline and work on rural and coastal areas.

The social charter has an enormous role to play and we should concern ourselves with that, because it is relevant to us all, wherever we live and whatever part of the country we represent. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much of that programme, which the EC and the Council of Europe support, is supported by the Government. We are full members of both bodies.

When I attend meetings in Paris or Strasbourg at which such issues arise, I find it frustrating to hear the continuing opposition from Conservative Members, especially in the Council of Europe. It would be interesting to hear just how much of the programme that I have outlined the Government support, those aspects of it that they do not, and why.

I represent an inner-city area of London. As we all know, not only in London but in many of our big cities, there are areas of great depression-- neglected areas where there are thousands of people out of work--and those areas have existed for a long time. We have had troubles in various parts of the country in recent months, and I realise that there may be many reasons for that, but I am convinced that one of them is the depressing effect that such areas have on those who live in them. When one asks people what they think of their area and why they do not show more interest in it, their response is likely to be, "Why bother? What concern is it of ours? Who shows any interest in us?" The environment is crucial in this respect, and that is why the Council of Europe and its social, health and family affairs committee show continuing interest and involvement in these matters.

I have expressed the view held by the whole of the committee, which represents countries with Governments of various political colours and is made up of members belonging to various political parties. There is complete agreement on the commitment of the Council of Europe to dealing with the issue, and I repeat that it would be interesting to hear just where the Government stand.

I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North that, although we must be involved in protecting the environment nationally and internationally, in the end, it is a local issue, crucial to those whom we represent. I shall refer briefly to one of the matters touched on by the hon. Gentleman, although I shall not speak on it for as long as I had intended, because the hon. Gentleman made wide-ranging reference to it himself, I congratulate him on that. The burning of hospital waste is certainly relevant in my area because, for years St. George's hospital, Tooting has been burning enormous quantities of such waste--often for days on end. The soot deposits from its chimneys fall in the residential area in which it is sited, settling on washing, paintwork and parked cars and on the plants in people's gardens-- all of which suffer. I am sure that the House can imagine the feelings of someone who hangs out the washing one sunny morning only to find, on going to collect it three or four hours later, that it is full of holes

Column 712

caused by the soot deposits coming out of the hospital chimney. People have brought their cars to my advice surgery to show me burnt paintwork caused by soot deposits. No doubt the hon. Member for Cardiff, North shares a problem that I have, which is that, unfortunately, it is the most difficult thing imaginable to try to get any recompense in respect of property damaged in this way. An elderly constituent of mine came to me and said, "I have had my car for 12 years ; it is my life. I have always looked after it because I know that I cannot afford another one." The chap in question went to his car one day and found burn marks all over the bodywork. When he came to see me, I said that I would write to the chairlady of the health authority, who replied that she was very sorry that this had happened but asked whether the gentleman could prove that the burn marks had been caused by the deposit from the hospital chimney. Most of our constituents--and possibly we ourselves--would be likely to respond, "Where else would it have come from ?" Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, North agrees with me that, although one knows what the problem is and the damage that it is causing, it is very difficult to get anything done about it.

I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment and was told that it was really a matter for the chief environmental officer of the local authority, but when I took the matter up with the local environmental officer, his response--and it is to his credit that he responded--was, "Well, it may be bad, but it is not really so bad that I must take any action." When one passes such messages back to one's constituents, they say, "Who will do something to stop this nuisance, which is causing enormous problems not only to me but to the whole area?" Sadly, in these cases, one gets nowhere. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North that we must consider the question of responsibility and tighten up the legislation.

A nuisance is also caused by the siting of petrol stations in residential areas. A planning application has been made for the building of a petrol station in the midst of a residential area in my constituency. Hon. Members may say that petrol stations are to be found in residential areas everywhere in the country and I do not dispute that, but in the area in question there is no shortage of petrol stations and the local people say that they do not want another one damaging their environment and that there is no need for it. The parents of youngsters who go to play at the two local nurseries are very worried about the effects that the petrol station will have on their children. People are also worried about the general effect of the new station on their community. But what happens when one tries to get it stopped? We are told that there are procedures--and I accept the need for them--but when the matter goes to the local council's planning department, it is argued that there are strong grounds for allowing the application. When one asks what they are, one is told, "Oh, well, the petrol company wants to build it." One can only ask, "But what about the local community, which does not want it?" I know that the Minister may not be in a position to respond in detail to the comments made on this subject by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and me, but I hope that he will take them on board and I ask him to write to us on these important local issues.

I hope that the remarks of those who speak in this debate--critical or otherwise--will be acted upon, because the environment is crucial to all those whom we seek to represent.

Column 713

11.27 am

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : No one can possibly be against a cleaner environment and the conservation of rare and irreplaceable species such as elephants, whales and orchids. Similarly, no one can possibly be against the concept of better quality air and drinking water. Nevertheless, it is very important that, before we start legislating on the scale that the Opposition advocate, we make very sure that we are doing so on a sound factual basis.

I should like to point out to the House just how ignorant we are about many of the matters on which we legislate. We legislate because we are put under great pressure by a new group of what I call eco-terrorists, who seek to press their opinions on politicians. Many of them are ex-socialists and their green wellies have red linings. They want more rules and regulations and more Government interference. They put all environmental problems down to the wicked industrialists, notwithstanding the fact that much of the pollution comes from eastern Europe. Presumably, it is the wicked socialists who are responsible for that, but we never hear them mentioned. The motor car is now the big demon of the left because, supposedly, it pollutes our atmosphere, but the fact is that it is the most treasured possession of many people--including working people--because it allows them to get around independently. That does not seem to enter into the reckoning, however, and the socialists want use of the motor car to be controlled. Before we start slapping all sorts of controls and restrictions on cars, we ought to find out a little more about the effect that they are really having on the environment. I want this morning to consider the effect of some of those issues on our planet and particularly on our atmosphere, and I begin by considering the ozone layer. We have been told that it develops holes which allow radiation through and that causes all sorts of curious and devastating effects. The big villain substances are the chlorofluorocarbon gases--or CFCs, for short. Those substances are basic to many industrial processes.

People have argued that hairsprays, hamburger packaging and refrigerator gases are causing holes in the ozone layer. However, we do not compare the effect of those things with natural elements in the environment. Mount St. Augustine is one of the great volcanoes on earth. In 1976 it exploded and gave out 290 billion kg of hydrochloric acid into the upper atmosphere and into the ozone layer. That was the equivalent of 570 times the world's industrial production of CFC gases. That must have a profound effect on the ozone layer.

Mr. Alan W. Williams : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gorman : I will give way later.

Observations about the ozone layer are being made in MacMurdo sound in the Antarctic which is just 15 miles upwind from another great volcano called Mount Erebus. That volcano erupts constantly. For the past 100 years it has ejected more than 1,000 tonnes of chlorine into the atmosphere every day. Compared to those massive events, the quantity of CFCs produced by industrial complexes is absolutely negligible. It is potty and ridiculous to suggest that stopping people spraying their armpits with deodorants will have an effect on issues of that scale.

People who make such assertions do so not so much on a scientific basis, but because they have another axe to

Column 714

grind. They want to condemn industrial output. I am not saying that we should allow industry to pollute, and I entirely support the Government's claim that the polluter should pay. For example, it is possible to monitor pollution from incinerator chimneys in hospitals and in that regard I sympathise with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and the problems that he has in his constituency.

There should be codes of practice and we should prosecute people who carelessly ignore the interests of their surroundings. I am in favour of that, but that is different from setting up international agencies whose legislation and ideas may have devastating effects on industries in western countries while leaving eastern countries to carry on processes over which the rest of us have no control. We should discover the facts before we peddle such half-baked and unscientific ideas.

The greenhouse effect is something else that is supposedly happening on our planet. The theory is that carbon dioxide and other related gases accumulate in the atmosphere, raise the temperature, melt the icecaps and flood countries. We are going to boil or drown : that is the basic, crude, but nevertheless simplistic theory upon which we are supposed to legislate.

We are extremely ignorant about climatology in our atmosphere. We know little about the effect of clouds on our climate. If the theory is correct, when the sun shines, the heat builds up, the water evaporates and more clouds form, what happens to those clouds? Clouds act as a blanket above the earth. They deflect the sun's heat. We never hear about that.

What about plants? When I was a 10-year-old school girl, I knew enough biology to know that plants gobble up carbon dioxide in the way that dogs gobble up bones. They love it : the more they get, the more they grow. In fact, more carbon dioxide means more forests, more grass and more green plants. I do not think that there are 50 people in this place who know enough biology to appreciate that. If the theory was correct, plants would welcome a build-up of carbon dioxide because most plants photosynthesise at less than 50 per cent. of their full capacity, and I can say that as a practising biologist for the past 25 years.

People like Sir Crispin Tickell, who, I believe, was once our ambassador in New York, join in with the eco-madness and advice us that unless we do something to control carbon emissions from motorcars the earth will heat up, the icecaps will melt and Florida and, I dare say, Parliament will be submerged. However, melting ice does not occupy very much more space that the ice floes. The only extra bit is the little bit that sticks out above the water. The effect that that would have in raising ocean levels is absolutely minute. If we melt a block of ice, it does not take up more space. I hope that all hon. Members understand that, I sometimes feel that I am talking to one of my classes for 10-year-olds when I give them lessons on very elementary and basic science.

However, that aspect of the greenhouse theory is another piece of mumbo- jumbo. Some organisations in this country now have a vested interest in frightening the wits out of us. They are worriers and meddlers. Organisations such as Friends of the Earth do some good work, but in many ways they go right over the top in trying to persuade the Government to introduce legislation. People like Mr. Porritt make a great profession out of being eco-champions of our country. He talks a load of rot as well. Then there are mega-millionaires like Sir James

Column 715

Goldsmith. He has also become part of the eco-terrorist movement and is going to devote his great fortune to saving us from our sins. I wish that he had stuck with baked beans. Incidentally, baked beans also produce a great deal of carbon dioxide gas, as do cows. There was a theory that the increase in the number of cattle kept in civilised societies was contributing to the greenhouse effect. That was put forward as a scientific point of view. So much for the evidence on which a great deal of that theory is based.

My message to the Government is that before they pursue or are pushed or goaded into introducing yet more regulations, which would have to be draconian to have effect, they should seriously consider the matter. It is estimated that, if we did away with every car in the western hemisphere, we would prevent temperature increases by less than 1 deg C. We can all work that one out. It is alleged that there has been a 100 per cent. increase in CO over the past 100 years. However, many of the measurements 100 years ago were extremely susceptible to error. The actual increase has been from three parts in 1 million to four parts in 1 million. That is hardly Armageddon. Even if those predictions are correct, the amounts involved are minute, yet we are often asked to introduce regulations on cars and industry based on that kind of evidence.

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : From her biological experience, would my hon. Friend tell the House something about the effects on human physiology of having to breathe in exhaust fumes?

Mrs. Gorman : My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I have told him that I believe that we should apply codes of practice to pollution. I do not like the smell. I hate crossing the road at the corner of Parliament street and being deluged by very unpleasant smells. I entirely support my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). However, that is different from the attacks that the eco-terrorists make on the car industry in wanting to restrict the number of cars. By all means let us have clean cars, but do not let us pretend that the car is responsible for the greenhouse effect and global warming. Let us get our facts and science right. Let us go to people who know some good, real science. Let us invest in the quality of science that can be produced for us by the Royal Society and by other organisations so that we legislate on the basis of good scientific information.

The people who are now pushing the idea of global warming and the greenhouse effect are the same people who, 10 years ago, were telling us that we were moving into an ice age. They are exactly the same pseudo- scientists. They are very active in America, although, thank goodness, a rearguard action is now being fought there and politicians such as President Bush are now thinking twice about pursuing some of the more extreme environmental legislation. If we did away with every industrial process, the effects on our climate would be practically nil, because the effects on our climate are entirely due to our proximity to the sun, the movement of our planet in its orbit and the fact that it wobbles about a bit, which causes other periodic changes in our climate. Gigantic outbursts of energy from the sun--sun spots--affect what happens here on the earth. They

Column 716

create holes in our atmosphere from time to time, and that in turn affects the transmission of electronic signals. All those things are facts. Bearing in mind the little bit of the earth which is actually occupied by people--less than 10 per cent. of the earth's surface--the mega effects in which the eco-terrorists believe are a contradiction of any kind of common sense.

I ask the Government not to be stampeded or terrified into legislating in an atmosphere of ignorance. Most of the people who try to push those fashionable theories are about as accurate as a horoscope or "Old Moore's Almanack" in predicting what our planet will be like. I will join any of my colleagues who want to make our streets more pleasant and clean and who want to stop dirty old chimneys or dirty old industries dumping their rubbish in the environment without a proper costing of what they are doing to the rest of us. All hon. Members would support that. However, we must not be driven into draconian legislation that would have a devastating effect on our industries, because, at the end of the day, every time we push a factory out of existence because it has been polluting the atmosphere we destroy people's jobs.

We must not let this matter develop into a campaign against the motor car. The motor car provides the greatest pleasure that many people have. Even the hon. Member for Tooting would find that his constituent did not want to do away with his motor car. We must do as the Government say--make the polluter pay and keep an eye on things. Best of all, we must have good scientific information on which to work. We must not allow the Porritts and the Goldsmiths of this world to dictate the rest of the legislation that we design on this subject.

11.43 am

Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen) : I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) I understand that she was a biology teacher. I suggest that she sticks to biology and does not mention chemistry or physics or talk about the ozone layer and chlorofluorocarbons, because there were profound scientific errors in what she said, but then that is the standard of science after 10 years of Conservative Government.

I am pleased that we have this debate on the environment so soon after the previous one on 12 July. I was pleased then that it was our first full- scale environment debate during this Parliament. It is a pity that we could not wait another couple of weeks before holding this debate, because, before the end of this month, the National Rivers Authority will publish the results of the water quality survey which it carried out during 1990. That will be a significant report because it is a cumulative index of water pollution. It gives an idea of what has been achieved in river quality in the past five to 10 years.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out in her excellent speech, that report, which has been leaked, will show that 6,323 km of our rivers have deteriorated since the previous survey in 1985 and that 4,631 km have improved--11 per cent. have improved and 15 per cent. have become worse. The balance is negative--a 4 per cent. net deterioration in the quality of our rivers.

From 1958 to 1980, successive surveys showed that we were improving the quality of our rivers. However, the new survey will demonstrate that there has been a net deterioration of 6 per cent. during the past decade. That

Column 717

shows the measure of care of the environment under this Government. That is the real measure, not the Minister's windy rhetoric. Our rivers are not getting better. They improved for more than 20 years, but they are now getting worse.

The report blames intensive agriculture, slurry, effluent, droughts--there have been two years of drought, especially in eastern Britain--acid rain, run-off from contaminated land and, the biggest culprit, reduced Government expenditure on sewage treatment in the run-up to water privatisation. The Government call water privatisation the solution to our problems, but it is the cause of our problems. Privatisation and cuts in expenditure on sewage treatment have led to the deterioration of our rivers. I hope that that report will get the publicity that it deserves. I challenge the Government to offer a three-hour debate on that report.

The National Rivers Authority is our independent watchdog. We supported its creation and we are very glad of its relative success. It is doing very good work. I am delighted to note that the number of prosecutions last year increased from 334 to 908. Every privatised water authority was prosecuted, but the fines were quite trivial. The fines that were imposed on the 10 water companies total £49,000. Quite honestly, last year's pay rise for Elfed Jones, the chairman of Welsh Water, would have paid all the fines that were inflicted on the water authorities. In 1988, the last year for which we have figures, there were 26,926 incidents of water pollution. We must ask ourselves and the NRA why only one in 30 of those incidents led to prosecution. Why does it not enforce the law much more regularly?

In the past few months, Greenpeace has successfully prosecuted Albright and Wilson for pollution in Whitehaven. It intends to take legal action against the NRA for default of its legal

responsibilities and to call for a judicial review, particularly of why there were so few prosecutions when there are so many incidents of pollution, and why British consents to industrial companies are so lax compared with those in the United States and Germany. Why do we not adopt the same high environmental standards as those countries? My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred earlier to the problems in and around the Coalite plant in Bolsover where dioxin contamination has been found in the river, in farm animals and in cows' milk. We now hear that there is cluster of breast cancers around Bolsover. At environment questions on Wednesday my hon. Friend was told that HMIP is now investigating that matter and taking some action. I am glad that the Coalite plant, which is undoubtedly the prime suspect, if not the cause of the problems, will be closed down at the end of this month and overhauled. However, why has HMIP taken so long to identify that problem? Dioxins are now so abundant in that environment that it is too late to solve the problem.

Let us consider HMIP's record over the years. Last year I worked on the report produced by the Select Committee on the Environment on the ReChem plant in Pontypool, where polychlorinated biphenyls are incinerated, especially imported PCBs which are much more profitable. The monitoring of that plant by HMIP has been pathetic and feeble. Hardly any samples have been taken. It has simply been a case of drawing up a code of practice and entering

Column 718

into discussions, negotiations, encouragement and exhortation as a means of trying to encourage the plant to adopt good practice.

Mrs. Gorman : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us how he suggests that we deal with industrial waste. All societies produce it, so we must have sensible plans for dealing with it. What are his plans if we are not to incinerate such waste safely?

Mr. Williams : There must generally be far greater emphasis on waste minimisation, which does not happen at all at the moment in British industry. Because it is cheap to throw things away and to pump waste into the air or water, that is what industry does and that is exactly what would continue to happen in the undisciplined, anything goes, free market society that the hon. Lady advocated earlier.

Waste minimisation is proving highly successful in Germany, on the continent generally, and in the United States. Between three quarters and 90 per cent. of industrial waste is unnecessary. Incineration is not the right way to treat PCBs or other highly toxic organic solvents which produce dioxins. There are other methods of dealing with PCBs and contaminated organic solvents, such as by hydrogenation or heating them with lime. I should prefer PCBs to be stored above ground until the alternative methods of dealing with them prove economic and viable.

The low level of air pollution monitoring in this country is a scandal. Water pollution is monitored by the National Rivers Authority. Solid waste dumping is subject to some regulations ; perhaps they are not strong enough, but there is reasonable enforcement of them. However, there is hardly any legislation on air pollution and virtually no enforcement. The total number of air pollution prosecutions by HMIP since 1987 is nine--that is two a year. That can be contrasted with the 900 prosecutions brought last year by the NRA. When it comes to air pollution, it is open house for the polluter.

Mrs. Gorman : It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to give way again. One of the nice things about Friday mornings is that hon. Members are so good about letting their colleagues get in on the act. What about the clean air legislation? When I was a little girl, we went to school in winter in thick smog--in choking ghastliness. The air in this country has been improved enormously, so why do people keep saying that things are getting worse? They are getting better.

Mr. Williams : There is no question about the success of the Clean Air Act 1956 and I pay tribute to the Conservative Government for introducing it. The problem now is not one of soot and carbon monoxide, which the Clean Air Act was designed to solve, but of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, the Clean Air Act does nothing to solve the problem of acid rain. Sulphur is present in all coal, oil and gas which, on burning, produce sulphur dioxide and acid rain. We have known for a century that all fossil fuels produce acidic fumes, but in the past 20 years we have come to realise that acid rain is a serious problem. The British Government, however, were the last Government in Europe to realise that. It was only in 1987 that the former Prime Minister suddenly woke up to acid rain on a flight to Norway where she was due to meet Mrs.

Column 719

Brundtland. Although I am glad of that late realisation, the sad fact is that when the Government leave office some time next year, not one of our power stations will have been cleaned up. Let us compare the position here with what happens in Germany, Holland and many other European countries. Virtually every fossil fuel power station in Germany has flue gas desulphurisation, but not a single power station in this country is fitted with such equipment. I represent Carmarthen in west Wales. The neighbouring constituency to the west is Pembroke, which contains a 2,000 MW oil power station. Unfortunately, because of the price of oil, since it was built 20 years ago that power station has operated at only one third of its capacity. There is currently a proposal to convert it to burning orimulsion, which is a new fuel that is derived from Venezuelan tar sands. That is a type of surface bitumen which is cheap to extract and which can be transported from Venezuela to Britain and be used as a cheap fuel. I should be delighted if it were possible to burn orimulsion cleanly, because the Venezuelan deposit contains as much oil as the middle east reserves.

However, the problem is that orimulsion contains about 2.7 per cent. sulphur, which is a high proportion--twice that of British coal and much higher than the sulphur content of fuel oils. National Power has submitted a planning application to use orimulsion in that power station which it would then run at full capacity--at either 1,000 or 1,500 MW. That would churn out a massive amount of sulphur dioxide. It is a sign of the climate created by the Government that that planning application has been submitted without any thought being given to the installation of flue gas desulphurisation. There is no question but that if that plant was located in Germany, Holland or any other western European country, the owner--the power generator--would fit flue gas desulphurisation. If that application goes ahead, the Pembroke power station will become the largest sulphur dioxide emitter in Britain, emitting 200,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year in its fumes. As I have said, the power station is located in Pembroke which has prevailing south-westerly winds. My constituency neighbours it and, in turn, is abutted by mid-Wales. Then we have the rest of Britain. That must be the worst possible location for any high acid rain polluter.

Earlier this year scientists at the Department of the Environment produced a report that was critical of the Government's acid rain record.

It said that in the privatisation programme

"the Government should have insisted on power stations in the west being fitted to cut acid rain which sweeps across Britain with the prevailing wind."

That is the feeling within the Department of the Environment. I ask the Minister to contact her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to make it clear that when it considers the planning application it must insist that the project has flue gas desulphurisation. I should be happy if that were the case. In my constituency we have problems of acid rain in the Towy valley and the head waters of the Towy. Sinbrianyw Llyn Brianne reservoir at the head of the valley has to be limed regularly to counter the problems of acid rain. Will the Minister comment on the view of the

Column 720

Department of the Environment on the oil emulsion project ? Does he agree that the power station should have flue gas desulphurisation cleaning equipment ?

I have talked about rivers and air pollution and I now wish to deal with solid waste. I welcomed many of the measures in the Environmental Protection Bill introduced two years ago. I welcomed the measures on the disposal of domestic waste, and to some extent, industrial waste. However, the importation of toxic waste presents serious problems. We now import 10 times as much toxic waste as we did in 1980. One such waste is incinerator fly ash. We accept that incinerators produce dioxins, heavy metals and several other pollutants. In many countries fly ash is classified as a special or toxic waste. In Britain it is not. There is a trade in its import. The waste is dumped in landfill sites in Britain. That is not good enough. That trade should be stopped. All toxic wastes should be disposed of in their countries of origin. It is for Germany, Switzerland and other countries to develop their own facilities for the disposal of wastes.

Back in July the Opposition welcomed the Government's apparent decision to set up an environmental protection agency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury explained, we had hoped to co-operate with the Government in this Session of Parliament to establish such an agency. But the measure is not in the Queen's Speech because of squabbling between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is important that when the agency is set up it takes over the whole of the National Rivers Authority. The NRA must not be dismembered. It is a good, impressive environmental watchdog and we need it to have sharper and sharper teeth. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should not take over any of the NRA's responsibilities, especially given the record of MAFF and its lack of concern on any environmental issue. We want an environmental protection agency based on the NRA and incorporating HMIP. There should be much stronger measures on air pollution monitoring and control. The agency should also have responsibility for waste disposal and the type of work done by the countryside councils. All those matters should come under one powerful umbrella organisation which is independent of the Government. Clearly the Government do not have sufficient commitment to go ahead with that. We await a general election next year after which we shall have a Government who are properly committed to the environment and that environmental protection agency--so much so that we shall have our own Minister for environmental protection. 12.3 pm

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). He speaks with great knowledge and expertise on environmental matters, so it is all the more pity that he does not always get things right. He spoke about the National Rivers Authority's report. I have here a copy of the Water Bulletin of 1 November. It is the journal of the water industry. Under the heading "Rivers report is leaked", it says : "The long-awaited five-yearly river quality report due to be published by the NRA later in November has been leaked in an incomplete form to Friends of the Earth This week, however, water companies had only seen incomplete copies of the draft report. This is the second occasion in a week when important and confidential information related to the water

Column 721

industry has been leaked. A few days before, a letter from EC Commissioner Carlo Ripa di Meana about drinking water was leaked to the Labour Party".

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that he quoted from an incomplete draft of the report.

Another article in the magazine is entitled :

"WSA attacks Labour leak travesty'".

It says :

"Claims by Labour's environment spokeswoman Ann Taylor that an EC letter showed the Government had given water companies licences to pollute' were described as a travesty' by the Water Services Association last week.

WSA Secretary Mike Carney said of Ann Taylor's statement, issued under the headline New initiative by Ripa di Meana (EC Commissioner) adds to embarrassment for John Major'

These so-called "pollution licences" are statutory undertakings given to Government by each of the companies. They commit the companies to investment in work to be completed by specified dates to correct the few remaining exceedences of EC requirements. It is clear that Mrs. Taylor does not understand the statutory arrangements for water companies and is grossly ignorant of the facts about water quality in her own country'."

Mrs. Ann Taylor : Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position? Does he believe that the Government have the power to grant a domestic derogation which was, after all, the subject of the letter from the Commissioner? He will not find the answer in the article to which he referred. However, the Commissioner has written on the basis that the British Government have once again failed to abide by EC regulations and have tried to grant domestic derogations on more than 4,000 cases. That is the point. Will he comment on that technicality?

Mr. Summerson : I can best reply to that point by quoting the WSA which goes on to say in that article :

" Britain is in breach of the pesticide parameter in a few cases, But there is no health risk and work is being undertaken to comply. Until then what does the Commissioner want us to do--turn off the supply to all the people affected? The directive does not say what we should do.'"

Does the hon. Lady also advocate turning off the water supply to people before the work is done? It is clear that there is no risk to health.

Mrs. Taylor : I want to make a constructive suggestion which I hope will receive the hon. Gentleman's support. One of our problems when we are discussing water quality is that many people in Britain do not know whether their supply of water reaches EC standards. Would the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the Government, perhaps in the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill, published today as part of the citizens charter, to introduce amendments to legislation so that when individual consumers receive their water bill they also receive information at the bottom about whether the water supply reaches EC standards?

Mr. Summerson : It is clear that already no water is supplied to customers which is not of the required quality. I have also told the hon. Lady that work is being carried out to ensure that water satisfies the various requirements. I do not see that there is any difficulty.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is not in the Chamber to hear my remarks, because I want to mention some more examples of Euro nonsense. Of course I shall relate them to the subject under debate.

Column 722

Standardisation is a theme that has become the bureaucrat's hobby horse--Commissioners can talk of little else. For instance, Mr. Antonio Cardoso, the EC Energy Commissioner, claimed at a recent conference in Copenhagen :

"Citizens of Europe cannot accept rail gauges which are not uniform Citizens of Europe cannot accept that even simple actions like the use of an electric razor can become impossible by lack of use of normalization of domestic power sockets Citizens of Europe cannot accept different dialling codes, different speed limits, different currency units, even different external policy, security and defence concepts."

I should like the House to ponder briefly the effects that attempting to impose standard rail gauges would have on the environment of this country.

A lot has been said about water in the debate. Last year, I introduced the Water Requirements (Planning) Bill under which all those who sought to put up new buildings would have to give notice of the building and its water requirements to the local water supply company.

The use of water has become excessive. The National Rivers Authority has developed extensive safeguards to ensure that new water abstractions cause minimal impact on river ecology, but the problem arises with existing abstractions.

With the passing of the Water Act 1989, provision was made for all existing abstractions for domestic and most agricultural purposes to be granted a licence of entitlement. That has had and will continue to have devastating effects on ground water abstraction. The great advantage of taking ground water is that it tends to be pure and needs minimum treatment. However, as people install more washing machines and dishwashing machines, and as they get more cars and want to wash them more frequently, they use more water.

Most people have no idea where water comes from and simply do not realise that rivers are drying up in this country because of excessive ground water abstraction. Most people do not realise that one third of domestic water consumption is used for flushing lavatories. We will have to introduce metering in people's homes, and I believe that in times of drought when water is short there should be a higher tariff to make people aware that it is in short supply. At the moment there is no mechanism for bringing home to people that water is in short supply, that rivers, streams, springs and wells are drying up and levels of ground water in many areas are falling unacceptably.

The answer lies in building more reservoirs to store high winter flows. There would probably be a public outcry at that until people realised that less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of the surface area of England is covered by still water, and that percentage is even lower in the south east where there is the worst problem. Many of our rivers are sick and no one knows why. Famous rivers such as the Test and the Avon are suffering. The number of fish caught in those rivers falls year by year. What is going on? The answer lies in agricultural practice. Much sediment goes into rivers which did not go into them before. Pesticides, fertilisers, silage liquor-- which gets spilt from time to time--and slurry are being put on the land and they all have an effect on rivers, especially when one bears in mind until recently the Test flowed through water meadows, reed beds and wet woodlands. Intensive arable agriculture has only recently taken place in the Test valley.

I advocate riparian buffer zones--strips of woodland, a minimum of 10 m and perhaps up to 100 m wide, running

Column 723

back from the banks of the river. They would absorb much of the detritus of agricultural practice--the pesticides, slurry, fertilisers and all the effects of ploughing and cultivation. Perhaps they could be set up as environmentally sensitive areas or even as water protection zones under section 3 of the Water Act 1989.

With the advent of set-aside, there is great potential for riparian buffer zones. After all, we are told that apparently more than 6 million acres of farmland will be surplus to requirements by the turn of the century, so there must be huge potential for such schemes. A strip 50 m wide on each side of a river would take about 40 acres per mile. So 1 per cent. of 6 million acres would protect about 1,500 miles of stream. I recommend that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench consider that idea.

As regards my constituency, I must mention the channel tunnel link which is to come through Stratford to King's Cross. I welcome the fact that the link will come through Stratford, which is quite close to my constituency. It will help to rejuvenate an area which is badly in need of investment. However, I give this warning. Those people who may cast a greedy eye over Walthamstow marshes, to build new railway lines to take some of the traffic through north-east London to the midlands, the north and Scotland, had better think again. The people of Walthamstow value Walthamstow marshes highly. They are a site of special scientific interest ; they are extremely ancient and are full of the most interesting species of plant and bird life, including owls and foxes. I have seen a tern fishing in one of the little streams that runs through there. The marshes are an open lung in an otherwise heavily built-up area and must remain undisturbed. While on the subject of railways, may I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the Barking to Gospel Oak line, which is a byword for inefficiency and uselessness. We all know that railways are environmentally sound and friendly. If that line could be made to work efficiently, it would help the environment greatly by taking a lot of traffic off the roads.

The day will come when future generations will look back with incredulity on our willingness to share our cities with the internal combustion engine. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay that the car is a great asset, but surely there must be different ways to propel it. I look forward to the day when in our towns and cities there will be electrically powered cars which are quiet, pollution-free and efficient. The generation of power for the motor car will be moved back to power stations and so the pollution generated when generating that power can be dealt with in one place, at the power station. The Environmental Protection Act 1990--a fine Act--contains two aspects relating to noise and litter pollution. Many of my constituents and those of other Members suffer from noise generated by selfish people and their activities. The Act contains strong measures to enable local authorities and local people to stop noise. I urge people to take note of those provisions and to use them wherever possible. If they were to do so, their own quality of life would be greatly enhanced.

Column 724

12.20 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : I hope that Environment Ministers will listen to three of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). I agree with his comments on water, and our abuse and excessive use of it. I also share the hon. Gentleman's view that we have become a nation, and a world, increasingly in hock to the motor vehicle in a way that substantially undermines our quality of life. And we are increasingly blighted by noise. As I do not want to make a great contribution on that subject, I shall ask Ministers to consider merely one noise issue, that from vehicles. I understand that the Environmental Protection Act does not cover noise emission from moving vehicles. It deals with noise from moving vessels and from buildings, but not noise from vehicles, which is the cause of much complaint. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made a new sort of green contribution today ; she was dressed in a new sort of green outfit, which should have warned us about what was coming. I think that her attack on eco-terrorists and pseudo-scientists will be answered line by line and verse by verse in due course by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Lady has a capacity for speaking in lay people's language, but she does not always understand the implications of some of the ideas that she propounds. Although volcanoes may contribute enormously to the destruction of our atmosphere, it seems that there is not much that we can do about preventing that, whereas we can do a little to protect the atmosphere from destruction by industry and transport. Although there is a native logic in some of what the hon. Lady says, we should not be beguiled by the first-year secondary school biology lesson she sought to give us this morning.

Today is the first day after the week's debate on the Queen's Speech. The subject of the environment was not thought sufficiently important to be debated--

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry) : That is a matter for the Opposition

Mr. Hughes : I am just about to deal with the Minister's sedentary intervention, which is correct.

The environment was not thought sufficiently important to be included in the debate on the Queen's Speech. That was the Labour party's fault because it chooses the subjects for debate, and it chose to exclude the environment.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : The subject was not contained in the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Hughes : It is not enough to say that the subject was not contained in the Queen's Speech. I have already criticised the Government on the matter ; the Queen's Speech contained just one sentence referring to next year's Brazil conference. There was nothing on the subject in the Prime Minister's speech and not a word from the Chancellor in the autumn statement or in the speech that he gave in the last day's debate on the Queen's Speech yesterday. The Secretary of State for the Environment chose not to speak about the environment at all.

We must ensure that the record is straight. We have had one week's debate on the priorities for this new political

Column 725

year ; the Government chose not to put the environment as a priority in the Queen's Speech and the Labour party chose not to put it as a priority in the subsequent debate.

Mrs. Ann Taylor rose--

Next Section

Home Page