| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight): My hon. Friend may like to know that the Isle of Wight is unique in having the only health authority in the United Kingdom which sponsors an asthma and allergy research department. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) for securing the debate and I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that if he has any concerns about difficulties caused by pollution over Leicester he should send his constituents to the Isle of Wight to see the work being conducted there in trying to find a cure for this dreadful problem.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Asthma caused by emissions from power stations is of great concern. As we sit here in London near Battersea and Bankside power stations, which have been closed, and
the London Transport power station in Lots road, which has also been closed, we should consider whether centres of population are good places for emissions from power stations.
I am the president of the Electric Vehicle Association of Great Britain Ltd. I do not need to declare it as an interest since the post is entirely honorary. As the hon. Member for Deptford said, electric vehicles can play a part--but only a part--in reducing emissions in our inner cities. With the hon. Lady, I very much hope that the Government will consider further supporting research into the development of electric vehicles, which can play an important role.
Time is short and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to get on. In considering emissions, we need to consider energy, and reducing its use, as has been mentioned. That includes the conservation of energy--an area in which the Government have taken great strides. It is a pity that we did not receive the Opposition's support in reducing energy use through fiscal means last year.
Ms Ruddock:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should remember that the Government have just cut the budget for home energy efficiency by a third.
Mr. Robathan:
I thought that the hon. Lady might raise that. Who set up that home energy efficiency scheme? I seem to recall that it was the Conservative Government. The scheme has enabled some tremendous work to be done and it continues to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) specifically referred to diesel pollution. I am the chairman of the all-party cycling group. It is important that hon. Members should not only set an example--that is too easy and perhaps too trite to say--but, as is happening in the Department of Transport, should encourage the movement of public policy in the Departments for Education and Employment and for the Environment towards greater encouragement of cycling and walking. It is easy to mouth the words, but it needs to be written into planning policy guidance, and so on.
Reference has been made to private enterprise and we could briefly mention alternative energy sources. It is proposed that the ferris wheel planned for opposite this place--I am not entirely sure that I want to see it there--be powered by tidal power from the River Thames. Incidentally, it is a private enterprise proposal. The proposal is to be supported and applauded, but at the same time, through enabling measures, we should be encouraging the use of the River Thames as a transport highway.
I shall not dwell on public transport because, as the hon. Member for Deptford said, we all need to use it more. This place is so well served by buses it is extraordinary. One can get almost anywhere by bus, including late at night. I commend the London Transport bus map to the hon. Lady.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison):
I welcome the opportunity to respond to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) on initiating the debate which, as he so rightly said, concerns an important subject which affects many people, including many who suffer from asthma and other conditions. My hon. Friend is among those who suffer from asthma, and he was able to bring to the House his personal experience, which I am sure is reflected among many of his constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members. I also pay tribute to him for the very authoritative way in which he took the House through a fairly detailed and technical subject. I am sure that he did full justice to the science involved.
I think that it is right in such a debate that we recognise at the outset that we are dealing with a technical and scientific subject that requires detailed consideration, which is very well repaid by coming to the right strategic conclusions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South and my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) have said, the debate calls for a constructive response.
I hope that the House will not mind if I am not tempted down some of the wider avenues down which the House was taken earlier. I agreed in part with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock). It is important for the sake of all those affected by this important subject that we all try to take a constructive approach toward it. I agreed with some of her observations, but I am sure that she would not expect me to agree with all of them. I most firmly disagree, however, with her point about a holistic strategy. All the evidence of the Government's work over the past few years points towards formulating a holistic strategy on the basis of very careful scientific analysis. The hon. Lady referred to some of that analysis: the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, the strategic document "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge", and the report of the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. We are trying to proceed on the basis of proper, informed scientific debate.
I shall briefly address some of the detailed points made by the hon. Member for Deptford, which require explanation, rather than some of her wider points.
The hon. Lady referred to the limit of 50 microns proposed by the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards and to the health effects that were the basis for that proposal. It is important that the public understand that the panel proposed that standard on the assumption that although associations between particles and ill health are causative, particle pollution episodes are most likely to exert their effects on mortality by determining the time of death of those rendered susceptible by pre-existing illnesses. She will know that some of the sources of particles occur naturally; that is why it is so difficult to reach a conclusion about a safe standard. Even those which occur naturally--without any additional human-caused particles--would have some effect on health.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked when the standards will be adopted, and I refer her to the expert panel's report and the Government's response to it. I draw
her attention to the Government's response to the report of the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, which answers many of her questions. She should be aware that the Government have accepted the expert panel's recommendation that annual average levels of PM10 should continue to be reduced progressively. If I have time, I will explain in detail the measures that we are putting in place to reduce those levels.
The Government have accepted the conclusion that the 50 micron level represents a level at which the large majority of individuals will be unaffected, and we have adopted that level as a relevant benchmark for policy. Importantly, we are committed to considering as quickly as possible whether such a level should be adopted as a target for policy in line with the air quality strategy review now being prepared under the Environment Act 1995. The air quality strategy, which will be available shortly, will be the basis for our holistic strategy.
Ms Ruddock:
When will the strategy be made available?
Mr. Clappison:
The hon. Member for Deptford knows that we are working towards a strategy based on the best scientific advice, and consideration must be given to that advice. She would expect no less.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked about smaller particles--an important subject. The Department of Health is looking at the evidence on the effects of particles smaller than PM10, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South referred to the fact that smaller particles can remain suspended in the atmosphere for longer than larger particles. It is thought that, in some circumstances, smaller particles can have more profound effects once they have been inhaled. The Department of Health is looking at that matter.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |