| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Contaminated Land
6. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources the Scottish Office has received from European Union organisations to assist with the treatment of contaminated land in each of the last three years. [30076]
Mr. Kynoch: The figure is £2.2 million since 1994.
Mr. McAvoy: I do not know whether the complacent Minister realises how his answer betrays the way that he is doing his job. My constituency, uniquely in Scotland, has toxic waste sites that require Government assistance to make safe and improve that part of Lanarkshire. The Minister and the Government have done nothing, while the European Union is ready to assist with money. Does the Minister agree that the money that he and his Government have obtained from the EU is disgraceful and reflects on the hon. Gentleman's competence and ability?
Mr. Kynoch: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that tone because I answered the question simply by giving him the amount of money that has been spent. He will be well aware that he has raised this subject on previous occasions in Scottish questions and that we have given him the answer. That is that the local authorities and the Glasgow development agency have conducted studies into the position in Rutherglen, which have confirmed that there is a problem with hexavalent chromium on certain sites.
Equally, however, the local authority has commissioned a study by the university of Glasgow and the local health board into the health aspects. He will be aware--as I remember telling him this the last time he raised this question--that it has been ascertained that there is no health hazard because the chromium is well underground.
Scottish Enterprise is funding a research project, managed by the City of Glasgow council, to determine the most effective technical means to deal with contamination. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is doing nothing to deal with the problem in this region, he is not looking at the facts. There is a problem, and it is being dealt with. Funding clearly involves a problem of priority and it is up to the local enterprise companies and local authorities to decide how to spend it.
Mr. Congdon:
While resources for contaminated land are welcome, does my hon. Friend agree that we should not delude ourselves into believing that it is European money? As this country is a net contributor to European funds, it is paid for and funded by the British taxpayer.
Mr. Kynoch:
My hon. Friend is right. All too often, however, Opposition Members are ignorant of where funding comes from. They keep talking not just about European funding, but government funding and they forget that that funding comes from taxpayers and that the Government have a responsibility to them to ensure that they get value for money. Opposition parties advocate increased taxes and less efficient and increased spending. That is where we differ markedly from those parties.
Mr. David Marshall:
What percentage of contaminated land has been treated in Scotland in the past five years and when does the Minister expect all the contaminated land in Scotland to have been treated? At the present rate of progress, will it take five or 500 years?
Mr. Kynoch:
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the contamination problem is dealt with by Government policy on the "polluter pays" principle and that it is not possible, therefore, to ascertain exactly what has been spent on contamination, but if a polluter pollutes, it is his responsibility to clean it up.
7. Mr. Home Robertson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on employment in the beef industry in Scotland. [30077]
Mr. Michael Forsyth:
Around 16,000 jobs in Scotland depend on the beef industry.
Mr. Home Robertson:
Since the Scottish Office has comprehensive devolved powers over agriculture and food, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his predecessor, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), could have taken steps to prevent BSE's spread into Scotland 10 years ago? Is it not a fact that an elected Scottish Administration would have been far more likely to take effective steps to protect 21,000 jobs, or the lower number of jobs that the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted, in the Scottish beef industry? Even now, why is this little Englander from Stirling aggravating our European partners, instead of taking steps to restore confidence in Scottish beef and our export markets?
Mr. Forsyth:
I am sure that anyone would have taken whatever steps were possible to prevent BSE's spread, and the Government have always acted on the basis of scientific advice. I know that Opposition Members are in some disarray and feel desperation over their plans for a Scottish Parliament, but the hon. Gentleman's question must be the worst example of scratching around to try to find an argument for a Scottish Parliament that I have yet heard.
On Scotland's interest, from his knowledge of the industry, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have consulted on exempting from the 30-month rule the specialist, slow-maturing breeds and grass-fed cattle from herds that have not been infected with BSE. We hope to be able to make progress with that as we continue our constructive discussions within the Community.
I am sorry that we do not have the hon. Gentleman's support in standing up for Britain and refusing to co-operate within the Community until such time as, under Community rules, the access to the single market that we are guaranteed by treaty is given to our farmers--many of whom are struggling to survive, unlike the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt has plenty of fat to keep him going through the present crisis.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce:
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the compensation arrangements for those who have lost business or their jobs because of the BSE crisis are falling very unevenly? Does he also acknowledge that the firm of Donald Russell, which has already been mentioned--it is an export-led company--has laid off 34 workers who have, as yet, no prospect of compensation or re-employment? This matter also affects those who have been involved in the processing of head meat.
In those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that compensation is made available equally and fairly to all who have suffered through no fault of their own?
Mr. Forsyth:
I have considerable sympathy for the people concerned, but the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. We have never introduced a compensation scheme. What we have done is spend almost £1 billion on keeping the infrastructure of the beef market operating. We made it absolutely clear that we were providing money not for compensation, but to allow the infrastructure of the beef market to continue to operate. A large amount of that money was spent on reducing the backlog that was clogging up the abattoirs.
To compensate everyone for losses arising from the crisis would involve an enormous and quite unsustainable sum. People will suffer losses. The Government have tried to do everything possible to maintain the industry, which is important for employment, in operation in Scotland. I realise that that is an unpalatable message, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to commit his party to compensation, perhaps he should do his sums first.
Mrs. Liddell:
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the problem of BSE and the consequent difficulties with employment are not helped by intemperate remarks from the Treasury Bench? There is a need for a serious and considered programme of action. The Opposition welcome the fact that it will soon be illegal for anyone to hold bone-in animal feed. We also welcome the fact that the Government are now starting a collection programme for such feed from farm and feed mills.
It would be of great value to the farming community to have information on the details of how collection is to operate. Farmers need that information rather more quickly than would be achieved under the interesting proposal, made by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for a newsletter. This is a critical issue that affects the industry.
Will the Secretary of State reconsider his opposition to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and me for a serious inquiry into the circumstances in which 60 per cent. of beasts found to have BSE have come from beasts born after the ban was introduced? That is a helpful suggestion. It is
important to trace the origins of the meal so that there is a chance of identifying which feed mills have been distributing contaminated feed. That would provide us with an opportunity to isolate those areas that have had contaminated feed. I make those suggestions in a constructive manner.
Mr. Forsyth:
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of there not being intemperate remarks from the Treasury Bench, especially the shadow Treasury Bench. I exempt her from that, but the behaviour of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was absolutely disgraceful. Indeed, it contributed significantly to the problems that we now face.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |