| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
UN Environment Programme
Mr. Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) for what reasons the United Kingdom has decided to withhold its contribution to the UN Environment Programme's budget; [17222]
- (2) if he will make a statement on (a) the matters discussed at and (b) the outcome of the recent annual meeting of the United Nations Environment Programme in Nairobi. [17223]
25 Feb 1997 : Column: 153
Mr. Gummer: The Government's main objective at the governing council was to secure decisions which would help to restore confidence in the United Nations Environment Programme. We believe that UNEP needs a governing structure which provides the organisation with political guidance and a mandate which gives it a clear direction. Although satisfactory decisions were reached on the budgets for 1996-97 and 1998-99, the programme of work for 1998-99, and on chemicals, oceans, and biosafety, the governing council failed to reach agreement on reform of UNEP's governing structure and on a review of its mandate. Agreement on these issues is essential if UNEP is to re-establish itself as the key environmental institution in the UN system and to reverse the sharp decline in its funding.
Satisfactory proposals on the governing structure and on UNEP's mandate were proposed by the president of the governing council and gathered a wide measure of support from developed and developing countries, but were resisted by some members of the Committee of Permanent Representatives. The governing council was suspended and I took the view that we should suspend our voluntary contribution to the environment fund until these issues are resolved. The United States and Spain took the same view. The Government are now actively seeking ways of resolving this problem with EU partners, other members of the governing council and the UNEP executive director.
Drinking Water
Mr. Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been undertaken in the past year by the drinking water inspectorate in respect of alleged breaches by water companies of the legal standards for drinking water. [17190]
Mr. Gummer: The standards for drinking water quality in England and Wales are set in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, as amended. These incorporate all the requirements of the European Community directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (80/778/EEC) and some national standards. Many of the health-related standards are based on lifetime exposure and generally include wide safety margins.
Compliance by the water companies with the requirements of the regulations is monitored by the drinking water inspectorate, which carries out an annual technical audit of each company. As part of the technical audit process, the inspectorate examines each water company's water quality test results for each treatment works, service reservoir and water supply zone and checks them against the standards. Each failure to meet the standards is assessed by the inspectorate. If necessary, the inspectorate will initiate enforcement action against a company and the company will provide a legally binding undertaking to carry out remedial work as quickly as possible. The inspectorate has taken more than 2,000 enforcement actions against water companies since it was formed in 1990. There is an improvement programme in place, costing over £3 billion since 1989, and at a result drinking water quality is higher than ever before. In 1995, nearly 3.2 million tests on drinking water were carried out and 99.5 per cent. of them met the standards.
25 Feb 1997 : Column: 154
Water companies can be prosecuted under section 70 of the Water Industry Act 1991 for supplying water unfit for human consumption and under regulation 28 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 for breaches of the regulations relating to the use of products, processes or substances in contact with drinking water. In both circumstances there is provision for a statutory defence of due diligence. Water unfit for human consumption is different from water marginally failing to meet the standards and relates to water that is unhealthy or unpalatable as a result of an incident.
Water companies are required to report to the drinking water inspectorate incidents which affect or threaten to affect adversely drinking water quality. All such incidents are investigated by the inspectorate. Most are found to be minor and there have been only a very few instances in which water unfit for human consumption may have been supplied and in most of those there were no grounds for prosecution.
In the past year, Thames Water Utilities Ltd. was prosecuted for supplying water unfit for human consumption to an area of south-west London. Previously, in 1995, Severn Trent Water Ltd. was prosecuted for supplying water unfit for human consumption and Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig was prosecuted for an offence under regulation 28 of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. A prosecution of South West Water Services Ltd. for allegedly supplying water unfit for human consumption is before the court at the moment.
Mr. Meacher:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the environmental hazard associated with organophosphates.[16984]
Mr. Gummer:
My Department has commissioned a number of research projects into the environmental impact of pesticides and veterinary medicines. This work includes consideration of organophosphate compounds and covers the development of environmental quality standards, impact on headwater streams, the transport of pesticides colloids, indirect effects on farmland birds, and the impact of sea-lice treatments on sea loch ecology. All research is evaluated during and upon completion of the work.
Mr. Wicks:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many pensioner households not on income support or other means-tested benefits have made use of the home energy efficiency scheme since the 75 per cent. charge was introduced; [17307]
Mr. Clappison:
A total of 784,803 grants were paid to householders aged 60 or more between 1 April 1994 and 31 January 1997, the latest date for which data are available. Information is not available for the period between 1 January 1991 and 31 March 1994 because age was not then an eligibility criterion. At 31 January 1997,
25 Feb 1997 : Column: 155
2,995 grants had been paid at the 25 per cent. rate, introduced on 1 April 1996 to focus the scheme more on the most needy households.
Mr. Pawsey:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he has reached following consultations on the proposed Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations; and if he will make a statement.[17905]
Mr. Robert B. Jones:
Responses to the consultation have demonstrated marked differences of view. The local authorities are seeking significantly greater flexibility in fee setting than would be possible within the constraints imposed by the regulation-making power in the Building Act 1984. On the other hand, developers, approved inspectors and others are concerned that even the flexibility proposed in these draft regulations would not offer them sufficient safeguards.
I have therefore decided not to proceed with the making of the draft regulations on which I consulted. Instead, I propose to institute a broader review which can take account of the roles for private and public sector bodies in building control, and the consequential arrangements for paying for the services provided. Further details of this review will be announced in due course.
It is Government policy that the fees charged by local authorities for their building control work should fully cover the expenditure incurred. These fees were last revised in October 1994. In parallel with the review referred to above, I therefore propose to consult shortly on a review of these fees, any revisions from which would take effect as soon as possible thereafter.
Mr. Pawsey:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on designating nitrate-sensitive areas required under the urban waste water treatment directive; and if he will make a statement.[17906]
Mr. Robert B. Jones:
Following advice from the Environment Agency, we have identified particular stretches of the rivers Waveney, Blackwater and Great Ouse as sensitive areas on the basis of elevated nitrate levels under the terms of the urban waste treatment directive. The Environment Agency will set nitrogen reduction requirements in the discharge consents of eight sewage treatment works which discharge into the three sensitive areas. The requirements will come into effect by the end of 1998 in accordance with the directive. I have today placed in the Library of the House a map of the three sensitive areas and a list of the eight sewage treatment works, all of which are owned by Anglian Water Services. The map and the list will also be available for inspection at the Environment Agency's headquarters and its main regional offices.
Modelling work by the Environment Agency has indicated that the eight sewage treatment works contribute less than 5 per cent. of the observed elevated nitrate levels in the three rivers. Identification of these sensitive areas implements the part of the urban waste water treatment directive which seeks to control nitrate levels in surface waters intended for the abstraction of drinking water.
25 Feb 1997 : Column: 156
(2) how many pensioner households have benefited from the home energy efficiency scheme since its inception. [17308]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |