House of Commons
Tuesday 1 July 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
King's College London Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 8 July.
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 8 July.
1. Mr. Alan Simpson:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of (a) the recent research about climate change and (b) the consequent anti-pollution targets which Britain must set and meet. [4664]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher):
The Government have studied the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believe that urgent action is needed to tackle the threat of global warming. We will press for all developed countries to agree significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the Kyoto conference on climate change in December, backed by our target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010.
Mr. Simpson:
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he acknowledge that the achievements in reducing United Kingdom CO 2 emissions under the Conservatives were largely based on the destruction of the coal industry and a recession in manufacturing? Meeting further reduction targets by 2005 will need a more constructive programme. What will be the components of the Government's programme? Will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the Chancellor to announce an immediate programme of investment in low-impact technologies for the future and energy conservation for the present to supplement his long overdue and most welcome intention to reduce VAT on energy-saving materials in tomorrow's Budget?
Mr. Meacher:
My hon. Friend is correct to say that the achievement of cutting CO 2 emissions over the past
Mr. Yeo:
I am not sure whether the Minister's reply shows that there is about to be a reopening of coalfields under national ownership. Will he try to answer his hon. Friend's question? When will the Government state their policies to achieve the ambitious new target that they have just set for cutting carbon dioxide emissions? It is one thing for the Prime Minister to waft through New York and make a speech to win a few easy green plaudits, but what are the Government's specific policies to achieve those goals?
Mr. Meacher:
The speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in New York in the past week was universally applauded and widely accepted, even by the President of the United States, who paid tribute to Europe's role in which we are taking a lead. The Government have already set out--and I have mentioned to the House--a detailed programme. After the Kyoto conference, when we know the exact targets that have been agreed, we shall present a revised climate change programme. We shall present a White Paper, I hope early next year, that deals particularly with our integrated transport policy, which is a key part of the whole strategy.
Mr. Jim Marshall:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when politicians put green policies at the top of the political agenda, it usually means substantial indirect tax increases?
Mr. Meacher:
As I have just said, this policy has many different strands, many of which do not involve fiscal measures, but I would be the first to recognise that fiscal measures, direct or indirect, can play an important role. We are, of course, considering those because we are determined, unlike the previous Government, to achieve our targets through proper, positive measures.
Mr. Matthew Taylor:
Although the Minister cannot anticipate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say in his Budget tomorrow, will he say whether he has urged the Treasury and his fellow Ministers to accept the argument that energy-saving materials should be no more heavily taxed than energy itself?
Mr. Meacher:
I am certainly on record as supporting that argument. Such a policy is desirable, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until tomorrow to find out whether it is in the Budget.
Regional Development Agencies
2. Ms Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has received from the public, private and voluntary sectors in the north-west on the first regional consultation for setting up regional development agencies. [4665]
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): I visited the north-west on 11 and 12 June as part of the Government's consultation on regional development agencies. I discussed our proposals with key players from the public, private and voluntary sectors in the north-west and was impressed by the enthusiasm with which the proposals were greeted. May I put on record the tremendous role that my hon. Friend has played in developing regional policy in the north-west and in bringing the many actors in the region together?
Ms Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-west development agency will bring tremendous benefits to regions such as Liverpool by allowing environmental, transport and investment issues to be considered as part of one strategy and by enabling the public and private sectors to work together to meet identified needs?
Mr. Caborn: The answer to that is yes. I was pleased to have discussions with the major partners in the north-west, particularly those from Merseyside, where they were trying to identify a strategic overview that would start to address some of the structural weaknesses in the competitive base. They are saying clearly to the Government that there is a lack of direction and of a strategic overview at regional level. Regional development agencies will fill that vacuum.
Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman point out exactly what the role of regional development agencies will be compared with that of local government? Will they replace local government? Will they be additional to local government? Where will they fit in with the regional governance that was talked about before the last election?
Mr. Caborn: First, regional development agencies will try to start to clear up the mess that the previous Government left. They will start the move away from quangoland and bring some sanity to the sector. May I inform the hon. Gentleman that, when the Trade and Industry Committee considered regional policy driven from a competitive perspective, it found that more than 70 organisations were trying to deliver economic regeneration. Those are the problems that have been left by the previous Administration; we will clear them up in partnership with the real wealth creators.
Mr. Caborn: Can I just tell the hon. Gentleman that, when I was speaking to some of his colleagues from the Conservative party, and I asked whether they agreed with the previous Government's policy, they said no and that they held the new Conservative view; the old Conservative view is present on the Conservative Benches.
Water Leakage
3. Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the extent of water leakage in the north-west. [4666]
12. Mr. Goggins:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about water leakage in the north-west. [4675]
The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott):
According to the Office of Water Services figures for 1995-96, North West Water lost about 34 per cent. of the water put into supply through leakage and Chester Water about 23 per cent.
Mr. Hutton:
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept that my constituents and people throughout the north-west are deeply concerned about the scale of the problem and about the lack of any effective action by the previous Government to deal with it? I congratulate him on the action that he has taken so far and urge him to continue to exert the maximum pressure possible on water companies in the north-west to deal with the problem.
Mr. Prescott:
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's response. We intend to do everything we can to reduce leakage. The tremendous loss is paid for by the consumer and water, which is an essential and valuable resource, is lost. At our summit on 19 May, we gave the companies three weeks to reply to the 10 points about how water can be used much more efficiently and how leakages can be reduced. They have all responded. We are considering their replies and I hope to report to the House shortly.
Mr. Goggins:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, North West Water is currently losing about 56 gallons of water per day per property through leakage, and that even if it hits its target for leakage it will still be losing 46 gallons per property per day? Given that United Utilities made a profit of £440 million last year and that boardroom pay has increased by 268 per cent. since privatisation, does he agree that it is time for a radical shake-up of priorities?
Mr. Prescott:
I certainly do. That is what the water summit was about. The proposals that we made and the 10-point plan will achieve that. I hope to report to the House shortly. I visited New York recently--last week, in fact--for the UN summit and used the occasion to speak to the authorities there. Their leakage rates are less than 10 per cent. and they use technology produced in this country, so I see no reason why we cannot achieve such levels.
Mr. Brady:
Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in applauding North West Water for its investment in combating leaks? Will he particularly applaud the extension for a further year of the free leak repair service, which has already tackled 15,000 leaks on people's property? What assessment has he made of the damage that may be done by the windfall tax to the investment in combating leaks?
Mr. Prescott:
I think that judgments about the windfall tax should be made after the Chancellor has made his Budget statement tomorrow, but it is totally unacceptable that water companies have such high leakage rates. Their investment is insufficient and their profits are, in many cases, far too great and not justified. That is why we held the summit. We are entering positive dialogue with water companies to see how we can get better and more efficient use of water. As soon as I have come to conclusions on that, I will, as I have told the House, report back.
Mr. David Davis:
Since the Secretary of State says that investment is insufficient, will he tell the House what was the level of investment in the water industry in 1989, before privatisation, and what it is today?
Mr. Prescott:
I am quite prepared to say that, under all Administrations--Labour and Conservative--the approach to capital investment in our nationalised industries was totally inadequate due to a number of Treasury rules that were pursued at the time. I inherit a problem of privatised water companies having the highest leakage rates of any water authority in this country and abroad and I intend to make a change, as it is totally unacceptable. The investment equation is one part; the commitment to do something is another. After reaching our conclusions, I hope to repair some of the damage that has come about as a result of water privatisation, for which the Conservatives were responsible when in government.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |