House of Commons
Tuesday 13 June 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
City of Newcastle Upon Tyne Bill [Lords] (By Order)
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 20 June.
Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 20 June.
Oral Answers to Questions
ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
The Secretary of State was asked--
Environment Agency
1. Mr. Alan W. Williams (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr): When he last met the chairman of the Environment Agency to discuss the performance of the agency; and what matters were discussed. [123989]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I hold quarterly bilaterals with the chairman to discuss the agency's performance in England. At our last bilateral on 24 February, we discussed the following: priorities for the agency, developing the agency's relationship with Ministers and the Department, and handling complaints and board and staff appointments.
Mr. Williams: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Environment Agency, will he discuss with him the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the Environment Agency--a hard-hitting report? Part of the report deals with fly-tipping. Attention is drawn to the appalling abuse of the landfill tax by cowboy firms fly-tipping domestic, industrial and building waste. If the Environment Agency argues that it needs more resources, which it will, will my right hon. Friend obtain from the Chancellor a fraction of the abundant proceeds of the landfill tax to tackle that serious problem?
Mr. Meacher: Yes, we are extremely concerned in the light of the Select Committee's comments on numerous issues, particularly about the licensing exemptions, and in
the light of revelations in "Dispatches" and the article in The Guardian. We are reviewing the situation as a matter of urgency and I shall make a statement as soon as I can. The Ecotec consultancy has examined the matter on our behalf, and recommended that charges be levied in order to pay for regular Environment Agency inspections. I am concerned about the abuse of licensing exemptions, and I have every intention of cracking down on it.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar): Next time the Minister meets the chairman, will he raise the question of the agency's responsibility for flood defences? He may recall that some years ago my constituency suffered a flash flood in which properties were swept away, since which time the agency has regularly cleared Stanford Hall brook. It has ceased to do so over the past two years, with the excuse that it has higher priorities. Surely that is a false economy? The reason why my constituency has not suffered flooding recently is that the brook is kept clear. Does it not make more sense to prevent flooding than to deal with the problems afterwards?
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. It is not my direct responsibility in regard to the Environment Agency; it is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I shall draw the specific details to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I am sure that he will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I understand the view that charges should be imposed on some of the people involved in landfill, but does my right hon. Friend accept that with regard to fly-tipping, charges are irrelevant? What is needed is the effective prosecution of those who are spoiling urban and rural landscapes.
Mr. Meacher: Again, I strongly agree. That is part of the review that is taking place. There has unquestionably been some increase in fly-tipping, although I think that it is not as great as many people believe. Most of the fly-tipping is of household waste, and there is no levying of landfill tax for household waste. However, it remains an issue, and in some areas there has been increased degradation of the countryside, which is one of the subjects of the review.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Further to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the way in which the Environment Agency deals with flooding problems, particularly at Lindfield in my constituency, where there have been continual problems? The matter continues to be batted back and forth between the Environment Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter, to see whether he is entirely satisfied with the way in which the Environment Agency carries out its duties in that regard, and what could be done to improve the speed and facility with which such matters can be drawn to a conclusion?
Mr. Meacher: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. As he implied, the problem is the relationship between MAFF and the
Environment Agency. That is not my responsibility, but again, I will draw the hon. Gentleman's perfectly reasonable point to the Ministry's attention and ensure that he gets an answer.Coastal Towns
3. Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes): What progress the Government are making in reducing disadvantage in coastal towns. [123991]
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Government are continuing to address the needs of disadvantaged areas, including coastal towns, through national and regeneration programmes. A consultation framework on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal was published by the social exclusion unit in April.
Shona McIsaac: While I welcome such initiatives as the single regeneration budget and neighbourhood renewal in tackling disadvantage in coastal towns, may I suggest a course of action that could have a dramatic impact on residents in Grimsby and Cleethorpes--a revision of council tax bands? With 50 per cent. of properties in band A, that band is far too wide. In our area, we need new, lower bands so that the most disadvantaged in my community pay less council tax.
Ms Armstrong: I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend has continued to push for her area. I am sure that that has had something to do with the successful SRB funding for the area. As she knows, the Government continually keep under review how council tax is working. A number of authorities and organisations have asked that we consider banding, especially that of band A, because people who live in mobile homes, for example, feel that it is an extensive band. We shall continue to consider the matter, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend action this side of the general election.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Given the importance of tourism to the generation of prosperity and to the reduction of disadvantage in coastal towns, will the right hon. Lady take the opportunity comprehensively to rubbish the report produced by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, entitled, "Rural Economies", which advocated the imposition of a tax on restaurants and hotels in rural areas?
Ms Armstrong: As usual, the hon. Gentleman is all over the place. I know that there is not a coastal town in his constituency.
Dr. Jack Cunningham (Copeland): As for helping coastal towns, will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that whether it is a question of aiding tourism or economic development, transport and communications have an important part to play? When can we hear some decisions about improvements to the A595 in west Cumbria, which are critical to the future economic and social well-being of coastal towns in the borough of Copeland?
Ms Armstrong: My right hon. Friend is concerned with particular issues in the coastal area of Cumbria that he represents. It is one of the most beautiful constituencies
in the country, but it has severe problems. I know that my ministerial colleagues in the transport part of the Department are continually considering demands for roads and for improving transport, especially to areas of deprivation. I know that they will have heard what my right hon. Friend has to say.Waste Incinerators
4. Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): What representations he has received concerning the construction of new waste incinerators. [123992]
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I have received many representations on all of the policies in the new waste strategy.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Given the latest evidence from the United States, which confirms the views of experts at the Imperial Cancer Research Foundation that the release of dioxins by incinerator plants into the atmosphere poses a serious threat of cancer, does the Minister recognise the concerns of my constituents in north Guildford that no new incinerator plant should be built in Britain until this threat of cancer has been properly investigated by British experts; and the Minister can give absolute reassurance that the threats can be discounted?
Mr. Meacher: We believe that incinerators form a necessary though probably small part of the waste management strategy. It is impossible otherwise to achieve the requirements of the landfill tax directive, which are mandatory. They are to reduce the amount of household waste going to landfill from 85 per cent. at its current level to no more than 35 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2016. That is a shift in any one year of up to 33 million tonnes. If we can all do that by reducing the amount of waste created or by a large increase, which is exactly what I intend, in recycling, re-use and recovery, that is fine. However, incinerators are bound to play a small part.
Under the November 1996 EU directive, emission standards are vastly tighter and stricter than they were in the 1960s. Dioxins must be no more than one part in a billion per cubic metre, and that is a minuscule amount. Far more dioxins are released on Guy Fawkes night from the burning of wood than are released from the regular use of incinerators.
I am rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's point because, in the Tory Government's 1995 waste strategy, of which the Leader of the Opposition, as Secretary of State for Wales, was a co-sponsor, said:
- The Government--
- agreed . . . that incineration with energy recovery should play a larger part in waste management in the future.
Mr. Meacher: The Government are extremely keen to see a big increase in good quality combined heat and power and in the use of renewables, and that is why both have been exempted from the climate change levy. We are also pursuing a massive increase in recycling. I made it clear in our strategy document that the Government intend to double the level of recycling within the next three years and to triple it within five years, and to reach a level of 30 per cent.--up among the European leaders--by 2010. If we do all that, incineration will play a relatively small role.
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford): When the Minister considers his policy towards incineration and the Opposition's more environmentally friendly policy, will he and his colleagues take to heart the comments of the Green Alliance which, in its parliamentary newsletter, says that the Conservatives have
- succeeded . . . in catching the public mood by acknowledging recent scientific unease and public concerns over incineration?
Mr. Meacher: I certainly do not believe that a Government who produced a level of recycling of 2 per cent. in 1992 have any claim to being environmentally conscious. The current level of 9 per cent. is far too low, but under the previous Government it was no less than pathetic. What we have seen, which is beginning to be the Opposition's trademark, is a degree of opportunism in rejecting the previous Government's policies and coming up with the exact opposite. The electorate will know what to make of that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |