You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers
Previous Section Index Home Page

No-smoking Policy

Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a

26 Jun 2000 : Column: 368W

statement on (a) the effectiveness of his Department's no-smoking policy and (b) the proportion of his Department's offices that do not allow smoking. [125155]

Ms Beverley Hughes: My Department operates a no-smoking policy in all of its buildings with smoking permitted only in designated rooms. The policy is considered to be effective. My Department will review this policy when the Health and Safety Executive issues the new Approved Code of Practice on Smoking.

Combined Heat and Power

Dr. Brand: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will define the phrase quality combined heat and power plant in relation to the climate change levy in respect of the greenhouse industry. [125722]

Mr. Meacher: Good Quality combined heat and power is generation which delivers a high level of useful heat and electricity from the same fuel input. Good Quality CHP will achieve efficiencies significantly above those of conventional generation, where the waste heat is simply vented away.

I announced key decisions on the detailed methodology for assessing the quality of CHP, and the operation of the mechanism for assessing existing and proposed schemes, in my statement to the House on 17 May 2000, Official Report, columns 137-381. Use of the mechanism will be implemented by statutory orders under the Finance Bill currently under discussion.

The decisions follow consultation with operators and users of combined heat and power schemes, including those used in the greenhouse industry. The proposed CHP Quality Assurance programme provides a practical, reliable method for determining the quality of all sizes and types of CHP scheme for a range of purposes, including eligibility for exemption from the climate change levy.

Public Telephones and IT Kiosks

Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how long a local authority planning department has in which to object to the proposed installation of (a) telephone booths, (b) telephone boxes and (c) information kiosks; [126283]

Ms Beverley Hughes: Certain telecommunications operators licensed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the Telecommunications Act 1984 (the 1984 Act) are granted special rights to assist in the installation and maintenance of their systems. These powers, which are set out in Schedule 2 to the 1984 Act--the "Telecommunications Code"--are further governed by provisions in operators' licences and Town and Country Planning legislation, which impose exceptions and conditions on the use of these powers.

Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended, (GPDO) code system operators have permitted development rights for the installation, alteration or replacement of a range of telecommunication apparatus.

26 Jun 2000 : Column: 369W

As regards the installation of public call boxes, which include telephone booths and telephone boxes, these PDRs are subject to a prior approval procedure under the GPDO. Operators must give the local planning authority the opportunity to say whether they wish to approve, within 28 days, details of the siting and appearance of the installation. An authority may refuse such approval, if they consider this to be justified.

As regards information kiosks, their installation by operators licensed to do so would enjoy permitted development rights under the GPDO. However, where it is intended that the kiosk included a voice telephony service it is likely that it would be treated as a public call box for the purposes of the GPDO and the prior approval procedure outlined above would apply.

A local authority has the power to withdraw permitted development rights by making a Direction under Article 4 of the GPDO. These powers should be used only in exceptional circumstances and are intended for use where there is a real and specific threat to the proper planning or amenities of a limited area.

Under the terms of its licence, an operator wishing to install an information kiosk which did not include a voice telephony service would have to give the local planning authority 28 days' notice of their intention to do so.

As regards the conversion of public call boxes to information kiosks, alteration or replacement of such boxes by a code system operator would require prior approval under the 28 day procedure outlined above. Whether conversion to an information kiosk constituted alteration or replacement would depend on the circumstances of the case. If it did not do so, permitted development rights would apply without a requirement for prior approval.

If a company has not had the Telecommunications Code applied to it under the 1984 Act they will not have the associated permitted development rights under the GPDO. If such a company wishes to install a telephone booth, a telephone box or information kiosk they would be required to submit an application for planning permission to the local planning authority.

HFCs

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what evidence his Department has based its view that HFCs are not sustainable technology in the long term. [127002]

Mr. Meacher: The Government's draft climate change programme includes a new policy statement on HFCs because they are powerful greenhouse gases and are included in the basket of gases controlled under the Kyoto Protocol. We recognise that HFCs are necessary replacements for ozone-depleting substances in some applications, but we are concerned that emissions from these sources are forecast to grow strongly in the near future. This trend is unsustainable in the longer term and action needs to be taken to limit the projected growth.

Our position would allow HFCs to continue to be used where they are necessary, but we recognise that the successful phase out of ozone-depleting substances is being achieved with a range of technologies. We believe that continued technological developments will mean that HFCs may eventually be able to be replaced in

26 Jun 2000 : Column: 370W

applications where they are currently necessary. We therefore believe it is right to give a clear signal to industry and users to look closely at these alternatives and to select those that are more environmentally acceptable where they do exist. Of course safety, technical feasibility and cost effectiveness should be taken into account before investment decisions are taken.

Mr. Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the occasions in the last 12 months on which Ministers in his Department have met (a) Greenpeace, (b) other environmental groups and (c) representatives of the refrigeration industry to discuss the future use of HFCs. [126976]

Mr. Meacher: There have been no meetings between DETR Ministers and any group to discuss specifically the future use of HFCs. However, in January I met representatives from Greenpeace and EnvirosMarch consultancy to discuss the report "UK Emissions of HFCs, PFCs and SF 6 and Potential Emission Reduction Options" which was prepared for the DETR by EnvirosMarch.

Incinerators

Mr. Norman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the applications that are outstanding by type and capacity for the construction of incinerators. [126761]

Mr. Meacher: In England and Wales the Environment Agency is responsible for regulating waste incineration processes described in part A of sections 1.3(C) and 5.1 of the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulation SI19991/No. 472.

The operators set out have made an application to the Agency for an IPC authorisation, or for a variation to conditions attached to their current authorisation. The list also incorporates any variations to conditions that have been initiated by the Agency. The lists do not include applications made for incinerator units acting as abatement equipment (e.g. chemical manufacturing plant), or for the incineration of waste in plant whose primary purpose is some other purpose (e.g. cement works). The capacity of each individual incinerator application is not held centrally by the Agency.

Information on land-use planning applications is held by local planning authorities.









26 Jun 2000 : Column: 371W













Next Section Index Home Page