House of Commons
Friday 24 November 2000
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
PETITION
Sovereignty
9.34 am
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills): I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by 56,286 people from across the west midlands and beyond. The petitioners wish the Government to ensure that the United Kingdom remains an independent sovereign state, with the economy run for the benefit of our own citizens, and the pound retained.
The petition has been gathered and signed by people supporting all the political parties and by those supporting none. It is a genuine expression from across the west midlands of deep concern for democracy, and for our control over the economy. It expresses a sense of country.
Among the hundreds who helped, I pay tribute to Mr. Antony Lenton, of Aldridge, and Mr. D. Bennett, of Walsall. The petition is addressed:
- To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled,
- The Humble Petition of the citizens of the United Kingdom
Sheweth
That we the people are being led into a Federal State which we do not wish to be part of. We wish to remain an independent Sovereign State with the economy run for the benefit of our own citizens. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house urge the Government to listen to public opinion and retain Britain's currency (The Pound).
And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray.
Environment Agency
- [Relevant documents: The Environment Agency's response, HC 870, and the Government's response, Cm. 4832, to the Sixth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1999-2000, HC 34.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
9.35 am
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I am very grateful to have this opportunity to discuss the Select Committee report on the work of the Environment Agency. It is almost six months since we published the report, but the events of the past six or so weeks have emphasised not only the Environment Agency's general importance, but the specific issue of flooding. It is therefore apposite that we are debating the report today.
I should like, first, to thank the specialist advisers who helped us with our report, David Slater and Stephen Tromans, and to express my appreciation to the Clerks and staff of the Committee Office, without whose help it would be very difficult for Select Committees to do their work. I also thank everyone who submitted evidence and all those who came and subjected themselves to questioning by the Committee. One of the strengths of the Committee's report is that it is based on the evidence that we received. It is also extremely important to bear in mind that the report is based not simply on the views of Committee members, but on their views taking into account the evidence that we received.
Today, we are able to debate the Select Committee report, the Government's response, and--equally importantly, although it is not mentioned on today's Order Paper--the Environment Agency's response. In some ways, the agency's response was as useful as the Government's response.
The parentage of the idea of an environment agency goes back to a Select Committee report published in 1989, when the then Environment Select Committee strongly recommended that an environment agency be established. The then Government rejected the recommendation, and did not concede until 1995 that an environment agency would be a good thing. The record of Select Committees has often been that ideas expressed to them take some time to find their way into Government policy. I should add that in 1989, I was not a member of the Select Committee.
The Environment Agency was established in April 1996. I think that the hope was that it would bring a dynamic vision to environmental issues.
At the end of our inquiry, we were more than a little disappointed. When we published our report, I said:
- "Our quality of life can no longer be measured solely in crude economic terms. It depends crucially on the protection and enhancement of the environment. The Environment Agency has a crucial role to play in delivering a better quality of life for the people of England and Wales.
When the Agency was formed in 1996, the hope was that this single new body would bring additional benefits to the environment, industry and society as a whole. However, the conclusion of our inquiry is that progress in creating an effective, coherent and confident new body has not been as rapid in the 3½ years since the Agency was formed as it ought to have been.
It is very important that the position at the top of the agency be strengthened. We were told by Sir John Harman, the newly appointed chairman, that he wanted to give the organisation more direction and make more impact. We hoped that he would be perceived as Mr. Environment, but during the recent difficulties with the floods I was not absolutely convinced that he came across as giving that strong leadership, nor that the agency got its message across. Although I welcome the appointment of Baroness Young of Old Scone as the new chief executive, I feel that the agency should look very carefully at the roles of the chairman and the chief executive to make sure that they each have a clear idea of their responsibilities. It is important that over the next few years, the Environment Agency strengthens its administration and its public profile.
I now turn to some of the more detailed points in our report. We were concerned that the agency was not doing as well as it could in respect of managing and supervising landfill. The Select Committee is conducting another inquiry into waste, and again the evidence suggests that the agency is not totally on top of the problems. I understand the difficulties. Really big landfill sites run by the best operators tend to have good facilities for people to get washed and changed and to get cups of tea. It is tempting for Environment Agency staff to spend rather more time supervising those sites than small landfill sites that are not necessarily open for tipping most of the time, may have a couple of guard dogs, and generally operate in more difficult circumstances. It is important, however, that Environment Agency staff spend as much time, if not longer, supervising sites which are likely to be irregularly used, as on supervising the really good sites.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent): I am very interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There is a proposal to create a land-raising site in my constituency. The inquiry was held months and months ago and the case has been with the Government for ages--one hopes that that is because they are going to refuse it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Environment Agency should also take a close look at proposals to use this out-of-date technology?
Mr. Bennett: Yes. I hope that we can substantially reduce the need for landfill sites. We have a firm duty under EU directives to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. I shall not go into much detail this morning, but it is a crucial issue for society that we should reduce the amount of rubbish that we throw away, re-use as much material as possible, and minimise the amount of material that we use. It is almost obscene that the rich part of the world uses 80 per cent. of its resources, whereas the less developed countries use just a fraction of those resources. The developed world also produces most of the pollution.
If we are to have a more equitable world, it is essential that we try to maintain our standard of living by using far fewer resources and creating far less waste and pollution.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): While the hon. Gentleman is on that point, can he tell me whether the Select Committee has found any evidence that the Environment Agency has done any work to prepare for 2002-03, when tyres will no longer be able to be put into landfill sites whole, but will have to be chopped up? I hear that no work is being done on that.
Mr. Bennett: That is one issue on which we would like the Environment Agency to do rather more. An awful lot of people are looking at uses for tyres, and during the Select Committee's current inquiry at least one person has told me that in future there might be competition for old tyres to be put to various uses. The sooner that happens, the better. Recently, a lorry-load of tyres turned up overnight on a piece of wasteland in my constituency. Someone had just dumped them there. I shall say something about fly tipping later, but the sooner we can get a market price for old tyres, the better. I am told that they can now be used for making road surfaces and for all sorts of other purposes. It is also possible to burn them, although I do not think that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for them to be burnt in cement kilns--certainly not among the people living nearby.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |