| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester): I thank the Minister for giving way and I apologise for having had to miss much of the debate as I was unavoidably detained elsewhere. I strongly agree with what he said about the superb work that the Environment Agency has put into defending many cities, including Chichester, in recent weeks. He also mentioned the extra investment that is being made available. Can he give any assurances that the review of the allocation of long-term funding will speed up the process whereby the project can be put under way? We knew about the problem in Chichester as long ago as 1994, when Chichester flooded. However, the scheme has still not been implemented. Can the Minister give us any assurance and encouragement?
Mr. Morley: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman encouragement. As he is probably aware, the 20 per cent. extra funding that we have announced will of course apply to Chichester, which has been given priority funding. Chichester would have received 45 per cent. capital funding from the Government and it will now receive 65 per cent. That will enable the scheme to be accelerated and it will certainly help the regional flood defence committee.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the only delay to the scheme in Chichester involves not funding but an objection to the compulsory purchase order, so it is a procedural delay. Once that delay is resolved, which I am sure that it will be, there is nothing to stop the scheme going ahead. It has planning permission and funding is available and I am sure that it will be a great relief to the people of Chichester.
When I visited Chichester with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was most impressed by what the local council and the fire brigade were doing to pump water around the town centre to make sure that it was protected from flooding. Those temporary arrangements have worked well so far and I hope that they will continue to work through this winter until the scheme is put in place.
In relation to other points made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, the Environment Agency is not a campaigning organisation, something that was recognised by the Select Committee. However, it should give a clear lead on environmental issues, and I am quite sure that it will do that. Under the new chairman, the agency is developing clear principles with regard to what it should be concentrating on and doing, and that will be a big advantage. The staff are working together; the agency's turnover is dropping, which is a good sign. Sustainability is a key issue for all departments, as I have mentioned.
The Environment Agency will be going through its five-year cycle of financial management and policy review, and the terms of reference will be announced shortly. That will provide an opportunity to address some of the points made by right hon. and hon. Members.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal again gave his support for the Environment Agency. He mentioned matrix management. As I understand it, matrix management ensures that there is a clear line of management and one point of contact. So when people use the services of the Environment Agency, they have one point of contact rather than going through lots of different departments and being passed from pillar to post--something that is not unknown in Ministries or agencies. I understand the concept behind that, and I think that it is right.
Transparency of cost was mentioned in relation to the waste packaging regulations, and a case was made for incentive charges. They should be fair and transparent, and any such proposals should have to deliver clear overall benefit. That is the Government's view. We do not rule out the idea of ring-fencing funds. Of course, we have to weigh up the bureaucracy involved in relation to the benefits provided.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown mentioned the problems that he has with sewage outfall, and I will look at that carefully. I know that, in some cases, if it is felt appropriate, ultraviolet light treatment can be used to deal with bacteria.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was absolutely right that there is a role for incineration. Issues such as air quality, emissions control and temperature are for the Environment Agency. Consents must be obtained for any kind of incineration. The Environment Agency can set those standards. With modern designs such as fluidised beds, there is better incineration: waste can be burnt at higher temperatures.
Of course, incineration is covered by the environment protection directives. Whether we like it or not, we need a whole range of options including more recycling and the need to reduce the amount of waste going into landfill. However, the need for some incineration will never be completely removed. In some cases, incineration may be the most appropriate method, so we need proper controls to protect the environment and adjacent residents. There are procedures for that. So we should not say that incineration should never be considered at any time for any thing. However, incinerators have to go somewhere, and I appreciate that, wherever they go, there will be some local resistance. That is an appropriate issue for local Members of Parliament to take up.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) spoke about plastics in agriculture. There are guidelines for dealing with plastics; I know that the Environment Agency takes an interest in the appropriate use of plastics, as do we at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton raised some detailed questions about the Welbeck site in his constituency. I understand that, living, as I do, adjacent to a landfill site. No one can accuse me of being a NIMBY. It is a well-run landfill site. I was pleased to be invited to open the reverse osmosis digester--it was an important part of my role as the local Member of Parliament. The site also collects the methane and burns it in power stations. I opened that facility as well, and was pleased to see it introduced.
My hon. Friend also spoke about the condemned meat that was put into the site and the fact that there appears to have been a division of responsibility between the local authority and the Environment Agency. It is not right that there was an 18-month wait for an answer. I will follow the matter up and make sure that my hon. Friend gets a reply about the current situation.
A number of hon Members mentioned climate change. I was pleased to see the Deputy Prime Minister taking such a robust line on that at the conference in The Hague on behalf of our country. We can be proud about what we have done to meet to meet our targets on reducing CO 2 . We should be proud that we have a better record than just about any industrialised nation, even though costs and tough decisions are associated with that. There is no doubt that other industrialised countries must do more and I very much hope that an agreement is reached at The Hague. The United States, which has 5 per cent. of the world's population, is the biggest industrial country and produces 25 per cent. of the world's greenhouse gases. It must recognise, as we all do, that it has an international responsibility. I very much hope that an agreement is reached.
The House may wish to hear some statistics that struck me as interesting. Average temperatures have warmed by 0.6 deg C in the last 100 years. That may not sound much, but it is significant. In the UK, 1999 was the joint warmest year on record and four out of five of the hottest years ever recorded in a 330-year period have occurred in the past 10 years. There is no doubt that the climate has changed and, although there are arguments about whether weather patterns are linked to global warming, the fact that global warming is taking place is not disputed. We need to understand more about how the link between climate and global warming works. The Government are committing £11 million a year to studying climate change and global warming. Most of that work is being done by the UK climate impacts programme at the Hadley Centre. It aim is to see whether predictions on tides and extreme weather patterns have altered, as that is important for the way in which we deal with these issues.
Mr. Tyrie: Is some of that research looking at whether reducing CO 2 emissions is the correct response to global warming? Are there other approaches, for example increased spending? It may be more economically efficient overall for the world to spend more funds on better sea defence.
Mr. Morley: Some of that money is being used for weather predictions. As the hon. Gentleman says, we must consider the best use of that funding. We are already building rising sea levels into our assessment of coastal defence. Our long-term projections take that into account and we shall also consider it and cost implications when defences come up for renew and repair.
This September was one of the wettest since records began. Last October was the second wettest October since records began in 1766, and 29 October was the wettest October day since daily records began in 1931. The beginning of November has been unusually wet, with three-quarters of the expected monthly total falling in the first seven days. I am sure that hon. Members remember that bonfire night was a bit damp, and 5 November was the second wettest November day since daily records began in 1931.
The Select Committee report is thoroughly well presented, as I would expect, given the commitment of its members and the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is its Chairman. It makes a series of important recommendations on how the Environment Agency operates, which the Government are taking seriously. I hope that I have answered some of the points that it raises but, if others remain, I should be only too pleased to answer them later in more detail. This is an issue for all Departments, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish that we shall work hard to ensure that his recommendations are put into effect.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |