| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Millennium Dome (Park and Ride)
Mr. Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what options are being considered for the long-term use of the Millennium Dome park-and-ride sites. [98966]
Mr. Hill [holding answer 22 November 1999]: Although the Millennium Experience will be a car free event, it is acknowledged that some visitors will wish to make the first leg of their journey by car. The New Millennium Experience Company is therefore to manage a small number of formal park-and-ride facilities around London at which a limited number of visitors each day, who pre-book in advance, will be able to leave their vehicles before completing their journey on convenient public transport links.
Whether in existing car parks or in specifically created sites, the park-and-ride capacity is temporary and required only for the duration of the Millennium Experience. The New Millennium Experience Company is not therefore considering options for the longer-term use of these sites.
25 Nov 1999 : Column: 167W
Mr. Hesford:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government are taking to improve the quality of bathing water. [99211]
Mr. Mullin:
The Government have pressed for concerted action by the Environment Agency and the water companies to improve bathing water quality. This year compliance with the mandatory coliform bacteria standards of the Bathing Water Directive in England was the best ever, at 90.3 per cent. The Government also wants substantial additional investment under the current periodic review of water prices in England and Wales to increase mandatory compliance to 97 per cent. by 2005, together with a significant increase in compliance with the more stringent, guideline standards.
Mr. Green:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to include aircraft emissions in the UK greenhouse gases totals; and if he will make a statement. [99243]
Mr. Meacher
[holding answer 23 November 1999]: Published UK greenhouse gas totals include emissions from domestic aviation. Emissions from international aviation are also reported with the UK greenhouse gas inventory, but are not included in the UK total in accordance with international guidelines. The allocation to countries of greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation is under consideration by the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, in consultation with the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Mr. Burgon:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further guidance he has given the Director General of Water Services in the context of his periodic review of water company price limits. [100178]
Mr. Meacher:
The Director General of Water Services, Ian Byatt, is currently engaged in a periodic review of water company price limits in England and Wales between April 2000 and March 2005. As part of the review, the Director General sought guidance from Ministers on the environmental and drinking water quality requirements to be placed on water companies during this period. This is an essential element in establishing the extent of companies' investment programmes and in turn enabling the Director General to fulfil his statutory duty to set price limits which enable the companies to finance the proper carrying out of their functions.
In September 1998, the Government published "Raising the Quality", which set the strategic framework of environmental and quality standards for each of the main areas of investment. In March of this year, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate published material which had been endorsed by Ministers, setting out detailed requirements for each company at the level of individual investment schemes. In July, the Director General published draft price determinations and
25 Nov 1999 : Column: 168W
set out the assumptions on which these were based, including the size of the investment programme in each company.
One area which has been the subject of subsequent debate is the size and phasing of the environmental programme. I have looked again at the programmes of each of the nine large water and sewerage companies in England. In the case of seven of these companies (Anglian, Northumbrian, North West, Severn Trent, Thames, Wessex and Yorkshire Water) I have reconfirmed my original guidance that the entire agreed investment programme should be completed by March 2005. This encompasses work on improving rivers and unsatisfactory intermittent discharges and in upgrading coastal sewerage and sewage treatment systems. For Southern Water, I have again reconfirmed my earlier guidance that the agreed investment programme should be completed by March 2005, save for a small proportion of the programme to improve rivers.
The size of the investment programme for South West Water deserves special consideration, given the level of water bills in comparison to the remainder of the country and the scale of the environmental requirements which are necessary or desirable, particularly for coastal sewerage discharges. I have considered carefully the investment package which underlay the draft determination proposed by the Director General and have concluded that this strikes the appropriate balance between the pace of environmental improvements and the burden on water bill payers. I have also accepted the Director General's advice that a large scheme proposed by Wessex Water, designed to address low flow problems in the Hampshire Avon area deserves further study to identify the most cost-effective solution. A scheme will need to go ahead in the pricing period to address the environmental problems, once the studies are complete.
I have asked the Director General, in his final determinations, to phase the investment programmes sensibly, taking into account my stated environmental priorities, such as the early improvement of large continuous coastal sewage discharges, together with schemes to benefit key bathing and shellfish waters, within the constraints presented by the need to ensure efficient financing and practical delivery. Further discussions will be necessary between water companies and the Environment Agency before the timings of individual schemes are finalised.
The Director General also identified 63 of over 550 schemes designed to improve the quality of rivers, which he recommended should receive further study in terms of their costs and benefits before they go ahead. The Environment Agency has advised that for 14 of these schemes, the evidence suggests that no investment is necessary during the pricing period, given the current performance of the treatment works involved, while a significantly less expensive option has already been identified for one more scheme. On this basis I plan to instruct the Agency to take these 15 schemes forward. I intend to ask the Environment Agency to explore in more detail the benefits of the remaining schemes and to set them out in a way which will allow Ministers to judge these against improved information on costs from Ofwat and the companies concerned.
25 Nov 1999 : Column: 169W
Improvement of the water environment is an urgent priority. This package demonstrates the Government's firm commitment to protecting the environment and delivery the objectives of sustainable development, including recognising the burden placed on water bill payers. The focus now shifts to the Environment Agency and water companies as they work together to deliver these improvements.
This programme confirms my intention to press ahead with an unprecedented water quality programme which will make England's water--whether for drinking, recreation or for the support of biodiversity--cleaner and purer than it was ever before.
I have written to the Chairman of the Environment Agency today with further details of the agreed environmental improvement programme. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
The Director General of Water Services will announce his final price determinations for the period 2000-05 on 25 November.
Mr. Don Foster:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been spent by his Department on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) his Department's programme provision and (ii) his Department's running costs. [99483]
Ms Beverley Hughes
[holding answer 24 November 1999]: Estimated expenditure on external consultants by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, funded from programme provisions and running costs since May 1997 to 30 October 1999:
| Year | DETR spend on external consultants |
|---|---|
| Programme provision | |
| May 1997-March 1998 | 2.65 |
| April 1998-March 1999 | 2.37 |
| April 1999-October 1999 | 0.01 |
| Running costs | |
| May 1997-March 1999 | 7.19 |
| April 1998-March 1999 | 8.20 |
| April 1999-October 1999 | 3.03 |
Waste Packaging
Mr. Burgon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of recent consultation on changes to the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. [100179]
Mr. Meacher:
I have considered the advice of the Advisory Committee on Packaging as set out in Sir Peter Parker's letter to me of 22 December 1998, in particular as this relates to changing the percentage activity obligations for each of the four main sectors of the packaging chain. Following consultation on these proposed changes and other matters, and subject to Parliamentary approval, I propose to make a number of changes to the Regulations as set out.
25 Nov 1999 : Column: 170W
25 Nov 1999 : Column: 171W
(i) As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Elmet on 28 January 1999, Official Report, columns 335-37, I have accepted the advice of the Advisory Committee on Packaging to change the percentage activity obligations and I have now consulted on this recommendation more widely. I therefore propose to change the percentage activity obligations of three of the four main sectors in the packaging chain as follows:
Reduction in the convertor obligation from 11 per cent. to 9 per cent.
Increase in the packer/filler obligation from 36 per cent. to 37 per cent.
Increase in the seller obligation from 47 per cent. to 48 per cent.
The recent consultation paper discussed the option of requiring compliance plans from individually registered businesses. The Regulations currently require operational plans to be provided by compliance schemes to the relevant Agency showing how, over three years, they propose to meet the recovery and recycling obligations of their members. Earlier advice from the Advisory Committee on Packaging on this point recommended that, where there is a significant number of individually registered businesses, they, too should plan ahead and give thought to the steps that would need to be taken to meet the mandatory Directive in 2001. In 1998, there were some 890 individual registrations with the Agencies and some 800 in 1999.
I am also aware that there has been concern among businesses who are members of compliance schemes that there would be a higher rate of non-compliance among businesses pursuing this individual route. For 1998 this proved to be true, with around 200 individually registered businesses failing to provide compliance certificates as required and a number of these failing to take steps to comply with the recovery and recycling obligations. I believe that it is important that all those obligated under the Regulations should have to consider what infrastructural development might be needed to enable the UK to meet the mandatory Directive targets in 2001. At the same time, I am concerned to ensure that smaller businesses should not be faced with disproportionate administrative burdens. I am therefore proposing that businesses registered individually with an Agency who have annual turnover of more than £5 million, should provide a compliance plan to the relevant Agency upon registration and update this annually. We will be looking carefully at the new requirement in its first year of implementation to assess its effectiveness in improving compliance and the associated administrative burdens.
(iii) In my reply to the hon. Member on 28 January 1999, I announced that the financial turnover threshold test for 2000 would be "more than £2 million" thus excluding smaller businesses in the £1 million to £2 million turnover range from the scope of the Regulations. The recent consultation document discussed a number of threshold test scenarios to see whether it was going to be possible to exclude a further number of smaller businesses. However, the Government's view is that the optimum balance of costs and benefits is to be achieved by continuing with the proposed "over £2 million" financial turnover and "over 50 tonnes" packaging handled. I am glad to confirm that these are the two threshold tests that will apply from 1.1.2000 as this will exclude a number of smaller businesses from the scope of the Regulations.
(iv) In my reply to the hon. Member referred to above I also noted that the fee charged by the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency would rise to £900. Since that fee was calculated in mid-1998, the Agencies have had further experience of the monitoring that is required and have had feed-back from business as to the sort of monitoring programme that is wanted to ensure that free-riding does not provide some businesses with a competitive advantage and does not inhibit the achievement of the Directive targets in 2001. The Agencies fee will therefore rise to £950 with effect from 1.1.2000.
The Competition Act 1998 comes into force on 1 March 2000. As a result, the Government is proposing to simplify the Regulations and remove the special competition scrutiny
regime to which those who propose to establish a compliance scheme are subject. All compliance schemes and individual businesses will, in any case, be subject to the Competition Act 1998 and the Office of Fair Trading can still investigate any compliance scheme which seems likely to have an anti-competitive effect.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |