Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Fifth Report


Selection Techniques for Waste Management Options

26. The title of our inquiry "Delivering Sustainable Waste Management" perhaps suggests that 'Sustainable Waste Management' is a well-defined concept. But the practical meaning of the phrase is not at all clear, not least because of the complexity of 'sustainability' which includes environmental, social and economic considerations. In our last Report, we concluded simply that:

    "A strategy for sustainable waste management ... should be capable of moving an imperfect system towards one which is better, whilst taking into account the need for economic development and the needs and views of individuals within society."[38]

27. The waste hierarchy has been broadly accepted as the guiding principle in trying to develop a more sustainable waste management system. The hierarchy defines reduction as the most desirable option, followed by re-use, then recovery (through recycling, composting or energy recovery) and finally the least desirable option, disposal. Although this hierarchy provides a rule of thumb, other tools and principles are also being used to formulate local waste strategies: the precautionary principle,[39] the proximity principle,[40] life-cycle analysis and the Best Practicable Environmental Option[41] are all considered to apply to decisions about waste management. Inevitably, though, there are other less scientific determinants of which waste management options are selected: the impact of national policy guidance, the funding made available and public attitudes can all dictate which options are chosen.

28. Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) is put forward in the Strategy as the tool to determine the choice of waste management techniques at local level. There are some areas of concern about the use of BPEO. First, some witnesses (including the Environment Agency) suggested that the use of BPEO would not necessarily deliver the targets in the Waste Strategy 2000.[42] Quite simply, the BPEO technique is intended to take into account all the factors in a given local situation and takes no account of the national targets. As such, there can be no guarantee that the sum of all the individual local decisions taken using BPEO will result in the achievement of the national targets or indeed deliver sustainable waste management. Although the Environment Agency noted the "tension" between BPEO and the targets, they went on to say that they were reasonably happy that this would not lead to major problems.[43] We expect the Agency and the Government to keep this matter under close review and to resolve any problems promptly.

29. The Environment Agency have developed a tool called WISARD, which is intended for use by local authorities and others and employs life-cycle analysis to help determine the BPEO. The use of this tool and the methodology for determining the BPEO give us some cause for concern. For example, in determining the BPEO, it is not a straightforward matter to weigh up some of the environmental impacts: is a process which emits 1kg of carbon dioxide (the gas responsible for much of the global climate change) better or worse than one which emits 3 nanograms of dioxin (a powerful carcinogen)? Questions like this one cannot be answered by the WISARD tool. Indeed, arguably, no-one can provide definitive answers to such questions.

30. In the definition of the BPEO,[44] one of the most problematic aspects is contained in the final sentence: "... the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as in the short term." Given that waste management is intended to be undertaking a 'step change', it can be difficult to establish what the 'long-term' in this context refers to. For example, it is often stated that the environmental merits of recycling are diminished by the need to transport the collected materials long distances for re-processing. Similarly, the economic benefits may be lessened by the prospect of unstable markets for recycled materials. But, if the Strategy is successful, the amount of material recycled will increase. In turn, the number and spread of reprocessing facilities are likely to increase too and this will reduce the environmental impact of transporting the materials for reprocessing. Similarly, if the Waste and Resources Action Programme[45] is successful in establishing more stable markets, the economic benefits of recycling will increase. The scale and composition of the different waste streams may vary dramatically over, say, a thirty year period. But taking account of factors such as these is not simple and is likely to be neglected in the BPEO process. Other questions arise over what is the meaning of the term 'at acceptable cost' (and should this include external costs?) since the outcome of the BPEO technique will always be forced into the bounds of the funding available. For all these reasons, it is particularly important that WISARD is not used as a dogmatic tool to 'prove' that one option is better than another but rather as a general guide for decision makers.

31. This becomes particularly important when one considers the opening words in the definition of BPEO: "the outcome of a systematic and consultative decision-making process...".With the increasing use of computer tools to help determine the BPEO, there is a real risk that the need to consult the public becomes secondary or, worse still, overlooked. As such, it is important to ensure that the inputs, process and outputs of these models are shared with the interested public and local groups. In 1998, we recommended that the WISARD tool be made available free or at cost so that all interested parties could probe the outcome of the use of WISARD.[46] Instead, it is being sold for a little less than £1000 (although this includes some training).[47] Public Interest Consultants bemoaned the cost and inaccessibility of WISARD and other computer models used to determine the BPEO, suggesting that "the black box solutions presented by waste disposal authorities ... cannot be effectively tested at planning inquiries..."[48] It is clearly very important that public access to these models is assured and this principle was backed by the Environment Agency.[49]

32. Although we recognise that computer models such as WISARD provide a consistent methodology for helping to determine the Best Practicable Environmental Option, we are concerned about a number of aspects of the use of these models. The temptation to use computer models as prescriptive devices to provide 'the answer' must be avoided: no model can ever provide the solution to a complex and partly judgement-based process such as determining BPEO. Further, the determination of BPEO must not be allowed to become a technocratic process which takes place in isolation from other interested parties, the output of which is then used to steamroller a sceptical public into options which they dislike or distrust. The definition of BPEO is that it is a "consultative decision-making process" and this must be adhered to, including making the use of any model available to the general public wherever practicable. The Government should issue clear advice to local authorities on the role of computer models in determining the BPEO and the need to accompany their use with comprehensive public information and involvement.

Minimisation and Resource Efficiency

33. The minimisation or reduction of waste is at the top of the waste hierarchy: it is the single most desirable option. Beyond the concept of minimisation, there is another related concept which is gaining acceptance. The need to aim for 'resource efficiency' has been promoted in recent years through the Factor 4 and Factor 10 initiatives[50] and is a need which we wholeheartedly endorse. By producing more from less, we help to shift the imbalance of production and consumption away from developed countries and help produce a more equitable system. The result of greater efficiency in the use of resources will be to produce less waste but the concept of resource efficiency should also extend to the design of products so that they are more easily separated, re-used, recycled or composted. The concept of 'resource efficiency' is one which some witnesses considered should have been incorporated into the Waste Strategy 2000.[51] The National Association of Waste Disposal Officers, for example, told us that:

    "we would question whether sustainable waste management is the right direction to be proceeding in; whether we should be trying instead to look at delivery of sustainable resource management or sustainable consumption."[52]

34. More generally, few witnesses had praise for the way in which the Strategy deals with waste minimisation. The Environment Agency told us that:

    "the Waste Strategy outlines high-level principles for waste minimisation but we would agree that it does not explain how they are implemented in practice."[53]

Similarly, the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee wrote that the Waste Strategy 2000 offers "little by way of direct support" to waste minimisation efforts[54] and the Institute of Wastes Management agreed.[55] Certainly, the measures listed on page thirty-eight of the Waste Strategy 2000 do little to convince the reader of the earlier claim that the Government is committed to "tackling the amount of waste produced, by breaking the link between economic growth and waste production."[56] This seems to flout the European Framework Directive on Waste which requires Member States to encourage "the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness" as a priority above the need to encourage "the recovery of waste, including recycling, re-use or reclamation, or the use of waste as a source of energy."[57]

35. Various policies could help encourage manufacturers to take minimisation more seriously although perhaps the main way to encourage it would be to focus on fiscal measures which drive waste disposal costs up[58] and producer responsibility measures which require take-back of products. UK business spends only a tiny proportion of its turnover on waste disposal, the costs were described as 'ludicrously cheap' by one witness and it should be remembered that, at present, most households pay little more than £1 per week for their waste collection and disposal and this money is paid indirectly through the council tax. Other mechanisms could include better educational initiatives, greater use of producer-responsibility measures and encouraging a move from a product-based to a service-based economy (for example, instead of buying a photocopier, replacing it when it breaks down, and ultimately throwing it away, photocopiers are leased, thereby encouraging design for long life). We backed this approach in our Report last year on Reducing the Environmental Impact of Consumer Products.[59]

36. Another strand of evidence that the Government is failing to take waste minimisation seriously is that it has yet to produce guidance on the Waste Minimisation Act 1998.[60] This Act makes allowance for local authorities to undertake minimisation activity, as opposed to collection and disposal/treatment. In the Government's response to our previous Report on Sustainable Waste Management, it was stated that "If the Bill does become law, then the Government agrees that guidance on it, and on good practice which has shown itself to be successful would be useful...".[61] Although the Government is now making some movement towards examining good practice, the guidance remains absent.

37. The most obvious indication that the Government is failing to promote (or have faith in) waste minimisation and reduction is the projection of year-on-year growth of between 1% and 3% in the municipal waste stream. Rather than challenging this figure with targets for reduction and unveiling ways of reducing the growth rate, the Strategy appears to accommodate it, thereby falling back into the old 'predict and provide' approach which has been so discredited in road building. If such a growth rate does occur, it will inevitably mean that, whatever efforts are made to increase recycling, composting and re-use, there will be a large (and growing) amount of residual waste which must be landfilled or incinerated.

38. Friends of the Earth expressed disappointment that the Strategy did not include any targets for waste minimisation, describing this as a "glaring omission."[62] Various targets could be set for waste minimisation: these could include targets for local authorities as well as a national target. In our last Report we noted the Audit Commission's idea for a target for waste reduction per household set in kilogrammes per household, rather than as a percentage.[63] Whilst it is true that there is only so much a local authority can do to minimise waste production in their area, it would still provide a useful signal as to the direction of policy. For example, we understand that the contract which Surrey County Council has negotiated with its contractor stipulates that growth is to be restricted to 1% per annum.[64] Such conditions could be expected to become more widespread if targets for waste minimisation were set for all local authorities.

39. The Government does not appear to be taking waste minimisation seriously. There are few significant measures aimed at minimising the amount of waste and the Strategy embraces the current and future growth of municipal waste, rather than challenging it. We were told that the Government had not yet "broken the link between economic growth and waste" but it does not appear to be trying to do so. This acceptance of waste growth without challenge demonstrates our prime criticism of the Government's approach to resource use and waste management: that it lacks depth and ambition. The Government must set a target for reducing the rate of growth of waste and consider with some urgency precisely how it can drive waste growth down and ultimately reverse it.

40. The Government appears to accept that municipal waste is growing at 3% per annum and may continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Certainly, statistics for municipal waste show that growth averaged around 3% per year over the period 1995/96-1998/99 and many witnesses (including the Local Government Association, several local authorities, some waste management companies and the Environment Agency [65]) reported that growth was continuing at about this rate.

41. An understanding of the reasons for this growth is vital, since only with such an understanding can it be gauged whether the growth is likely to continue. Amongst the reasons suggested were an increase in waste awareness and recycling,[66] the provision of 'wheelie-bins' (which are generally considered to bring increased amounts of waste),[67] increased numbers of garden 'make-overs' and greater use of disposable nappies.[68] However plausible or otherwise these reasons may be, they are really just hypotheses - there does not appear to be any analysis available which demonstrates precisely why this increase is taking place. Friends of the Earth quoted the environmental journal, the ENDS Report, which noted that "evidence to support claims of such growth is weak, and statistics reflect new ways of collecting waste and some stealth tipping stimulated by the landfill tax, rather than 'consumerism gone mad'".[69] Indeed, many witnesses suggested that the apparent growth was a result of the diversion of waste (partly as a result of the Landfill Tax) from the commercial waste stream into the municipal waste stream through the use of civic amenity sites.[70]

42. The National Association of Waste Disposal Officers were uncomfortable with the projection of continued growth in municipal waste and noted that:

    "there is absolutely no statistical basis for making forward projections beyond a very, very short-term period ... So the questions of: how much do we deal with now? How much do we deal with now and how much do we deal with in the future? Are fundamentally not known."[71]

The statistical support for projecting the growth of municipal waste is thin, based as it is on a short time-period, during which the waste management systems were being restructured and the Landfill Tax was introduced. We are sceptical about the Government's projections of future growth of municipal waste. The combination of predicted increases of between 1% and 3% and the 'gap' between targets for recycling and recovery may be providing a green light for excessive incineration capacity. The Government must work to determine the reasons which underpin the growth of municipal waste arisings and use this analysis to drive its minimisation efforts, rather than accept the growth as a fait accompli which must be accommodated.

Re-use and Recycling

43. Re-use of materials is actually more attractive than recycling since they require no re-processing, merely re-sale. This is particularly appropriate for clothes, furniture and some electrical goods such as refrigerators and televisions. We did not consider re-use specifically in our inquiry but it is important to emphasise the benefits to the environment, society and employment from re-use systems.

44. In many people's minds, recycling is synonymous with sustainable waste management and it is perceived by much of the public as the 'answer' to waste management problems. Of course, recycling is not at the top of the waste hierarchy and it forms just one strand of a more acceptable waste management system. Nevertheless, the engagement of the public with recycling is always likely to be the first step in involving them in more responsible waste behaviour.

45. Recycling is also one of the most straightforward methods of reclaiming value from waste. At present, we recycle just 9% of household waste. This figure has been extremely slow to increase: in 1994, the recycling rate stood at 5%, by the time we did our inquiry into Sustainable Waste Management, this figure had increased to 6.5%.[72] This sluggish increase is all the more disappointing because a target of 25% by the year 2000 was set in 1995. The Government has now re-based this target to 2005 and set other targets which we discuss later.

46. The benefits of an increased recycling rate would be considerable. Although it is sometimes suggested that recycling may not always be the Best Practicable Environmental Option, it is likely that this only applies in very specific situations with particular materials. In general, after minimisation, re-use and recycling are the most attractive options from both an environmental and a common-sense perspective. Furthermore, the employment benefits of recycling and re-use can be considerable as they tend to be rather labour-intensive processes. One study suggested that up to 50,000 jobs could be created by expanding recycling.[73] Importantly, the quality of the jobs created is higher for recycling of source-separated waste than can be found within mixed-waste Materials Reclamation Facilities.

47. Above all, there are two key requirements to improving the prospects for recycling. Firstly, source separation of waste is vital: the Recycling Consortium told us it was "absolutely critical".[74] If householders separate out their waste into the different recyclable components, then large quantities of high-quality, uncontaminated materials are produced. The second requirement is that those materials can then be sold into reasonably stable markets at an attractive price.


48. It may seem rather obvious but if householders are to recycle their waste, they must be given the opportunity to do so relatively easily. In practice, this means that kerbside collections of recyclable materials are required[75] - Mr Meacher stated that the statutory recycling targets would not be met without such collections.[76] Kerbside collections are much more convenient for householders than taking separated materials for recycling to 'banks' around the locality. For many years, such 'banks' or 'bring sites' have been the main method of collection of recyclables. Whilst these sites have been reasonably successful, they suffer from many limitations: they require collection, sorting and a journey for the householder, the banks themselves often become full or soiled and this acts as a disincentive to further efforts to recycle. The simplest argument against 'bring sites' being the main future route of collection is a logistical one: while there continues to be a kerbside collection of the 'black bag' of waste materials from every household, it makes sense to try and include the collection of recyclables in that system. Nevertheless, 'bring sites' can play a useful, complementary, role to kerbside collection schemes.

49. At present, it is estimated that around 43% of households have a kerbside collection of separated materials for recycling: around 9.3 million households in total.[77] However, simply providing a collection of these materials is not enough: several witnesses noted that unless arrangements like these are accompanied by well-targeted information and encouragement for householders, they will not achieve their full potential.[78] For example, Mark Strutt from Greenpeace told us of his own experience:

    "Lewisham has recently begun separation of waste by giving us a green box to put paper in, but there has been no guidance as to what sort; can I put cardboard in there, I do not know, I have not been told. I chucked a telephone directory in there, when we got a new one, the other day, and it was left in there, so I gleaned from that that we are not supposed to put telephone directories in."[79]

50. Theoretically, post-collection sorting of the waste stream could be an efficient system for material re-use. It would enable all the waste to be dealt with, rather than just the separated portion, and some waste materials are easily extracted after collection. For example, metal cans can be pulled out with a magnet (collection of separated cans appear to do relatively well for removal of drink cans, but poorly for other tins). Similarly, aluminium cans and foil lend themselves to post-collection sorting and it is also possible to remove plastic fairly effectively. However, problems are experienced with newspapers (contamination makes this unattractive) and glass (the mixed waste cannot be compacted on collection). Greater Manchester Waste have been carrying out post-collection separation of plastic along with aluminium and metal cans. After removing other large objects from the waste, the firm then pulverises the remaining waste to produce a 'soil improver'. We cannot accept that this material really is a soil improver, nor at the moment is it acceptable to the Environment Agency. However, if this material were to be composted, or used as a feed-stock for a biodigester, it may be possible to produce a useful soil improver for use as soil-cover on the many sites in the old industrial areas of England.

51. Although the sorting of waste after it has been collected may be useful in some circumstances, it is, in general, markedly less desirable than source-separation. Post-collection sorting produces lesser returns of lower quality materials. Also, by engaging householders with waste issues, kerbside collection schemes make it easier to persuade them to take other actions, such as purchasing products which are easier to recycle. The kerbside collection of source-separated waste is a necessity if we are to transform waste management. It must be ensured that the Best Value regime works to increase the proportion of households covered by kerbside collections. A prerequisite of an authority being awarded beacon council status should be that at least 50% of its households be covered by kerbside collections. We also recommend that the Local Government Association develop in consultation with other appropriate bodies a best practice guide for local authorities wishing to introduce (or improve) kerbside collections.

52. Another source of high-quality materials for recycling is civic amenity sites, which are responsible for around 16% of municipal waste arisings. Essex Waste Disposal Authority stressed the potential that exists in these sites to increase the proportion of waste recycled. By introducing new contracts to give the contractors incentives to recycle, Essex has managed to increase the recycling rate at these sites from 19% to 43% in one year, with the figure now standing at 58%.[80] The key to success here is designing the civic amenity site so that it is much easier to use for those wishing to separate their waste for recycling than it is for those who would rather just dump their waste.[81] Bob Lisney from Hampshire County Council agreed that civic amenity sites held a great potential: "In terms of overall recovery, the CA sites ... can provide as much, if not more, than recovery from kerbside collection systems ...".[82] The role of civic amenity sites in increasing recycling rates must not be neglected. The Government should ensure that best practice in designing and operating such sites for maximum recovery is widely disseminated.


53. The main targets of relevance here are:

  • to recycle or compost at least 30% of household waste by 2010;

  • to recycle or compost at least 33% of household waste by 2015;

With the current recycling rate standing at just 9%, these targets may appear ambitious and the Government describes them as "challenging, but achievable."[83] Although this description looks apt for the 2005 target, those for later years pose little extra challenge. It is noted by some witnesses that there is a 'gap' between these recycling targets and the recovery targets: some have suggested that this 'gap' would be filled with incineration.[84]

54. Many witnesses argued that the targets were not sufficiently challenging: the Community Recycling Network told us that they "do not think they are desperately ambitious at all"[85] and others concurred with this assessment.[86] In arguing that the targets were rather weak, witnesses noted that other countries were giving themselves tougher challenges: the United States has a target of 35% by 2005, the Netherlands had a target of 60% by the end of 2000 and Switzerland and Germany are already achieving rates of over 50%.[87] Robin Murray told us that Canberra has achieved a recycling rate of 59% within 8 years,[88] Germany has gone from 10-15% to 48% in six years.[89] Friends of the Earth argued that 80% of the household waste stream can be recycled or composted and that only above these levels are technical problems encountered.[90]

55. The limited ambition of the 2010 and 2015 targets would suggest that the Government may have accepted the argument that there is a 'ceiling' which exists on the proportion of household waste which can be recycled or composted. The Resource Recovery Forum cited research done by AEA Technology, which found that "recycling programmes will never exceed 40-50% of waste arising"[91] and the Energy from Waste Association suggested that there was a "plateau" of around 35%.[92] Although lower figures have also been suggested, evidence from some local authorities suggests that recycling rates of 35-40% are considered "challenging, but achievable"[93] and Enviros have completed a study which concluded that 35-40% was where the 'plateau' existed.[94] WasteWatch suggest that recycling programmes which rely entirely on voluntary actions reach a limit at around 40-45% but go on to note that:

    "Municipalities that have achieved more have mainly done this with the aid of additional legislative and financial measures -such as local taxes, material bans, and direct charging for waste collection. All have been rejected to date in the UK, but may well need to be revisited in the future if we are serious about waste diversion from landfill."[95]

Although the concept of a 'ceiling' to recycling levels is a popular one, it is not clearly defined and there are many examples from around the world which show that the ceiling can be broken through with well-designed policy instruments. Furthermore, it is clear that we are in a dynamic situation in which changes in product design will increase the recyclability of materials.

56. The national targets for recycling and composting provide a real challenge for the year 2005 (25%) but the targets for 2010 (30%) and 2015 (33%) are depressingly unambitious and appear implicitly to accept that there is a 'ceiling' on the proportion which can be recycled. These later targets fail to build on the significant efforts which will be required to meet the 2005 target and could result in a loss of momentum in recycling. We recommend that new targets be set of 50% by 2010 and 60% by 2015: these targets will ensure that vigorous efforts to recycle are maintained.

38   Sustainable Waste Management, Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, HC484-I (1997-98) Report, paragraph 33 Back

39   The precautionary principle states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Back

40   The proximity principle requires that waste should generally be disposed of as near to its place of origin as possible Back

41   The Best Practicable Environmental Option is defined in the Waste Strategy 2000 as "the outcome of a systematic and consultative decision-making procedure which emphasises the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The BPEO procedure establishes, for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as in the short term." (Waste Strategy 2000, Part 2, page 27) Back

42   Ev p109, p303 (HC 903-II); Q934 Back

43   Q934 Back

44   See footnote 32 Back

45   The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has been set up by the Government (as part of the Waste Strategy 2000) and is charged with overcoming market barriers to promoting re-use and recycling. We discuss the role of WRAP later in this Report. Back

46   Sustainable Waste Management, Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, HC 484-I (1997-98), Paragraph 53 Back

47   Ev p303 (HC 903-II) Back

48   Ev p158 (HC 903-II) Back

49   Q943 Back

50   'Factor 4' and 'Factor 10' are initiatives which aim to show that resource efficiency should be driving much of environmental policy. The number '4' or '10' refers to the increase in efficiency which is possible: '4' for example would mean being able to produce 4 times the amount of products currently produced from the same quantities of raw materials. In this way, it is argued, the environmental impact of consumption can be vastly reduced. Back

51   Q737; Ev p186 (HC 903-II) Back

52   Q386 Back

53   Q945 Back

54   Ev p40 (HC 903-II) Back

55   Ev p186 (HC 903-II) Back

56   Waste Strategy 2000, Part 1, Page 15 Back

57   The Framework Directive on Waste, Council Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Council Directive91/156/EEC (OJ L 194, 25.7.75) Back

58   Ev p95 (HC 903-II) Back

59   HC149-I, paragraph 45 Back

60   Ev p140 (HC 903-II) Back

61   The Government's Response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's Report sustainable waste management, September 1998, Cm4058, page 15 Back

62   Ev p35 (HC 903-II) Back

63   Sustainable Waste Management, Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, HC 484-I (1997-98), para graph 68 Back

64   Ev p294 (HC 903-II); Q739 Back

65   Ev p95 (HC 903-II); Q406, Q465, Q542 and Q947 Back

66   Ev p128 (HC 903-II) Back

67   Q572 Back

68   QQ412-413 Back

69   Ev p35 (HC 903-II) Back

70   See, for example, Q35; Ev p126, p194 (HC 903-II) Back

71   Q410 Back

72   Sustainable Waste Management, Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, HC 484-I (1997-98), para graph 75 Back

73   Creating Wealth from Waste, Robin Murray, Ecologica, Published by Demos, 1999  Back

74   Q650 Back

75   Ev p25, p53 (HC 903-II) Back

76   Q1218 Back

77   Ev p159 (HC 36-II) Back

78   Ev p195 (HC 903-II) Back

79   Q380 Back

80   Q575 Back

81   Q576. For example, there have been some reports of sites which, after Christmas, had queues for those wishing to deposit their trees in the green waste section. As a result, there was an incentive for people to dump their trees in the general waste section, where they would not be composted. Back

82   Q579 Back

83   Ev p29 (HC 903-II) Back

84   Ev p87 (HC 903-II) Back

85   Q647 Back

86   Q6; Ev p25, p35 (HC 903-II) Back

87   Q760 Back

88   Q16 Back

89   Q101 Back

90   Ev p161 (HC 36-II) Back

91   Ev p62 Back

92   Q100 Back

93   Ev p47, p105 (HC 903-II) Back

94   Ev p172 (HC 903-II) Back

95   Ev p300 (HC 903-II) Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 21 March 2001