6 May 2004 : Column 81WS
Written Ministerial Statements
Thursday 6 May 2004
HOME DEPARTMENT
Royal Household (Security)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I am today publishing the Security Commission's report on the implications for security of the activities of the Daily Mirror reporter, Ryan Parry, at Buckingham Palace. I assured the House on 19 November 2003, Official Report, column 775, that I expected the review to cover all aspects of the process of checking those who form part of the royal household. I also said that one of the strengths of our democracy is that such breaches are open to scrutiny, that we can learn quickly from them, and that nothing is swept under the carpet.
I therefore welcome the Security Commission's report on this incident and applaud the thoroughness with which it has approached its task.
The recommendations are clear and pragmatic and include the creation of a post of Director of Security for the royal households, the development of a wide range of checks that can be carried out on employees of the royal households and the creation of an annual plan to be agreed and implemented by the households, together with the police and the Home Office.
I am happy to note the progress that has already been made in the intervening period to improve security within the royal households and I look forward to the implementation of the report's recommendations. The appointment this week by Buckingham Palace of a director of security is particularly welcome, as this new post will oversee the security vetting process across the royal households reporting to the Queen's Private Secretary.
It is clearly welcome to note the Commission's finding that the existing framework for dealing with the security of the royal family is considered sound and provides an appropriate strategic structure for the oversight of security vetting and related work. Responsibility for delivery will accordingly continue to be shared: policy and funding responsibility to rest with the Home Secretary; operational responsibility to lie with the police; and the royal households having overall responsibility for personnel security and for procedures within royal residences. The Commission recommended a tightening of the arrangements for day to day delivery of these procedures within the royal household through the creation of the director of security post, a new annual security plan and a regular process of review. Overall responsibility, as the House would expect, will continue to rest with me as Home Secretary with the constituent parts of the system being responsible for delivery in their areas.
6 May 2004 : Column 82WS
The Commission also met the authorities of the Palace of Westminster, in order to discover whether similar issues might arise in relation to Parliament. On reflection, the Commission felt that the differences require a separate review, but none the less made a number of suggestions. The report will therefore be copied to those undertaking the existing security view of the Palace of Westminster announced by the Leader of the House of Commons last month. None the less, the Commission endorsed recent changes to security at the Palace of Westminster, including the decision of the House of Commons Commission to construct a security screen around the public gallery on the recommendation of the Director General of the Security Service.
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Waste Management
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I am pleased to announce today the publication of the "Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes."
The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, in its report "Waste not, Want not" recommended that an independent body should bring together the literature and evidence on the relative health and environmental effects of all the different waste management options, relative both to each other and to other activities affecting health and the environment. Defra commissioned this report in response to that recommendation.
The review was commissioned in early 2003, and has been carried out by a team led by Enviros, environmental consultants, and Roy Harrison, Professor of Environmental Health at the Institute of Public and Environmental Health, University of Birmingham. The team should be congratulated on bringing together and considering a wide range of evidence, both from the UK and abroad.
The report examines the waste management options for treating municipal solid and similar waste. It focuses on the principal types of facilities that are currently used for dealing with such waste in the UK and in Europe and on what the currently available scientific evidence can tell us about their environmental and health effects.
It is very comprehensive, bringing together, for the first time, a wealth of evidence from existing studies of the health and environmental impacts of waste management. It provides a convenient and authoritative compendium of current knowledge in this area.
The report has been peer reviewed by the Royal Society and Professor Howard Dalton, Defra's chief scientific advisor, has provided me with advice on the scientific analyses.
The report's authors conclude that, on the evidence from studies so far, present day municipal waste management has at most a minor effect on human health and the environment. For example:
dealing with municipal solid waste by incineration accounts for less than 1 per cent. of UK emissions of dioxins, while domestic sources such as cooking and burning coal for heating account for 18 per cent. of emissions;
less than 1 per cent. of UK emissions of oxides of nitrogen, which reduce air quality, come from municipal solid waste management, while 42 per cent. come from road traffic.
The report rightly recognises that there is more that we can and should still learn and we will be addressing the need and priorities for further research through our waste research strategy this summer. The search for knowledge is never complete, and this report usefully identifies areas of research that we will be taking forward as part of our continual efforts to refine the evidence base for policy making.
We must manage the growing amount of waste we produce. We will do this by basing our policies on the best available scientific evidence and on an assessment of the comparative risks. We will continue to develop our scientific knowledge to support our policies. This report is a helpful contribution to that process.
Emissions Trading Scheme
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett): The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I are today publishing the UK national allocation plan for the EU emissions trading scheme. Copies of the plan will be available in the Libraries of the House from 11 am today.
The EU emissions trading scheme is the most significant measure in the EU climate change programme, and begins on 1 January 2005. The objective of the scheme is to reduce, in the most cost effective way, EU emissions of CO 2 that contribute to the problems associated with global warming and to encourage investments by business to help EU member states and accession countries achieve the reductions necessary for meeting their Kyoto targets for 2008–12.
The plan was submitted to the European Commission on 30 April to meet a commitment given by Ministers at the end of March. It is being published today as part of a package including a consultation document that explains decisions taken following earlier consultation on a draft of the plan and further issues on which comments are being sought.
The overall number of allowances to be allocated in the first phase of the scheme is consistent with an initial reduction in UK carbon dioxide emissions of 15.2 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010. The Government are firmly committed to its national goal of moving towards a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide by 2010. The overall level of allowances to be allocated in the UK in phase 2 of the scheme (which runs from 2008–12) will be consistent with the trading sector's contribution to achieving the 20 per cent. goal.
I have emphasised to the European Commission the UK's commitment to the scheme and the importance that the UK attaches to the Commission's scrutiny of all national allocation plans to ensure that they deliver on the EU's Kyoto goals—not least because widely varying and inconsistent approaches could be said to have competitive implications. Given the approach that the UK has taken in its plan, it is politically important that the Commission plays this role effectively.
6 May 2004 : Column 84WS
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |