---

Waste Disposal

15. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): If she will make a statement on her policy on fly-tipping and waste disposal. [174416]

The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government are determined to tackle fly-tipping. We issued a wide-ranging strategy for consultation in February. The consultation period closed on 14 May and responses are currently being collated. The Government's policy on waste disposal is set out in "Waste Strategy 2000". A number of actions are also being taken forward as a result of recommendations in the 2002 strategy unit report, "Waste Not, Want not".

Andrew Selous: Does the Minister recognise that there is a fundamental contradiction between his waste disposal policy and his anti-fly-tipping policy? In particular, should not small building or garden maintenance firms be allowed to take their waste to tidy tips? If we cannot differentiate between an ICI and a small business, we have got the policy wrong. In addition, will not limiting householders to a permit for one item per month significantly increase fly-tipping throughout the country?

Mr. Morley: I think that the hon. Gentleman's point relates to a decision by his local authority in respect of its disposal sites. It is entirely up to local authorities to decide what to do in respect of their own sites and how to apply such decisions. If local authorities feel that there is an issue of trade waste, it is not unreasonable to have a charge in that respect. The matters of strategy that the hon. Gentleman raises are for local councils to decide.

Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): The ban on co-disposal of hazardous waste in landfill sites becomes operational this year. The industry says that few facilities will be available to deal with that waste. What will the Government do to prevent fly-tipping resulting from their inability to implement effective solutions in response to legislation that was in place in 1999?

Mr. Morley: Let me update the hon. Lady. There are about 30 applications for separate cells for the disposal of hazardous waste, and that number does not include in-house sites. We take fly-tipping seriously, which is why we have given local authorities new powers, for example, to stop, search and confiscate vehicles. We are also considering the way in which the legislation works and how to disseminate information. We are prepared
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1095
 
to bring in further measures and to examine the level of fines, if there is a case for doing so. We are not complacent—we are dealing with these issues on a wide front, in relation to our overall waste strategies.

Animal Welfare

16. Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): If she will make a statement on the animal welfare rules governing (a) domestic and (b) imported pig rearing. [174418]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The vast majority of imports of pork and pork products into the UK are from other member states. All member states have to implement and comply with minimum welfare standards for pigs, as agreed by the European Union.

Mr. Bacon : The British Pig Executive estimates that 70 per cent. of the 767,000 tonnes of pigmeat imported into this country is produced to standards that would be unlawful in the UK. Given that 92 per cent. of consumers want imported meat to be produced to animal welfare standards equivalent to those in the UK, is it not time at least to have clear and unambiguous country of origin labelling, so that consumers can make an informed choice? To that end, will the Minister give his full support to the magnificent Bill of which I am the promoter, which is to receive its Second Reading on 16 July, and which would give effect to clear food labelling?

Mr. Bradshaw: We are looking at the subject of labelling. I always urge all British consumers to buy British pork. One of the reasons for the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes is the unilateral ban on sow stalls and tethering that was passed by the Conservative Government—a move that we supported and implemented in 1999. It was the Labour Government who, in 2001, managed to extend the ban to the rest of the European Union, thus ensuring a level playing field for our pig producers.

Waste Incinerators

17. Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): How many waste incinerators have been built in (a) London and (b) Kent since 1997; and how many others have been approved in (i) London and (ii) Kent since 1997. [174419]

The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): No waste incinerators have been built in London or Kent since 1997. At Allington, near Maidstone in Kent, an operating permit was granted in September 2003, and planning permission has been obtained for an incinerator. An application for a proposed incinerator at Bexley, south London, was granted a permit in September 2003.

Bob Russell : I wonder whether the Minister will therefore kindly instruct local authorities in Kent and
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1096
 
London to stop dumping their rubbish in Essex. If they want to incinerate their waste, why do those local authorities not build the incinerators in their area, instead of transporting the waste 60 miles into Essex?

Mr. Morley: That might well be something that authorities consider. There is a strong case for local authorities coming together to provide a strategic approach to waste disposal, which can require consideration of a range of options of which incineration is but one.

Vital Villages Grant Scheme

18. Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD): If she will make a statement on the termination of the Countryside Agency's vital villages grant scheme. [174420]

The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Vital villages was established in 2001 as a three-year programme, so it should come as no surprise that the Countryside Agency has announced that the scheme is closed to new applicants. All existing grant commitments will be met, and some £14.2 million will be spent in 2004–05 supporting action by and in rural communities.

Norman Lamb : I thank the Minister for his response. The vital villages scheme has provided funding for some valuable schemes in north Norfolk, including the revitalisation of village shops. Many people who have applied for grants are frustrated by the plethora of different routes that they have to take to get money, which often means that it is the most informed communities—the ones that know how to play the system—that get hold of the money. Is there not a case for rationalisation—making sure that money is available and goes to the communities that need it most?

Alun Michael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an excellent point. He is absolutely right to be concerned about the plethora of funding streams, which is why my right hon. Friend established the inquiry that was undertaken by Lord Haskins and why some of the emphasis of her forthcoming statement on the refreshed rural strategy is about simplification of funding streams. Since DEFRA was set up, we have been keen to get better evidence about where disadvantage lies in rural communities rather than, as he suggested, merely allowing those who are best informed get to the source of finance first—I nearly said get to the trough first, but that was the previous question. The publication of work by the Rural Research Centre in January will be the start of our having the quality of information to help rural communities that we have been able to take for granted in urban regeneration for many years. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman clearly welcomes that.

 
20 May 2004 : Column 1095
 

 
20 May 2004 : Column 1097
 

Business of the House

12.31 pm

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): Mr. Speaker, you are responsible for security within the House, but I thought that it would be helpful to update Members on my discussions with the Security Service this morning in advance of announcing the business. It is advising on what action needs to be taken following the incident yesterday. This will be considered by the joint committee on security on Monday and the House of Commons Commission on Tuesday. As the House will be aware, there has been a wider Security Service review, which will report in the summer. It is my intention that, once the final report is considered, the executive summary will be published and will be followed by a debate on the Floor of the House.

I want to reassure the House that we need to strike a proper balance between proper security and the right of public access to Parliament and its Members. Voters should, and will, continue to have the right to come to Parliament, but in conditions that are secure for them and for Members and their staff.

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 24 May—Remaining stages of the Civil Contingencies Bill

Tuesday 25 May—Remaining stages of the Gender Recognition Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 26 May—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Financial Burdens on Local Authorities by Central Government", followed by a debate entitled "Town Planning and Urban Sprawl". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 27 May—Motion on the Whitsun recess Adjournment.

Friday 28 May—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week after the Whitsun recess will be:

Monday 7 June—Second Reading of the Patents Bill [Lords] followed by a motion to amend the Standing Orders in relation to the nomination of Select Committees.

Tuesday 8 June—Remaining stages of the Age-Related Payments Bill, followed by a debate on the future of air transport White Paper on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Wednesday 9 June—A debate on veterans' affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Thursday 10 June—A debate on disability on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Friday 11 June—The House will not be sitting.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for June will be:

Thursday 17 June—Debate on the report from the Work and Pensions Committee on the European social fund.
 
20 May 2004 : Column 1098
 

Thursday 24 June—Debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on Government investment in nanotechnology.

---