| Home Page |
Column 1215
House of Commons
Friday 12 July 1991
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]
PETITION
Horses and Ponies (Export)
9.35 am
Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : I beg leave to present a petition on behalf on the residents of the Uxbridge parliamentary constituency. The petition sheweth
That concern about proposals from the European Commission to allow the export of horses for slaughter after 1992 be brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge her Majesty's Government to ensure that the European Commission's proposals for a new regulation covering the welfare of animals during transport permit the United Kingdom to retain minimum value controls, or similar arrangements, on the export of horses and ponies for slaughter, which are embodied in the 1981 Animal Health Act, and calls upon the Government to make sure that our partners in the European Community understand that the United Kingdom's view is based entirely on welfare concerns and not on economic arguments. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. To lie upon the Table.
9.36 am
Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Is it a point of order?
Column 1216
Mr. King : Indeed it is, Mr. Speaker. It is normal practice, is it not, that when an honourable colleague in this House is doing what one might call porridge, or has been detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, or for whatever reason, you make a statement to that effect? Has it been communicated to you that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) is in prison? If not, ought you not to send out a rescue party? I understand that he is spending time in prison.
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman knows that every hon. Member is subject to the law, but I have yet to receive a communication from the court.
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not it be in order for you to point out, just in case it crosses the minds of Conservative Members, that, according to the rules of the House, there is no question of disqualification of a Member who is sentenced to a custodial sentence of less than one year? The last time that that happened was with John Stonehouse. To my recollection, not one Conservative Member called for any action to be taken against any of the Ulster Unionist Members who also served periods in prison--seven of them, I think, for a period of seven days each--for their refusal to pay either the road fund licence or the TV licence, due to their opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
For my part, for that of other hon. Members on this side of the House-- though not universally, I accept--and also for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), who is unable to speak for himself this morning, I would point out that if his action keeps one pensioner out of prison--one pensioner in Preston had a heart attack last month--it will be worth it.
Mr. Speaker : These are not matters for the House, but I can confirm that a sentence of less than a year does not involve expulsion.
Column 1217
The Environment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Sackville.]
[Relevant documents : The Second Report of the Environment Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 22 of Session 1988-89, on Toxic Waste and the Government's Reply, Cm. 679 ; the First Report, House of Commons Paper No. 170 of Session 1989-90, on Contaminated Land and the Government's Reply, Cm. 1161 ; the Fourth Report, House of Commons Paper No. 12 of Session 1989 -90, on Pollution of Beaches and the Government's Reply, Cm. 1363 ; the First Report, House of Commons Paper No. 39 of Session 1990-91, on Environmental Issues in Northern Ireland and the Government's Reply, Cm. 1484 ; and the Sixth Report, House of Commons Paper No. 61 of Session 1990- 91, on Indoor Pollution.]
9.38 am
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier) : I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk about thGovernment's environmental achievements in this country. The Conservatives have an unparallelled record for radical, environment-improving measures. Every single major piece of environmental legislation this century has been either enacted or initiated by a Conservative Administration.
Just as our economic policy is based on an aversion to wasting taxpayers' money, so our environmental record reflects the even stronger arguments against squandering the world's finite natural resources. Just as this Government have been eager to repay some of the debts accumulated over hundreds of years, so they have been anxious not to bequeath a burden of environmental debts to generations to come.
Our recent record has more more than lived up to past achievements. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 gave Britain the first system of integrated pollution control in Europe. It will control emissions to air, land and water. It is an approach which we in the United Kingdom have pioneered and it means that we have one of the most sophisticated pollution control systems in the world. We are now encouraging the European Community to follow our lead.
Last September we published our environment White Paper. We were the first British Government to publish a comprehensive policy on all aspects of our environment and we are one of the very few Governments anywhere to do so. It is not just words ; as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day, it is a foundation on which we are building.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : Will the Minister explain what happened in respect of the speeches that he made on the issue last year? He will recall coming to the Dispatch Box during our debates on the Environmental Protection Bill and repeatedly arguing that we had to have a fragmented service. Is it true that the Prime Minister read the hon. Gentleman's speeches, found them totally unconvincing and announced earlier this week that he was opting for an integrated approach rather than the fragmented approach for which the Minister pressed so firmly throughout last year?
Mr. Trippier : What absolute rubbish. If the hon. Gentleman were to take the time and trouble to study the Hansard record of the Standing Committee proceedings
Column 1218
on the Environmental Protection Bill he would discover that, with regard to integrated pollution control, I must have mentioned at least a dozen times that I would seriously consider the possibility of an environment agency being set up. I recall that Labour Members on the Standing Committee were very keen that we should more widely separate the poacher and gamekeeper roles by setting up a regional council, presumably of councillors, to act as the regulatory watchdog to supervise waste disposal.Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury) : The Minister is proving that he did not listen to what Opposition Members said at that time. He should recall that we did not put forward any suggestion of that kind. All our proposals for an environmental protection executive have completely separated the policing powers from those making political decisions. That was the basis on which we have promoted the idea of an environmental protection executive. I hope that the Minister will explain, especially in view of what the Prime Minister said on Monday, why he and his colleagues in the Standing Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill voted against an environmental protection executive.
Mr. Trippier : The hon. Lady did not listen to what I said a moment ago. I will repeat it, but more slowly. I said that on a number of occasions I drew attention to the fact that the Government were prepared to consider at some stage in the future the establishment of such an agency. Whether it was to be called an environmental protection agency, an environmental enhancement agency or whatever was a matter that we would decide in the future.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is upset because we have gone further than any commitment that I made at that time. We have given the responsibility for waste regulation to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The Labour party has never advocated that. The Labour party would never take that responsibility out of the hands of local authorities or regional councils.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : The Minister will recall that I was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Environmental Protection Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was a member of that Committee. However, I have read the Committee proceedings and I will be more generous than the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I accept that, from the beginning of the debate on that Bill, the Government said that they would consider setting up an integrated environmental protection body. However, is not the reality that everyone else, including the Opposition parties on the Standing Committee and the advisory and informed bodies outside this place, were persuaded of that some years ago? Therefore, the lesson to be learnt is that the Government, whatever their record, which we will debate today, are always slow in reaching conclusions that others arrive at much more speedily.
Mr. Trippier : I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments. I have never done this before, but I must take this opportunity to say that throughout the Standing Committee proceedings on the Environmental Protection Bill the Liberal party's contribution was extremely positive. Indeed, it was so positive that it nearly damaged the Government's case on occasion. I had to question whether what we were doing was absolutely right.
Column 1219
If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) read the Hansard record of the Standing Committee's proceedings he will recall that I must have mentioned on at least half a dozen occasions that we were determined to develop and strengthen Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I admitted to the Committee, as I admitted on the Floor of the House around the same time about a year ago, that we were under strength in HMIP. I genuinely did not believe that that was the time to introduce an environment agency.Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green) : As everyone is leaping on to this particular bandwagon--who proposed it and who did not--may I suggest not on a party political basis, but on an all-party basis, that the first discussion about an environmental protection agency took place in the Select Committee on the Environment? The Opposition parties had not thought about establishing an environmental protection agency until the idea appeared in the preface of the toxic waste report which appeared in February 1989.
Mrs. Ann Taylor : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I remember discussing the matter with Labour Members on my Committee who had been with us on the previous inquiry-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : The environment is no laughing matter.
Sir Hugh Rossi : I wonder whether I might be allowed to continue with my intervention.
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is not a Committee stage ; it is a debate. The hon. Gentleman should intervene briefly and make his point.
Sir Hugh Rossi : I was intervening, but found myself disconcerted because a number of other interventions were taking place at the same time. It will take me longer to make my point if I am interrupted in that way.
The idea of an environmental agency first emerged during the consideration of river and estuary pollution. We recommended the setting up of a national regulatory body. That was the first time that any discussion of that kind had taken place and all the members of my Committee agreed to it. When we found subsequently that the National Rivers Authority's powers were limited to the regulation of water, yet extended to leisure, sea defences and the rest, we criticised that in our toxic waste report
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is an admirable speech. However, it is rather long for an intervention.
Sir Hugh Rossi : If I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I will make a speech on that point later.
Mr. Trippier : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for that constructive intervention. I first became aware of the idea as a result of the Select Committee's recommendation. Whether or not Opposition Members agree with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will accept that we went further than the Select Committee's recommendations because of the essential
Column 1220
difference which the Labour party has not addressed : the responsibility for waste regulation would go to HMIP. The Liberals may find that they can support that.Mrs. Ann Taylor : So would we.
Mr. Trippier : The hon. Lady is misleading the House with that intervention. She should think very carefully about what she has just said. All the Labour Members of the Standing Committee, most of whom were members of the Select Committee on the Environment, made it abundantly clear-- particularly the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)--that they wanted the establishment of a regional regulatory body which would fit in with the Labour party's madcap idea of scrapping county councils and putting regional councils in their place. If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene to deny that, I shall certainly allow her to do so. She cannot intervene, because she cannot deny it. It is a matter of record.
The White Paper contained 350 commitments, more than 100 of which are already being implemented, and it puts in place powerful machinery to maintain the pressure on all Government Departments to set and achieve clear environmental objectives. Around the anniversary of the White Paper, we shall publish an update detailing the significant progress that we are making. The White Paper trailed the idea of introducing the powerful body that we have just been talking about to be responsible for pollution across the board. This week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that that agency is, indeed, to be created, bringing together the pollution control functions of HMIP and the NRA, along with waste regulation responsibilities of local authorities. The improved integration that will result will mean more effective pollution control all round and, I suppose most significant of all, a one-stop shop for business men. A consultation document will be published later this year to seek views on how that agency should function.
We have heard through the press comments made by Labour Members that we are stealing their clothes. They are upset and thin-skinned about it. However, the hon. Member for Dewsbury would never convince me or the rest of the House that she was not very miffed that we have made such a dramatic announcement with regard to the changes in waste regulation. I am beginning to think that the Labour party has a secret manifesto pledge to be profligate and ineffective at every possible opportunity. Let us look at what are laughingly called its environmental policies. Labour Members want to renationalise the water industries, at a cost of about £4 billion-- £4 billion which could be spent on improving water quality. Not only that, but nationalistation would put a stop to the £28 billion investment programme made possible by the Government's privatisation of water, the biggest-ever investment programme.
Privatisation was right. It has been a success. We now have the biggest- ever investment programme in water quality--£28 billion over 10 years, which is £5,000 for every minute, day in and day out, year in and year out for the next decade. Nationalised water boards could never have done that. What Government in their right mind would throw that away? I suggest that it would be the type of Government such as the previous Labour Administration who cut spending on water by a third.
Column 1221
Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove) : Does my hon. Friend agree that we need only to look to eastern Europe to see what socialism does to the environment?Mr. Trippier : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Beyond the Berlin wall and behind the iron curtain, thousands upon thousands of people have totally rejected socialism, because they were searching for an improvement in their quality of life. They wish to see that improvement in the quality of life which they had not experienced since the war. My hon. Friend is right. If ever there was an indictment of socialism and of how over- regulation can bring about exactly the opposite effect of what is desired, that is it. Unlike Labour, the Conservative Government are proud of our record. Our success stories extend into every aspect of environmental concern. We have started by putting our own house in order. We have appointed a "green" Minister in every Department who is responsible for considering the environmental implications of its policies, and have required them all to report each year on their success in meeting their environmental goals. Each Department also now has a Minister responsible for integrating energy efficiency into its policies and programmes ; that work is co-ordinated by a group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham) : The Minister claimed that the Government are proud of their record on environmental issues. If that is the case, why have the Government scheduled this important debate on a Friday? The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and I, members of the shadow Cabinet, are present. Why is no Cabinet Minister present? Why is it that the Secretary of State for the Environment cannot be bothered to be present?
Mr. Trippier : I am most impressed to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. It will add to the great confusion surrounding the division of responsibilities between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. I find it very confusing--I do not know whether my hon. Friends do also. Who is speaking on environmental or green issues? Is it the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a very important engagement today. The hon. Gentleman is just being a silly, silly boy--very, very silly. I should have thought that he would have something else to do, or does he think that his hon. Friends are not competent enough to handle this debate?
On transport, we have implemented tough new measures to cut pollution. From November this year, all cars, whatever their size, will have a tuning and emissions test in their MOT test. By 1992, all new cars will have to be fitted with catalytic converters. That will cut noxious exhaust fumes by more than 70 per cent.
Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : I am surprised to hear the Minister praising the British Government's record on car emissions. Only this week, in the Moses Room in the other place, representatives of the German automotive parts manufacturer, Bosch, said that British car emission standards are among the lowest in Europe. Were they not telling the truth?
Mrs. Ann Taylor : He is right.
Column 1222
Mr. Trippier : I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might like to argue about that later.
The hon. Gentleman really should know by now that legislation on that matter is now dealt with through the European Environment Council. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, on two occasions in the past year, Britain has taken the lead in two directives on vehicle emissions--one on vehicle emissions generally and the other on diesel emissions. That is a matter of record. It is not open to speculation or hypothesis ; it is a fact.
Sir Hal Miller : I was at that meeting. The Robert Bosch Ltd. representatives were referring to the standards of the MOT test. The Minister was talking about the initiative taken by our Government in setting EEC standards. The Robert Bosch representatives said that there is still some uncertainty, leading up to the introduction of full EEC standards, whether the MOT test should initially be a two-gas or a four-gas test. I shall develop those remarks in my speech.
Mr. Trippier : I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's speech if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. He will know, as the House knows, that sales of unleaded petrol have soared, thanks to successive green Budgets which have given us one of the largest tax differentials in the EC. Unleaded petrol now accounts for a huge percentage compared with five years ago. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said on more than one occasion, we are continuing to develop new thinking in reconciling our transport policy with the environment.
Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen) : The Minister says that the proportion of unleaded petrol is a huge percentage of the market. Will he give us figures and compare them with Germany, Holland and other European countries? Is not it a fact of life that the proportion of unleaded petrol in Britain is still well below the European average?
Mr. Trippier : I do not believe that it is below the European average. It is about the European average. I shall certainly check that point. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that it has been a substantial success.
Mr. Williams indicated assent.
Mr. Trippier : I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
Mr. Mans : Does my hon. Friend agree that the proportion of unleaded petrol used in this country is above those in that majority of European countries? Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and France are below our average.
Mr. Trippier : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We shall look again at the figures which, I am sure, will bear out what he has just said.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Although the figures show that there has been a dramatic increase in our use of unleaded fuel and that we are way ahead of some other European countries, is it not a fact that almost twice as many motorists could be using unleaded fuel? Might it not be a good idea to put stickers on four-star pumps, saying, "Half of you who are buying this four-star petrol could be saving yourselves more than 10p a gallon. Perhaps you should consider adjusting your car or using unleaded fuel if your car will take it"? Will my hon. Friend confirm,
Column 1223
however, that increased motoring involves environmental costs, one of which is the threat to Oxleas woods in my constituency, to which I imagine that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will refer later?Mr. Trippier : My hon. Friend may have the opportunity to develop his latter argument later if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. His first point raised an attractive proposal, which is certainly worth looking at. We need to continue to increase awareness of the importance of using more unleaded petrol. In the countryside we have recently announced plans for a countryside protection scheme known as countryside stewardship. Under a pilot scheme developed by the Countryside Commission, £13 million has been earmarked to help landowners and farmers throughout England to protect and enhance traditional landscapes and wildlife habitats. In addition, we have already started planting a brand new 150 sq mile forest in the midlands. It will be the first national forest to be planted in England since Pitt the Younger became Prime Minister. I should like to say a few words at this point about the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Last week Sir Fred Holliday, the independent chairman of the JNCC, told me of his concerns about effects of the arrangements for nature conservation in Scotland under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill on the special responsibilities of the JNCC. He suggested that Ministers looked for a successor for him, but then agreed to let that lie on the table until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had had a chance to consider with our colleagues in the Scottish and Welsh Offices the points that he had made. We are pursuing these issues urgently and intend to let Sir Fred have a considered statement of our views early next week. Sir Fred is a distinguished scientist and administrator and we greatly value his role in taking forward the new arrangements for nature conservation in Britain made as a result of the recent legislation. In the Government's view, the decision of Parliament to create an expert advisory committee to give Scottish Natural Heritage advice on disputed cases in no way undermines the role of the JNCC in establishing and upholding United Kingdom-wide standards for the protection of sites of special scientific interest. We would expect the chairman of the JNCC to notify Ministers if the operation of the new Scottish arrangements or, indeed, the conduct of the other two country councils was leading to different scientific standards being applied from those laid down by the JNCC.
In the streets in our towns and cities, we have taken action to arrest the problem of litter--something which affects the quality of people's environment every day.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Before the hon. Gentleman returns to the urban scene from the natural environment and from a consideration of sites of special scientific interest, could he be more forthcoming about a site of special interest in an urban area? I refer to Oxleas woods, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has referred. How can the Minister claim concern for sites of special scientific interest in Scotland or anywhere else or for our common heritage of woodland when the Secretary of State has refused to accept the recommendation of the roads inspector for the east crossroute south of the Thames, thus destroying Oxleas
Column 1224
woods in Greater London? Does not that make all the Government's claims about being green and being the protectors of our heritage absolutely worthless?Mr. Trippier : Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away, this is the opportunity to remind him who introduced the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I ask him also, who invented the term "sites of special scientific interest"? The Labour party never did anything on this issue. We established the sites of special interest, and a considerable number of sites have been so designated--
Mr. Spearing : The Government are now destroying them.
Mr. Trippier : I ask the hon. Gentleman to think carefully about what he is saying. If one turned a site of special scientific interest into a completely sanitised area, giving it absolute protection, compensation would have to be awarded in some form or other, principally through the courts. The designation of a site of special scientific interest is no more or less than a material planning consideration which has to be taken into account by the planning authority. I have always defended that position and I ask the hon. Gentleman to join me in that, because it would be disastrous to go down any other route--
Mr. Simon Hughes rose --
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose --
Mr. Trippier : I give way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
Mr. Hughes : I shall allow the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) to intervene first.
Mr. Bottomley rose --
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
Mr. Bottomley : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I had the consent of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to intervene in the Minister's speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The Minister clearly said that he was giving way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
Mr. Bottomley : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must not raise a point of order or anything else when I am on my feet.
[Interruption.] Order.
Mr. Bottomley : I am not on my feet now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : The hon. Gentleman was obviously at the starting gate. There have been quite a few interventions, some of which have been over-long, but they have all been at the expense of those hon. Members who wish to speak later. May we now get on? I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
Mr. Bottomley : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There have been some references to Oxleas woods in my constituency. As I have said, I believe that I
Column 1225
have the consent of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to intervene at this point in the Minister's speech. If I am wrong--Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We do not have interventions on interventions. Perhaps we should get on. I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
Mr. Simon Hughes : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Eltham will get his chance later.
I had wanted to ask the Minister a simple question that relates to a similar case. Can he confirm that the Government have received a letter from the European Commission suggesting that the Government may be in breach of European Community directives in connection with the proposed M3 bypass around Winchester? That is another example of road building appearing to trespass against environmental considerations, SSSIs and the rest. It would be helpful if we could have confirmation that that letter has been received and that the Government are considering it.
Mr. Trippier : I am not aware that it has been received, but if I have the permission of the House and am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to reply to the debate, I undertake to come back to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Mr. Peter Bottomley : I think that my hon. Friend will discover that, in the case of Oxleas woods, there has been an inquiry by the European Commission to which the Department of Transport has responded. It might be useful to know whether there has been a further inquiry.
I should like to follow the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), which I wrongly anticipated that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would mention. The Departments of the Environment and of Transport are considering the inspector's report on the modifications to the bridge proposals for the east London river crossing. Although there may be reasons for avoiding a judicial review and for the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment not meeting further delegations while they are considering the report, may I ask in public that if the road does eventually have to run through Oxleas woods-- although that is opposed by most people because it does not benefit either the woods or the local people--the Government will give serious reconsideration to the inspector's recommendation in the previous inquiry that the road should be covered over, even it that means dropping the slip roads at Shooters Hill?
Mr. Trippier : Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that I shall draw what he has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. You were kind enough to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have taken several interventions. Perhaps I should now press on a little. I want to turn to a subject of great embarrassment to the Labour party. In the streets of our towns and cities, we have taken action to arrest the problem of litter, which affects the quality of people's environment every day. We have more than doubled the top fine for litter louts from £400 to £1,000. We want to
Column 1226
ensure that councils fulfil their duties and clear the streets. That is why we have empowered local people to take their councils to court if they do not keep their streets clean. We know which councils they will be. It will be the high-spending, socialist councils, which seem more interested in nuclear-free zones than litter-free zones. Just look at Liverpool--an inept and inefficient Labour council. When Labour came to power in Liverpool in 1983 the city stood on the edge of a precipice, since when it has taken a giant step forward. The ex-leader of Liverpool council admitted just how inefficient it was. He said :"it costs four times as much to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool as it does in other areas"
Now, local residents have had to suffer a strike. As a result, the streets were not cleaned for weeks and the children were forced to play among the rubbish. That is a disgrace. Labour could not even empty the bins. Yet it has the nerve to say that it can run our country.
| Next Section
| Home Page |