| Home Page |
Column 1
Written Answers to Questions
Monday 1 November 1993
ENVIRONMENT
Packaging
Mr. Dafis : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make representations to the European Community to secure that the European directive on packaging and packaging waste is amended (a) to include reference to measures to encourage the use of reusable packaging, (b) to delete arbitrary assertions of equivalence and to secure that priority is given to source reduction, reuse and recycling in that order and (c) to ensure that consumer information and labelling distinguishes packaging for which there is an established recycling route ;
(2) if he will make representations to the European Community to secure the inclusion of a timetable for the reduction of waste at source within the European directive on packaging and packaging waste ;
(3) if he will make representations to the European Community to ensure that those parts of the proposed directive on packaging and packaging waste setting standards for packaging systems are also applied to packaging exported from member states to non-EC countries ;
(4) if he will make representations to the European Community to secure that information submitted under article 8 and annex III of the European directive on packaging and packaging waste includes information on toxic substances ;
(5) if he will make representations to the European Community to secure that the European directive on packaging and packaging waste is amended to include (a) specific targets for the recycling of collected material, (b) targets for reuse and source reduction and (c) measures to increase the proportion of recycled materials used in packaging.
Mr. Yeo : The Government support the proposed directive as a means of harmonising the basis on which member states take measures relating to packaging and packaging waste, in order to avoid distortion to competition and restrictions to trade. We also see the proposal as environmentally beneficial. We have argued strongly for the directive to establish broad targets which are both realistic and challenging and for it to contain sufficient flexibility for individual member states to choose the waste management option which makes most sense in the light of local circumstance.
The directive proposed by the Commission establishes an overall target for the recovery of waste packaging and sets out specific targets for material recycling. The Government accept the concept of a waste management hierarchy which covers reduction, re-use, recycling and energy recovery and final disposal, in that order, but do not believe that it makes environmental or economic sense to impose it rigidly in all cases. There will be some
Column 2
circumstances where the economic and environmental considerations point to an option towards the bottom of the hierarchy. We therefore oppose the incorporation of a rigid hierarchy in the directive and the inclusion of specific targets or timetables for individual aspects of the hierarchy. These could prevent the choice of the most appropriate option in individual cases. We believe that it would be more sensible to adopt a general target for recovery and allow local decisions on what constitutes the best combination of management options in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The proposed directive also establishes a regime of essential requirements with which packaging must conform and ensures free circulation for packaging which conforms with the requirements. It requires the creation of mechanisms to ensure that suitable information is provided so that consumers and producers can contribute to the attainment of its objectives and to assist in compliance monitoring. We believe that it is essential for those mechanisms, relating either to the marking of packaging material to the provision of information to consumers, or to providing data for monitoring performance against the directive's objectives, to be as simple and clear as possible. They should take into account other national or EC legislation dealing, for example, with safety, performance or quality issues. Furthermore these requirements should be established in a manner which facilitates trade within the European Community and with other countries and takes account of the need for standards to be set in a world-wide context.We believe that the pragmatic approach we have adopted during the negotiation of the directive has support among many of our EC partners and that many of our concerns are being taken on board. There remain significant difficulties with the amended proposal and we will be continuing to press for further changes before we can consider the text to be acceptable ; we do, however, believe that the negotiations are going in the right direction and that we now have the foundations for a successful outcome.
Homelessness
Dr. Twinn : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Government have to make all providers of social housing statutorily responsible for providing accommodation for the homeless ; and if he will make a statement.
Sir George Young : In a reply to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 21 October, Official Report, column 281, I said that the Government propose to reform the homelessness legislation. We will be consulting about our proposals in due course.
Power Stations
Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the anti-pollution equipment that is installed at the (a) Ince, Merseyside and (b) Richborough, Kent power stations.
Mr. Yeo : Both power stations are currently fitted with electrostatic precipitators to reduce emissions of particulate matter to atmosphere. In respect of other emissions, the authorisations recently issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution require the operator to provide, by 1 April 1994, an improvement plan using
Column 3
BATNEEC--best available techniques not entailing excessive cost--to bring the stations up to the standards appropriate for new plant.Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to rescinding the order to burn orimulsion at the (a) Ince, Merseyside and (b) Richborough, Kent power stations ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Yeo : Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires the inclusion of conditions in authorisations designed to prevent or minimise pollution of the environment and prohibits HMIP from granting an authorisation unless it is satisfied that an operator will be able to comply with such conditions.
Authorisations allowing the burning of orimulsion at these power stations were issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on 30 July 1993. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no reason to believe that they were not granted in accordance with the requirements of the Act and has no plans therefore to direct that they should be revoked.
Carbon Emissions
Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of how far the duties and powers of the Director General of Gas Supply are sufficient duties to enable the post to assist the Government fully in achieving their declared international commitments on carbon emission reductions.
Mr. Yeo : Using his existing powers as prescribed by the Gas Act 1986, the Director General of Gas Supply has introduced changes to the gas supply tariff formula--the "E factor"--which have already permitted funding of two initial energy efficiency schemes of Energy Saving Trust. The trust's target of achieving, through energy efficiency measures, annual fuel savings equivalent to 2.5 million tonnes carbon emissions by 2000 will form an important part of the Government's national programme on CO emissions.
Council Housing
Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those councils whose tenants have voted in favour of a new approved landlord from the private sector ; what is the number and value of the properties ; and if he will make a statement.
Sir George Young : The tenants of 30 local authorities have voted in favour of the large scale voluntary transfer of the ownership of all or most of their council's housing stock to registered housing associations. Of these, the following 23 councils have already transferred all or most of their stock :
|Number of dwellings|Transfer price £
|transferred |million
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breckland DC |6,781 |60.2
Broadland DC |3,721 |25.1
London Borough of Bromley |12,393 |117.6
Chiltern DC |4,650 |32.9
Christchurch DC |1,621 |15.4
East Cambridgeshire DC |4,266 |31.5
East Dorset DC |2,245 |21.6
Hambleton DC |4,268 |33.5
Medina DC |2,825 |27.9
Mid Sussex DC |4,426 |44.2
Newbury DC |7,053 |47.0
North Bedfordshire DC |7,472 |64.3
Rochester upon Medway DC |8,029 |77.0
Ryedale DC |3,353 |28.3
Sevenoaks DC |6,526 |65.5
South Buckinghamshire DC |3,319 |34.0
South Wight DC |2,119 |22.8
Suffolk Coastal DC |5,272 |34.0
Surrey Heath DC |2,885 |28.7
Swale DC |7,352 |55.2
Tonbridge and Malling DC |6,382 |54.4
Tunbridge Wells DC |5,519 |58.1
West Dorset DC |5,279 |40.3
The remaining seven councils listed below have not yet transferred their stock, but are expected to submit applications to do so by the end of March 1994 :