House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 May 1995

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Geoffrey Kenneth Dickens Esq., the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Birmingham Assay Office Bill

Malvern Hills Bill

[Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Column 316

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT

Opencast Mining

1. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the environment in areas where opencast mining is permitted is not damaged by the activity of opencast mining operators. [23191]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Tight, improved guidelines which upgrade environmental requirements on opencast mining were published last July. They would apply to any new permissions

Mr. MacShane: I thank the Minister for his short reply. First, is he aware of the great concern about the incidence of asthma and bronchitic disease that is linked to opencast mining? Secondly, is he aware of concern at the Orgreave site in south Yorkshire, where phenol in the ground may be getting into dust and posing a real contamination problem? Thirdly, is he aware of the concern in Rotherham about a proposed opencast mine near Greasbrough? If the mine is allowed to go ahead, it will destroy the visual amenity of a beautiful green-field site in my constituency. In light of that, will the Minister agree to hold a public inquiry in south Yorkshire to explain the Government's real opencast mining policy and allay my constituents' fears?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot pick a particular case for inquiry. I imagine that he is aware that the mineral planning guidance note MPG 3 gives his Labour local authority considerable scope on environmental issues, such as the visual side, noise, blasting, dust--which he mentioned--water, transportation, the built environment, nature conservation, subsidence and restoration. In addition to that, my Department is currently undertaking research into dust, blasting and transport and I hope that the results of that research will assist in alleviating the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Mr. Batiste: Is not the real issue where opencasting should take place? Should not priority be given to areas where dereliction is being cleared up, and should not communities' overall environmental and sustainable development needs be taken into account in a strategic sense when considering individual applications?

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Operators will need to demonstrate that real benefits will result from their proposals, particularly if they wish to work in sensitive green-field sites.

Mr. Illsley: The Minister will be aware that there is concern that private opencast operators are not meeting their obligations to restore opencast sites. Will the Minister consider some mechanism that will allow the Government to enforce private opencasters' obligation to restore those sites? That would prevent a company from

Column 317

allowing a subsidiary company to go into bankruptcy and thus avoiding its obligation to restore opencast sites, as occurred in the case of Sheffield Airport Ltd.

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our concern and we shall certainly look into any individual case about which he may care to write to me.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend remind those carrying out a vendetta against opencast mining that it is more economical to produce coal that way, it will lead to lower electricity prices and it will benefit consumers, about whom they do not care?

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will agree that the new requirements on environmental issues protect the community as well as providing employment opportunities.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of the problems that local authorities have nowadays, as opposed to 15 years ago, is that when they are presented with an application for an opencast cite to be developed, they are told by local officials that, in some circumstances, if they oppose the case and it goes to appeal, councillors will be surcharged because, under current planning considerations, the Government have got them by the short and curlies? As a result, although they would like to oppose every single one, in many cases they are frightened to do so because they can be driven out of public office. Why do not the Government change that?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman's imagination always runs away with him. If he looks at MPG 3, he will see the ammunition and strength that local authorities have now to protect local communities, while reflecting upon the environmental improvements on one side, and the economic benefits on the other.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend reflect carefully on what the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said? The problem of £100 companies welshing on the deal to reinstate is not a new one; it has happened for generations in gravel extraction and other industries. Surely we are adroit enough to stop it happening here.

Sir Paul Beresford: It is fairly obvious that my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind. I would be grateful if he would write to me about it.

European Regional Funds

2. Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the funds for objective 1, designated for the financial year 1994- 95, have been spent; how much is retained by the Department; and if he will make a statement. [23192]

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Merseyside's European funding is for the period to 2001. Of the £55 million transferred by the Commission to the United Kingdom, £23.7 million has been authorised for payment. The rest is held by Government under the rules set down by the European Union to make further payments as claims for approved projects are submitted.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Notwithstanding what he said, does he recognise that there

Column 318

is some concern that, in the first part of the overall period in which money can be spent, there has been a failure to deliver money to projects which had hoped to be under way by now? Does he agree with the recommendations of the monitoring committee which has been working in partnership with the Government, and does he intend fully to implement its proposals? What will happen to the money that has already been given to the Government by Brussels? Will it accrue to the advantage of the Government or to Merseyside?

Mr. Curry: The answer to the final part of the question is that the money takes the form of authorisation for payment. There is no crock of gold in a bank in Merseyside and it does not earn interest, so it cannot earn interest for the Government. It can be spent only on projects which have been approved. Those projects are sufficient to draw down the entire amount that was sent over in the year that we are considering. Only about 20 out of 800 projects have not received final approval because of details that need to be settled, and we are on target for the second tranche of projects for which we should get clearance in July.

Mr. Wareing: Is not there a tendency for them to accumulate, because there is a complaint in Liverpool of slothfulness in dealing with the bids?

Ms Eagle: And in The Wirral.

Mr. Wareing: And in The Wirral, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) says. Should not the Government increase the resources of the secretariat so that the process can be speeded up, or are they quite happy to continue at the same old steady pace?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is not being reasonable. The Commission released the schemes only last July, so the 1995 schemes could not even begin to be considered until the second half of the year. Nearly 800 of those schemes have been approved. The next tranche will fall due in July. We are on schedule for dealing with them in July. I recognise people's anxiety to get the schemes under way because of Liverpool's particular status, and I shall ensure that the regional office does everything in its power to do so. I spoke to the director again yesterday and he told me how strongly the office is committed to making sure that the schemes progress.

North Sea Ministerial Conference

3. Ms Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policy his Department will pursue at the fourth North sea ministerial conference due to take place in Denmark on 8 to 9 June. [23193]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I have placed a statement of United Kingdom policy objectives for the North sea conference in the Library. I am particularly concerned to achieve protection for species and habitats outside territorial waters; comprehensive measures, within the common fisheries policy, to control over -fishing; internationally co-ordinated research to improve knowledge of the possible effects of some chemicals on reproductive systems; and more effective enforcement of international rules against pollution from shipping.

Ms Ruddock: The Secretary of State will recall that under his Government Britain became known as the dirty

Column 319

man of Europe. Does he now want us to be known as the scrap merchant of Europe? Given the Greenpeace protest and Danish determination to raise the issue, what environmental reasons will he give to the North sea conference for permitting the towing of Brent Spar into the Atlantic for dumping rather than bringing it ashore for dismantling, recycling and reuse?

Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not watch the television programme in which David Bellamy made it clear that we are now the clean man of Europe and that that is the view of all environmentalists. The hon. Lady should talk to some real and serious environmentalists before trying to make party political comments out of her nation's interest. The national interest is simply that we should be dealing with those matters which pollute the North sea and obeying international agreements. In dealing with our North sea oil rigs, we shall follow to the word the agreements of Paris and Oslo. We shall do precisely what we agreed to do internationally. The hon. Lady should be proud to live in a country that is now leading the world in these matters.

Mr. Mans: May I encourage my right hon. Friend to take precisely the same proactive approach at the North sea conference as he did at the conference on climate change? We have proved conclusively that, because we abided by the rules and managed to achieve what we said we would achieve, Britain led and others were forced to follow. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to take precisely the same approach at the North sea conference to ensure that those on the continent enforce what they have signed up to as we have done in the past?

Mr. Gummer: We are in the top third for meeting targets set by the previous North sea conference. We are concerned with a number of issues, not least the bad cycle which results from industrial fishing, particularly by the Danes who turn the fish into cow food and feed their cows on it, resulting in considerable agricultural pollution in the North sea. That is something that we want to stop.

Environment Agency

4. Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his forecast of the annual running costs of the new environment agency; and what are the current costs of carrying out the same work within existing organisations. [23194]

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): The work to be transferred to the environment agency is valued at £528 million at 1994-95 prices.

Mr. Steen: Although Conservative Members welcome the Government's commitment to protecting the environment, there is just a little concern about the advertisements that appeared in the national papers for the director whose salary will be twice that of Cabinet Ministers and who will have 9,000 staff who will no doubt be serving notices and enforcing summonses. Will not the new agency impact on Britain's business culture by adding cost to our products as a result of the number of civil servants who will be rushing around asking businesses to comply with this or that regulation?

Mr. Atkins: There is an old adage that, if youpay peanuts, you get monkeys. We are in the business--

Column 320

[Interruption.] We are in the business of ensuringthat we get very large monkeys--[ Hon. Members:-- "Stop digging!"] We are in the business--

Madam Speaker: I suggest the Minister starts again.

Mr. Atkins: I know exactly where I am, Madam Speaker.

We are in the business of ensuring that, whoever is appointed chief executive of that most important agency, which is a product of far-seeing legislation that the Government are introducing, will be paid the right amount to do an important job. Industry will need to ensure that the people who run that agency can speak the same language as it does, so that the legislation is implemented to the highest standard.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that, on occasion, the National Rivers Authority has not had the necessary powers or finances to deal with certain river pollution, especially from former mine workings? Can he give the assurance that the Environment Bill will give the authority powers to eradicate that pollution from the parts of the country where it is a major problem?

Mr. Atkins: There is a question on the Order Paper about that issue, which I intend to answer, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants.

Mr. Sykes: As an adequately paid Back Bencher, I assure my hon. Friend that the national parks currently operate well under the aegis of the Department of the Environment. One thing that is extremely important is the fact that, under the new arrangements, we shall seek far more professional, and perhaps more local democratic representation in the national parks service. Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance today that, for example, parish councillors will be asked to serve on the new national parks board?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important argument. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are examining it closely. In discussing the Environment Bill, currently in Committee, we have not reached the provisions relating to the national parks, but I intend to ensure that there is better representation from those who live and work in the parks, who are, in my book, the most important people there.

Mortgage Arrears (Repossessions)

5. Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of households likely to lose their homes through repossession for mortgage arrears in the next 12 months. [23195]

Mr. Curry: The Government do not make predictions about future repossessions. The latest figures published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders show that the number of properties taken into possession in 1994 was the lowest since 1990 and 35 per cent. lower than the peak in 1991.

Mr. O'Hara: Such complacency will bring no comfort to the 250,000 home owners who continue to be more than six months in arrears with their mortgages, the 1.2 million home owners trapped in negative equity in a declining housing market or, importantly, those sick, disabled and unemployed home owners who are under threat of losing their homes--12,000 is the calculation of

Column 321

the Council of Mortgage Lenders--as a result of the proposal to cut their income support when they get into difficulties.

How can the Minister be so complacent, when the Government of which he is a member have collectively and comprehensively made such an unholy mess of private and public housing provision?

Mr. Curry: The first thing is that no Conservative Member is complacent about that, but equally, no one who suffers from that problem will be comforted by a political rant on the subject. [Interruption.] We are conscious of the difficulties--

[Interruption.] It would be easy for anyone to stand at the Dispatch Box and exude all sorts of phoney rhetoric.

This is a serious matter. The people in those circumstances are unfortunate and I am anxious that they should recover. That is done by taking that into account in the fixing of interest rates--trying to maintain low interest rates. The level of interest rates is the single most important factor.

One must try to ensure that one has sensible relationships with mortgage lenders so that they are understanding and, when people make an honest attempt to make repayments, they make, and continue, arrangements to accommodate them. One must try to ensure that the economy is managed so that we continue to bring people out of unemployment and into employment and so that we can offer hope to people who now find themselves in difficulties. I am as worried about that as anyone in the House.

Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend confirm that people's desire to own their own properties remains as buoyant as ever, notwithstanding the difficulties over repossessions, and that Labour Members' consistent attempts over the years to talk out home ownership have failed again and again? Nearly all the British public want to own their own home.

Mr. Curry: About 230 people a day in Great Britain are entering into home ownership thanks to the various schemes that help them to do so. That can be only because a large number of people believe that that form of tenure suits them. The Government will continue to assist them to acquire such tenure.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister confirm that approximately 1,000 people a week are losing their homes as a result of repossession, and that his Department has received a report from Dr. Janet Ford of Loughborough university, which, I understand, will be published shortly and which demonstrates that private insurance will not provide an adequate safeguard for many home owners in financial difficulty? Will he therefore press his colleague, the Secretary of State for Social Security, to withdraw his ill- conceived and damaging proposals to limit income support, which are already damaging the market and will lead to an increase in repossessions?

Mr. Curry: The report will be published tomorrow, so the hon. Gentleman will have the satisfaction of being able to read it. It is reasonable, however, to ask that private provision should take some of the strain from public provision. The increase in the number of households and the demands on the public purse are such that we must reconsider the frontier that divides the two. My right hon. Friend will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I would be interested to know

Column 322

whether it is Labour party policy to reverse the changes--that is not clear--and how that sits with the new financial probity that, we are told, has fallen on the Labour party.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to minimise the number of repossessions is to ensure that we have, as we do at present, the proper conditions for economic growth? That is shown again by today's announcement that unemployment has fallen for the 20th successive time. Does he further agree that we must ensure that we have not only low interest rates but low inflation levels, and that we must encourage inward investment in this country so that we shall be one million miles away from the social chapter and the minimum wage?

Mr. Curry: It is certainly true that low inflation levels, which can be reflected in low interest rates, are one of the prime factors in helping people to resume their payments. Keeping unemployment falling and people finding employment is equally important in enabling people to resume their payments. Many people manage to recover their arrears. That is to be welcomed and is an essential way forward.

Latham Report

6. Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Latham report in the current Session of Parliament. [23196]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): The Government have no plans to introduce legislation in the current Session. My right hon. Friend has today published a consultation paper on Sir Michael Latham's

recommendations on fair contract conditions.

Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister aware that many companies, including Essex Electrical in my constituency and members of the Electrical Contractors Association, will be bitterly disappointed that the Government have no immediate plans to introduce legislation? Will he give the House an assurance that that is not due to opposition from some of his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, who have ideological objections to regulation?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman's constituents and indeed everyone else would be astonished if we made such an announcement before the end of the consultation period on the first consultative document, and before we had published the second consultative document. The key to success with the Latham recommendations is that we proceed through consensus throughout industry. That is the Government's target. I hope that that will be supported by consensus in the House.

Mr. Lester: Does my hon. Friend consider Sir Michael Latham's work, which I think most of us recognise as thorough and helpful, to be important? Many of us have had problems with subcontractors who have gone bankrupt because they have not been paid for work that they have undertaken. The work of my friend Michael Latham was worth while. I hope that the consultation documents will carry things forward to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no hesitation in praising the work that Sir Michael Latham has done, but he was not the only one. Many people in

Column 323

the construction industry have done an immense amount of work, taking his reports forward into the proposals that have been issued as consultative documents. As one who worked in the construction industry before I was elected to the House, I have every sympathy with subbies. Poor treatment of subcontractors is in no one's best interest. It does not deliver good projects, a healthy industry or good value for money, and we must combat that.

Minewater Pollution

7. Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the National Rivers Authority regarding the allocation of responsibility for the control of minewater pollution; and if he will make a statement. [32197]

Mr. Atkins: My Department maintains regular contact with the National Rivers Authority about minewater pollution. Responsibility for the control of such pollution lies in the first instance with mine operators.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister confirm that the National Rivers Authority is anxious that the Coal Authority should be given a statutory responsibility for pollution arising from mines that have been closed? Although it is working well with the Coal Authority now, should the money run out or should there be a change of policy, there is nothing to stop the authority walking away from mine pollution with potentially devastating consequences. Does the Minister plan to do anything about that?

Mr. Atkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we hold similar views on the determination to ensure that abandoned mines do not cause detrimental pollution. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that during a recent visit to Durham by the chairman of the Coal Authority the matter was discussed between county councillors and the Coal Authority. Durham county council was able to issue a favourable press release afterwards saying that a number of concerns had been addressed. The Coal Authority has a continuing commitment to do what is necessary to treat abandoned mines because of the possibility that they may cause pollution and has confirmed that the pumping, where necessary, will continue. That commitment stands firm.

City Pride

8. Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the city pride initiative. [23198]

Mr. Gummer: Birmingham, London and Manchester have made tremendous progress in pursuing city pride. We will look at what they have achieved before extending the initiative.

Mr. Enright: Is not the way in which the Government look at special schemes and then set them up, excluding other areas, somewhat arbitrary? I am thinking particularly of the single regeneration initiative, which is not all bad and in which some very good things are happening. However, its arbitrary nature is excluding certain areas. South Elmsall, South Kirkby and Upton have been put together, but Hemsworth in the middle, which has equally desperate needs, is not included and that impedes other initiatives.

Mr. Gummer: The single regeneration budget is not in any way arbitrary. People are able to bid for the money

Column 324

and we try to ensure that the bids which provide the best use of the money are met. We try to help those who have failed in the first round to prepare for the bids in the second round. The hon. Gentleman will find that the mix that is achieved--a mixture of meeting the need and finding the best capacity contra to the money put in by the taxpayer--is valuable.

Birmingham, London and Manchester were not chosen arbitrarily. They are the three largest towns in England and it seemed sensible to spread the choice geographically. We must remember that Birmingham has not yet launched its final draft of city pride, but if we find that those cities produce what we hope that they will, we will look to see whether others want to participate. The scheme does not exclude others. When I first announced it, I said that if cities wanted to start outside the scheme, they could do so in the same position as Birmingham, Manchester and London.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of using more private sector involvement in the schemes? I am sure that he is aware of the huge amount of money that the Government are spending on regeneration throughout the country, in both city pride and city challenge. The Government get very little credit for the amount that is spent, perhaps because they usually have to work with hostile Labour local authorities.

Mr. Gummer: It would be helpful in this area to recognise the very large amount of money that the taxpayer puts into these schemes and the significant success of bringing in private capital. There ought to be cross -party support for that. If we get at least £4 and sometimes even £5 or £6 from the private sector for every £1 put into these schemes, we get a great deal more money to help people and to provide the things about which both sides of the House ought to be concerned.

It seems to me that we can at least agree that this initiative is sensible and proper and successful. We must see how we can make it more successful and effective. I want to do that by getting greater co-operation.

Let us take the Manchester scheme. Under city pride, for the very first time, Manchester council is working well with the other two authorities that make up Manchester--Manchester council hardly talked to one of those authorities previously, even though it was a Labour-controlled council--and with the urban development corporations, which were damned from the housetops when they started.

Mr. Vaz: The whole House realises that city pride is nothing more than a public relations exercise initiated by a beleaguered Secretary of State who has run out of ideas for regeneration policy. Despite that, the Manchester, Birmingham and London pride initiatives have used their own time, efforts and resources to prepare excellent policy documents. How does the Secretary of State intend to turn those vision statements into reality when, as he knows, city pride offers no extra resources to any of those local authorities?

Mr. Gummer: I am told by the press that the hon. Gentleman is always a nice man, so I will answer him as nicely as I can, given the total absence of truth in his question. The truth of the matter is that Manchester, London and Birmingham have produced their documents and are very pleased with the co-operation, not only with the Government as a whole but with the Government

Column 325

offices concerned. In one way or another, they have all received significant sums from the single regeneration budget. I am pleased to say that Manchester asked me, as Secretary of State, to launch its scheme, so keen was it on city pride. The hon. Gentleman ought to talk to some of his supporters occasionally.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it does not always need Government cash to get those principles in place? Will he look at what Purbeck district council has done in setting up Purbeck Pride, with only private sector money and not a penny from the Government? The council is creating the sort of pride that is bringing more tourism and business into Purbeck without a penny of public subsidy.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will have noticed that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) not only laughed at the activities of Labour councils in Manchester and Birmingham and many of those in London that are working for city pride, but evidently finds any reference to a rural area incredibly comic. The fact is that the Labour party does not care about rural areas at all. My hon. Friend points out that in many rural areas, entirely by private initiative working with local authorities, we are doing a great deal to achieve what must be done to secure better opportunities for jobs and employment in those areas.

Environment Agency

9. Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that the operations of the proposed environment agency are open to public scrutiny. [23199]

Sir Paul Beresford: We will expect the agency to provide clear and readily available information on its work. It will be subject to the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 requirements to maintain public registers of information on activities which it regulates, and it will be expected to meet the requirements of the Government's code of practice on access to Government information.

Mrs. Jackson: Does the Minister agree that the public are usually the best environmental watchdogs and that they need to have access to all information? Has he forgotten that it was his Government who made local government comply with access to information regulations? Why will he not ensure that the environment agency will be subject to the same rules of accountability as local government?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady forgets the points made to her in Standing Committee. There will be no lack of information on the agency's activities, which will be subject to a variety of requirements. I also remind her of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992, the legislation on public registers, the principle of openness set out in the Government's code of practice on access to Government information, the code of best practice for board members and public bodies, the duty to produce an annual report, and public registers to provide information about licences.

The Environmental Information Regulations 1992 provide a duty to respond to environmental information requests and provide for the inspection of public registers which are available free of charge. Copies can be obtained

Column 326

at a minimal cost. The agency's management statement will ensure public access to meetings of the agency's regional and local committees. Ministers will be accountable to Parliament, too. Finally, the agency can, if it wishes, hold meetings in public. There is a deluge of information.

Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that his diffident and understated answers will be welcomed by his colleagues? Is he further aware that, in the interests of openness, it is important that the public are reassured about some of the leading environmental problems, especially air pollution? Will he see to it that those problems are tackled with the urgency that they deserve, especially in view of the concern felt by my constituents about the possible link between asthma and air pollution?

Sir Paul Beresford: I ask my hon. Friend to consider the Government's reaction to environmental factors. If he follows the progress of the Environment Bill, I think that he will find that we have taken much of that concern on board.

Next Section

Home Page