§ '( )—(1) The Secretary of State may by Order transfer such of his functions under this Act as he considers appropriate, including any of the functions specified in subsection (3), below which are vested in him under this Act, to any body established in accordance with subsection (2) below.
§ (2) The Secretary of State may by Order within two years of the passing of this Act establish an Environmental Protection Executive with a regional structure corresponding in area to any regional authorities established in England, Scotland and Wales.
§ (3) The functions of any body established under this section may by Order made by the Secretary of State include—
- (a) the promotion of preventive measures against pollution, clean technologies and the development of integrated pollution control generally;
- (b) the prescription of processes falling within national control in accordance of Part I of this Act:
- (c) the issuing of advice as to best practice in the management of waste, including hazardous waste, in accordance with the provisions of Part II below;
- (d) the promotion of recycling and the reduction of waste;
- (e) the monitoring of national standards as to pollution, waste management, statutory nuisance, litter and substances and organisms falling within Parts V and VI below;
- (f) the promotion with local authorities of Environmental Impact Analysis in planning matters;
- (g) the undertaking of long-term research on environmental and ecological matters;
- (h) the promotion of public education as to environmental matters, where appropriate in liaison with local education authorities;
- (i) the co-ordination of improvements to the environment in inner city areas, including the reclamation of urban land;
- (j) the exercise on behalf of the Secretary of State of functions under sections 116 or 117 in relation to toxic waste;
- (k) the monitoring of activities connected with dumping at sea as referred to in section 119 below;
- (l) the provision of advice and recommendations as to financial assistance for environmental purposes in accordance with section 122 below; and
- (m) the promotion of international co-operation on environmental measures and the dissemination of best practice.
§ (4) The Executive shall have such a membership as appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of organisations concerned with environmental, scientific and conservation matters, and of local authorities.
§ (5) Any order issued under subsection (2) above shall include provision for the incorporation as freestanding specialist persons or bodies within any body established under this section of the chief inspector and his staff, the National Rivers Authority and such other bodies or Departments of State, or parts thereof, as the Secretary of State may determine, and any such body shall have such powers of overall direction and the issuing of guidance, and such duties to promote co-operation and joint working, as the Secretary of State may by order specify.'.—[Mr. Murphy.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. MurphyI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 24—Functions of local authorities—
'( )—(1) For the purposes of protecting and enhancing the environment of their areas, the functions of local authorities as specified in this Act shall include—
- (a) the promotion, protection and enhancement of the natural and physical environment in their areas, in liaison with national and regional bodies with environmental regulatory functions;
- (b) the monitoring and auditing of the quality of the local environment in accordance with standards established under this Act; or by the National Executive or the Secretary of State;
- (c) the provision of public information on environmental matters relevant to the local area;
- (d) the co-ordination of other local authority functions for the purpose of enhancing the local environment;
- (e) the local enforcement of requirements in relation to integrated pollution control, waste management, statutory nuisance and such other standards as may be determined under this Act;
- (f) the maintenence of such public registers or authorisations, applications and infringements of standards as may be required under this Act; and
- (g) the undertaking of environmental impact assessments into local processes capable of causing pollution or likely to arise from developmant applications.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, in respect of any financial year in which the functions specified under this section, or otherwise under this Act, are exercisable by local authorities satisfy himself that the resources available to those authorities are adequate to secure the proper carrying out of those functions.(3) The functions of local authorities under this section may be exercised through one or more committees of elected members of the authority.'.
§
New clause 25—Protection from hazardous and other wastes—
'( )—(1) This section shall have effect for the purpose of maintaining and improving the protection of persons and of the environment from hazardous or other waste or injurious substances or articles.
(2) The Secretary of State shall exercise any powers vested in him under the relevant provisions of Part VIII or under this
1108
section for the purposes of securing the objectives specified in subsection (1) above, and in particular he shall, whether by regulations or otherwise—
§ Mr. MurphyNew clause 23 refers to the setting up of an environmental protection executive with a regional structure. We dealt with that issue on several occasions in Committee. Such a body would deal with preventive measures against pollution, with integrated pollution control in general, with research, and with co-ordinating the various functions affecting pollution. It would be made up of experts, scientists and representatives of local authorities. It would release the Secretary of State from many burdens. It would effectively mean a decentralisation of control over pollution and other matters in the United Kingdom.
New clause 24 would reflect that proposal at local level. Local authorities would be used as local environmental protection agencies. When local authorities were established 150 years ago, they dealt with sanitation and housing, so they actually set the ball rolling on environmental protection. Over the years they have developed expertise in the collection and disposal of waste; in the cleaning of streets and roads; in the monitoring of pollution of the air and sea; in noise abatement; in transport, planning and housing; and in leisure and tourism. They have a unique experience and expertise in environmental matters. They would be ideally suited to be local environmental protection agencies. Above all, they would be accountable to the electorate.
New clause 25 would strengthen the Secretary of State's position with regard to hazardous and toxic wastes, especially imports and exports. We spent many an hour in Committee dealing with the problems of imported toxic waste. It is a matter of considerable public concern, which was evidenced by the Karin B and the exports of Canadian PCBs to ReChem in my constituency in south Wales. There is no doubt that on both those occasions there was considerable public dismay at the fact that advanced countries, not Third-world countries, were dumping some of the most poisonous wastes known to man in these islands. There need to be the strongest possible controls on such importations.
1109 We are also worried about imports to landfill sites. New clause 25 gives the Secretary of State greater power to ban the importation of toxic waste to such sites. The Select Committee on the Environment proposed a complete ban on such imports. For example, we heard about the 75,000 tonnes of PCB—contaminated waste on its way to the Cwmrhydyceirw quarry site from West Germany via East Germany. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked me to mention that case, and I gladly do so. The tremendous upheavals and changes in eastern Europe, which had a much laxer regime for toxic waste, mean that waste that would have been dumped in landfill sites in eastern Europe can no longer be dumped there and could end up in Britain unless we have the strongest possible legislation to ensure that we deal only with the waste that we ourselves generate.
That is a major issue. I know that the Minister has considerable sympathy with much of what I have said and I look forward to his reply.
§ Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen)The present structure for the management of aqueous and solid waste and aerial discharges from factories is fragmented. We welcomed the establishment of the National Rivers Authority last year, but air pollution and toxic waste disposal from industry are matters for local authorities and HMIP, and the standards that prevail are variable. It is a matter of regret for many hon. Members that the Government have not adopted in the Bill the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Environment and based the WRAs on regional authorities rather than the county and district councils in Wales.
But more important is the role of HMIP in the control of air pollution. We are all aware of the shortcomings of HMIP. It is an inadequate and understaffed body where morale is poor. It is overloaded with responsibilities and the Bill gives it massive additional responsibilities.
New clause 23 outlines the structure and responsibilities of an environmental protection executive. It is a concise formulation, giving wide-ranging responsibilities. It would be an umbrella organisation for the NRA, local authorities and so on. Many European countries have such an agency. The United States established its Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. We are 20 years behind some countries.
New clause 24 complements new clause 23 and defines the responsibilities of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke eloquently of the role of local authorities over the centuries in providing water and sanitation services and caring for the local environment generally. New clause 24 underlines their role as local environmental protection agencies.
8.15 pm
New clause 25 deals with the management of hazardous waste, a matter which has so far received insufficient attention. We try to manage our rivers reasonably. With tens of thousands of incidents of water pollution every year, I am not happy with our standards, but at least we have an infrastructure for the management of our rivers and, over the decades, our standards have been gradually improving.
But our philosophy on the disposal of solid waste has always been "Out of sight, out of mind". Once it has been dumped somewhere, we think very little about it. But we are now having cases of contaminated land and of 1110 leachates contaminating water courses and possibly even water supplies. We should look much more carefully at the management of hazardous waste. Some of the waste that is dumped is as toxic as nuclear waste, yet we would never consider dumping nuclear waste as landfill. We also need to look carefully at co-disposal in Britain—the practice of disposing of toxic waste alongside domestic refuse. Other countries do not do that. It is banned in the United States and the European Commission may soon issue a directive banning it here, too.
New clause 25 also seeks to prohibit the importation of waste for direct landfill. It is appalling that waste from countries where its use as landfill is illegal should come here to be disposed of on the cheap. This is a massive growth industry in Britain. Our imports of toxic waste have increased tenfold in the past decade simply because it is cheap to get rid of it here, as our standards are laxer than elsewhere.
Waste can be treated by various solidification processes. Unfortunately, some are unreliable and need to be carefully supervised and monitored. Treated waste may be more acceptable, but all countries should eventually treat their own waste and develop facilities for its disposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen referred to the Cwmrhydyceirw quarry where a lot of waste is presently imported for landfill. It has contracts with Swiss companies to import what in Switzerland is classified as special waste but which here is not classified as hazardous waste. There is a difference in definition. Recently, it was about to sign contracts for the importation of a massive cargo from West Germany which had previously been destined for East Germany. There is a tremendous danger in the next few years of our taking West German exports of toxic waste as it can no longer dump waste cheaply in East Germany and will look for sites elsewhere. Britain could be a prime site as it is so cheap to dispose of waste here.
In the last sentence of new clause 25 we call for a national audit of toxic and all other waste because if we consider the issue nationally, we shall develop disposal facilities commensurate with the national problem. I am thinking in particular about incinerators. On Monday, the Minister talked about the incineration of sewage sludge and said that finding sites for such incinerators will become a major problem in the next 10 years.
If we had not had the experience of ReChem in Pontypool things might have been better. That incinerator was built to service industry in south Wales, the south-west and the midlands. It has become an international facility and its main business is the importation and incineration of polychlorinated biphenyls. The plant has gained a bad reputation among everyone who thinks anything of the environment.
The problem with siting incinerators in the north-east and on the east coast is that the public will fear that they will be used for the incineration of toxic waste.
New clause 25 does not go quite far enough. The Labour party thinks that we should ban the importation of all toxic waste unless it can be demonstrated to be in the wider international interest to import it.
I commend the three new clauses to the House. They would set up an environmental protection executive, give a more explicit role to local authorities and improve the management of hazardous waste.
§ Mr. TrippierI have some sympathy with a great deal of what the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) have said. As hon. Members will recall, we discussed the environmental protection executive, as it is called in new clause 23, at some length on 30 January. I thought that we had a helpful and interesting discussion then. If I recommend to the House that we reject new clauses 23 and 24, it is not because I do not accept the spirit behind them or what has been said in debate; it is simply because such a course would be premature.
The hon. Member for Torfaen knows that there has been another opportunity to listen to similar suggestions in another place, when my noble Friend the Earl of Cranbrook spoke in an earlier debate. His appointment as chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council has met with wide acclaim and is highly regarded. I found that debate interesting.
On several occasions in Committee, I gave the commitment that we would consider institutional change in the White Paper that we said should be published in the autumn, and we shall do that.
The hon. Members for Torfaen and for Carmarthen made some comments about the responsibility of local authorities. I do not demur. They will recall that we have given additional responsibilities to local authorities during the passage of the Bill. The local authority associations seem to have welcomed that, and it has met with universal support in the House, as it did in Committee. I cannot remember a single Division on the issue.
I have difficulty with the idea of regional responsibility. The hon. Member for Carmarthen said that he wants there to be regional responsibility for waste regulation. He has heard me denounce that idea in the past. I will not repeat what I said in Committee.
This afternoon, I met a delegation from the metropolitan borough of Wakefield to talk about a tip in that area which is well known in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen will know, Wakefield is a Labour-controlled borough. The all-party delegation and the Labour chairman of the regulatory body in that area made it abundantly clear to me that the last thing that they would want is a regional regulatory body. Perhaps they are at odds with the parliamentary Labour party or the Labour Members on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. They clearly are at odds. If I had that experience with one metropolitan borough, I have no doubt that, if I had the opportunity to meet others, I would experience it again.
§ Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)Does the Minister agree that, when we consider protection of the environment, the environment is the overriding factor, not falling in line with exactly what local government want to do? We genuinely believe that regional waste regulatory authorities are the direction in which we should be going. We are strong supporters of local government, but this may be an instance when we would take a slightly different approach because it is highly desirable for the environment.
§ Mr. TrippierI respect the hon. Gentleman's views on the matter. I have heard them in the past. I am simply pointing out to him that those were not the views expressed by the leader of Wakefield council—Mr. John Pearman—this afternoon. Clearly, we do not have unanimity on the issue.
1112 I must tell the hon. Member for Carmarthen that the Labour councillors also told me at that meeting—without my soliciting the comment—that they thought that the argument produced in The Observer, with help from Friends of the Earth, in which many contaminated land tips were denounced, was the most irresponsible piece of journalism that they have ever come across. I pray that in aid because, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen may remember, I used similar words on several occasions in Committee.
I feel under an obligation to deal with new clause 25, because I recognise that there is some thrust behind it. It is an old friend and we discussed it in Committee. It is a large handbag containing a number of objects that Opposition Members believe that the Secretary of State might find useful.
The first two subsections require restriction or prohibition of exports which might endanger the environment overseas. The first applies to the export of substances, the import, use or supply of which the Secretary of State has prohibited or restricted under clause 116. That power is not necessary or appropriate because the United Kingdom already operates regimes under international agreements to implement exports of hazardous substances and wastes.
The second subsection would require the exercise of what, to my mind, is impossible judgment. The Secretary of State would be obliged to prohibit the export of substances and articles if he thinks that the recipients are not competent to use them safely. We discussed that at some length in Committee. The Government believe that it would be a more constructive and realistic approach—and perhaps less patronising—to help less-developed countries through the active promotion of technology transfer, including the transfer of technical, scientific and professional know-how. There is not just a difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government on that issue; there is a yawning chasm.
I appreciate that a debate on the subject would not be complete without someone trying to criticise ReChem. I suppose that we could all have written the script. I was not particularly surprised that the hon. Members who represent the constituency in which ReChem is situated and the neighbouring constituency used this opportunity to have another stab at it. We do not do that.
If the sophisticated facilities provided by ReChem are properly licensed and monitored—I have said on several occasions in Committee how many times inspectors from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution have visited these sites—we must be satisfied. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government, I wonder whether they would try to close the ReChem plant. I doubt it. I wonder whether they would impose tougher standards or emission targets. This part of the Bill raises standards, as it should. IPC comes under part I. The hon. Members for Torfaen and for Carmarthen have welcomed that.
I have delayed the House too long on this matter. Paragraphs (f) and (g) of new clause 25 would require unacceptable, burdensome, bureaucratic arrangements to be created for purposes which could not justify them. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press any of the new clauses to a vote.
§ Mr. MurphyI am grateful for the Minister's comments on new clauses 23 and 24. He said that institutional change will be on the agenda both during the Bill's passage through the other place and when we consider the White Paper on the environment. In that event, I have no hesitation in not pressing the new clause to a Division.
I smile at the devolution argument which has been turned on its head by the Minister. Only two hours or so ago, the Government were the champions of devolution with regard to the NCC and its break-up, but they now appear to wonder whether regional responsibility for waste disposal is a good thing.
I am interested in the Minister's comments about the importation of toxic waste. It is the policy of the Opposition and of many others, including some members of the Conservative party, that there should be a full-scale, independent public inquiry into what occurs at ReChem. There has been no indication that a Labour Government would close that plant. As I understand it, a large proportion of the substances in which it deals are, in effect, non-hazardous compared with PCBs. The controversy surrounds PCBs, which are extremely poisonous, and the importation of toxic wastes. I think that we all agree that each advanced country should look after its own toxic wastes. It is not right that advanced countries should send their poisons here to Britain, to Wales and to my constituency to be dealt with.
§ Mr. TrippierI could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. His last point is perfectly valid. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the lead in the European Council of Ministers by saying that we should not only persuade the other 11 members of the European Community but take the matter to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. On that matter, we are as one. Developed, industralised countries should be responsible for dealing with their own hazardous waste and should be self-sufficient in that sense. There is no difference between the Government and the Labour party on that. The difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is with the developing or Third-world countries which do not have the necessary facilities. Our world concern is that, if we are not careful and that waste cannot be dealt with properly, it may be dumped in the sea or in some dark corner of Africa, where it will be a great danger to life and limb.
§ Mr. MurphyWe are at one on that point. Much of what has been said in this short debate is a matter of agreement. I shall not press the new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the motion.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.