The Environment (Hansard, 12 July 1991)

§ The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier)
I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk about the Government'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 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.
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?

§ Sir Hugh Rossi
No.
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 1220 difference which the Labour party has not addressed: the responsibility for waste regulation would go to HM IP. 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.

§ 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.

§ 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, 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 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 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 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.

§ Mr. Mans
Will my hon. Friend reflect on what has happened in Liverpool? Will he reflect that Conservative legislation on competitive tendering will clean up the streets of Liverpool and that the Labour-controlled city council is using Conservative legislation which is opposed by the Labour party?

§ Mr. Trippier
My hon. Friend's intervention must make the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen incredibly embarrassed. It is a matter of record that they attacked that legislation when it was going through Parliament, yet now they are glad of the opportunity to use it.
Recycling rubbish obviously makes sense. It reduces the need for landfill sites and saves on energy. British industry already has a reasonable record on recycling and it will become an increasingly attractive and necessary option. As higher standards are introduced and consumer pressure mounts, it will clearly be in the financial self-interest of companies to minimise waste.
Households, on the other hand, currently recycle 6 per cent. of recyclable household waste. This is not good enough, so the Government have set a clear target: their aim is that half of all recyclable household rubbish should be recycled by the end of the century. To help achieve that goal the Government are introducing a system of recycling credits, details of which were announced by my right hon. Friend on 1 July. That scheme will give waste collectors a financial incentive to promote recycling of household waste, by making it the duty of waste disposal authorities to give credits to collection authorities for waste that is diverted from landfill disposal as a result of recycling.
Opposition Members are also quite keen on recycling. They like nothing better than to recycle outdated, lacklustre and ineffective policies. Their policies are not just ineffective but, in many cases, positively damaging.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Trippier
No, not for the moment.
The Opposition plan to phase out nuclear power, which currently provides one fifth of our electricity, in favour of coal-fired generation, despite the fact that coal burning emits pollutants which contribute to acid rain and ozone depletion. That tells me that the Labour party is more committed to a cosy relationship with the trade unions than to the environment.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his Shell lecture, we believe that, far from being a constraint on business, high environmental standards are 1227 a stimulus to develop the goods and services that will compete effectively in the increasingly international markets of the future. It is the Government's task to set and enforce those standards. However, state regulation is far from being the only answer. I remind the House of how state regulation worked in central and eastern Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) said earlier. The market can and must play an important part in meeting standards. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly recognised that the principal task of delivering sustainable development will fall to business. The Government can help the markets to work better partly through taxation and financial penalties, such as the petrol and recycling credit examples that I have given today, and partly through mobilising consumer choice. The emergence of the green consumer as a powerful economic force is one of the most hopeful environmental developments of the past decade, but in order that consumers can make those choices effectively they need accurate information.
That is why we must have honesty. There have been too many examples of misleading green claims which go only as deep as the label on the product. That is why Britain has been pressing hard for early agreement on a system of Europeanwide environmental labelling, which would enforce consistent standards. If agreement cannot be reached by the end of the year, the Government will introduce their own system.
Some particularly serious concerns have been brought to our attention in the past couple of years. One of these was the contamination of land, which was brought. to our attention by the Select Committee. In response to the comprehensive Select Committee report, the Government identified three key areas for further action: first, information on the extent and location of contaminated sites; secondly, assessment criteria for the risks posed by the contamination found there, including the water environment; thirdly, technology and funding for clean-up. Progress has been made on all of those areas, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will concede. Mechanisms for the prevention of future contamination have been strengthened in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 through the provision of integrated pollution control.
Another issue raised by the Environment Select Committee was indoor air pollution, including sick-building syndrome, tobacco smoke and radon. The Government are carefully considering the Select Committee's recently published report on this and will be responding to the Committee in the usual way, and as positively as possible.
Pollution of beaches has also been reported on by the Committee. It found that the risks of serious infection from sea bathing were minimal. Several recommendations were made, however, virtually all of which have been accepted by the Government. Indeed, the Committee's main conclusion about the need for sewage to be treated before being discharged into the sea had become Government policy before the Committee reported. The Committee welcomed our response, saying that there was clearly a considerable measure of agreement between the Government, the N RA and itself as to the way forward in bringing beaches up to a proper standard.
Back in February 1989 the Select Committee issued a report on toxic waste. It was a wide-ranging report which included the whole issue of waste regulation and disposal. 1228 As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, the Committee recommended the separation of waste regulation from local authority waste disposal. I have already dealt with that.
We have also closed loopholes on the regulation of waste management and included a duty of care on waste holders in the Environmental Protection Act 1990—both Committee recommendations. In this debate we are asked to consider the Select Committee's report on Northern Ireland containing 29 recommendations, of which 24 are already being met or have been accepted.
This debate focuses on the United Kingdom environment, but many of the environmental issues that affect us cannot be addressed by the United Kingdom alone. In Europe we led the way on negotiating a nitrate directive designed to protect water from nitrate pollution from agricultural sources. The directive strikes a fair balance between improving water quality and maintaining an efficient agriculture. An estimated 2 million hectares might be designated as nitrate-vulnerable zones under this directive. Farmers within vulnerable zones will be subject to compulsory restrictions based on good agricultural practice.
The United Kingdom must recognise that there are plenty of issues that simply cannot be addressed by the United Kingdom Government alone. There are planetary issues which threaten our very existence. Global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain are problems which we must tackle and are tackling on an international scale. There is no point in Britain cutting back its carbon dioxide emissions if other countries carry on increasing theirs. As we all understand only too well since the nuclear accident at Chernobyl underlined the message, the environment of the United Kingdom cannot be protected simply by working in our national territory. The great global issues which will be debated by the G7 leaders here in London next week at which they will discuss the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development meeting next year in Brazil and other matters of national and international importance which affect the environment.
The Government's efforts have been unstinting on UNCED and the preparations leading up to it. We have taken an international lead in the efforts to halt the depletion of the ozone layer. It was a British scientist who played a key role in identifying the true scale of the problem. It was Britain which hosted two rounds of successful talks in London in the past two years that formed the basis for the current agreement to phase out CFCs by the year 2000.
On climate change, we have already set ourselves a demanding target and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this week, if we can improve on that target, we will. In due course I shall be interested to listen to the Leader of the Opposition when he finally finds his tongue on the environment. I should like him to explain to his trade union colleagues exactly how the Labour party will cut carbon dioxide emissions.
We are already taking a leading part in the international negotiation on agreements to preserve tropical rain forests, maintain biodiversity and develop a charter on environmental rights and obligations.
The task of protecting, maintaining and enhancing the quality of the United Kingdom's environment is one of the central tasks facing the Government. That task must be 1229 carried out at every level from the street corner to the stratosphere. It is a task which the Government are carrying out with determination and vision.

§ Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)
I think that most of us were expecting more from the Minister. We hoped that he would make some announcements. In the past year we have heard little from the Government about environmental protection and one speech from the Prime Minister does not make up for that year of inaction.
I am glad that we are having this debate today, not least because we have waited so long for it. Last year, when the Government published their White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", they promised that we would have a debate on the subject soon after. It has taken us 10 months to get that debate, but I suppose that we should be grateful and say that it is better late than never. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) pointed out, the fact that the debate is taking place on a Friday, when most of our colleagues must be in their constituencies, demonstrates that the Government do not regard environmental protection as a particularly high priority.
I am glad that the Minister of State is with us today, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said, I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not believe that the debate was of sufficient importance to make it his priority to attend.

§ Mr. Mans
The hon. Lady has referred to this debate taking place on a Friday; perhaps she would like to tell the House when the Opposition last used one of their days to debate the environment.

§ Mrs. Taylor
We had a debate that included a discussion of the water environment about two weeks ago.
Today, the Minister gave us his usual mixture of complacency, arrogance and rhetoric. Those involved in environmental protection do not find that a reassuring combination. He claimed that much progress has been made in the past year, but we should consider those problems that are becoming more severe, which cover a range of issues with which the Minister did not deal adequately.

§ Mr. Trippier
If the hon. Lady is going to continue in this vein, perhaps she will answer a simple question. Why was it that when the Labour Government were last in power they actually cut by one third their contribution to the water authorities?

§ Mrs. Taylor
Those matters have been bandied across the table many times, but let me remind the Minister of the figures. During the period of the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979, the average investment in the water industry was £1,254 million a year. The average investment under the Conservative Government between 1979 and the time of privatisation was £922 million a year. That illustrates the significant difference between the levels of investment. Many people believe that that difference was deliberately manufactured because the Government wanted it to appear that privatisation would be successful. If the Minister had spent as much time helping those in the water industry as he has helping the chairmen and 1230 shareholders by subsidising the sale of that industry, the water environment would be in a much healthier state today.

§ Sir Hugh Rossi
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Mrs. Taylor
The hon. Gentleman has already made one long intervention. I have already given way twice and I want to make progress.
I want to suggest to the Minister some of the items that he should have addressed today—I can understand why Conservative Members do not want me to pursue that. In the past year, a number of significant environmental problems have worsened and we should address them.
Energy consumption has increased despite the fact that the gross domestic product has been decreasing. Ministers have pressed ahead with the road building programme regardless of its impact on sites of special scientific interest. Emissions of CO, have increased. We are losing hedgerows at a rate of 4,000 miles a year. In the past year, more than 800 sewage treatment plants have enjoyed immunity from prosecution, despite failing their consents. We must set this debate in its right context. Environmental problems are intensifying and the Minister's self-satisfied complacency is extremely dangerous.
The Minister did not say much about the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", but I am not surprised, given the response to it from the vast majority of environmentalists and the press. The Minister's claims of progress are weak and they do not add up to an environmental protection strategy. They do not suggest that his Department colleagues or senior colleagues at Cabinet level in other Departments are embracing environmental considerations when determining their policies and priorities.
A report entitled "Institutions and Sustainable Development" has been published by the global environment research centre at Imperial college in conjunction with the United Nations Association. That report was sponsored and paid for by the Department of the Environment. It is significant that on the Government's policy of integration the report states: it is hard to find evidence that this is happening to any significant extent …Nor could we find any convincing evidence inside departments that giving Ministers or individual officials specific 'green' responsibilities had made any real difference to their perceptions or policies. That criticism has been frequently levelled by environmental groups and the Minister should take it as a salutary warning. People are studying the policy and are not simply heeding the rhetoric that comes from Ministers.
The Minister briefly mentioned the global environment and climate change. "This Common Inheritance" said that global warming is one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the world—no one can doubt that. The White Paper gives a fair analysis of the problem, but politicians should be judged not simply on their analysis of a problem, but on their commitment to action to solve or combat that problem.
It is important that we consider in detail what the Government have done in the past year on that vital issue. After all, we have had plenty of time to assess the Government's attitude because it is so long since the statement on the White Paper. I am sure that Ministers would agree that they have no excuse for inaction, as we have been given a proper assessment of the severity of the 1231 problem. Ministers know what needs to be done to tackle it and they have the political power to introduce any programme that might be necessary.

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came here thinking that we would be debating the United Kingdom environment, and there are five reports from the Select Committee to debate. The report on tropical forests is not before us; nor is the subject of international global warming. Do you agree that we should debate the subject in question?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The motion is that the House do now adjourn. I have not heard anything from the hon. Lady that has been out of order.

§ Mrs. Taylor
Either the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) does not agree with the Minister, who raised the issue, or does not understand the problems that exist. It is incredible that some Conservative Members clearly believe that we can opt out of the problem of global environment. All the problems on that front affect all of us, and the Minister acknowledged that the Government have a role to play in tackling them.
We now know the intensity of the problems of climate change and we know that some steps that must be taken quickly. The question is whether there is the political will to tackle the problems in the right way. I must, therefore, examine the issue of climate change, despite the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, and the stance that the British Government have taken in the negotiations for a framework convention on climate change. Such a convention is the main hope for international agreement for action on a scale adequate to deal with the matter.
The British Government have put forward several papers on the subject. The original document was known as paper No. 9, though I gather that the Minister argues that the intention was to reflect existing consensus rather than to establish new tactics. The Government then tabled a paper entitled "The Draft United Kingdom Paper on Possible Elements for Inclusion in a Framework Convention on Climate Change." That took us little further forward and I was disappointed with the suggestions made in it, because the Government do not appear to be taking the matter seriously enough.

§ Mr. Trippier
On reflection, the hon. Lady may wish to apologise to me and the House, because she is clearly not aware that 120, possibly more, countries will be discussing the matter at Rio in June of next year and we have immense pride in the fact that the British text has been selected for negotiation in the first instance. What on earth is the hon. Lady talking about?

§ Mrs. Taylor
The Minister's proposal of a low starting point in the discussion has let many other Governments off the hook, and that is the real difficulty which the British Government have created. To show how the latest document reveals a lack of seriousness on the part of the Government, it says, for example: In formulating these strategies, developed countries should agree to take as a guideline that the stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions should be achieved by them as soon as possible. How can progress be made with such meaningless statements? What has happened to the precautionary principle on which I thought it was accepted we should now make progress?

§ Mr. Trippier
The hon. Lady is on a weak point. The British Government have been praised by all the member states in Europe—

§ Mrs. Taylor
That is not so.

§ Mr. Trippier
The hon. Lady is not in a position to say that. When I attended the last meeting of UNCED in Nairobi a few weeks ago the paper that was introduced—she is right to say that it represented only the beginning of negotiations—

§ Mrs. Taylor
I gave way to the Minister. What is his point?

§ Mr. Trippier
The hon. Lady should stop being so unpatriotic. She should not drag the country down. The Labour party delights in dragging the country down and selling it short, and nobody enjoys it more than the hon. Lady.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that the Minister is not dragging me into it, too.

§ Mrs. Taylor
The Minister enjoys winding himself up on these matters. He presents papers and makes statements abroad as though nobody in Britain will check on what he has done. The Government are selling the country short. They are refusing to set the right target and stiff timetable that are needed to benefit everyone, in Britain and the rest of the world.

§ Mr. Trippier
What is Labour's target?

§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)
Yes, we want to know.

§ Mrs. Taylor
If Conservative Members are keen to have that information, I will give it to them. The Minister is arguing as though the Labour party had never published a target. We have said clearly that we want to achieve the sort of target that most other European countries want, and that is stabilisation of CO, emissions by the year 2000. It is incumbent on the Minister to explain why Britain must be in the second division on this issue and why we cannot meet the same targets as other EC countries.

§ Mr. Roger King
The hon. Lady has talked about working towards the year 2000 for the stabilisation and reduction of CO2 emissions. Has she had the opportunity of checking that with her trade union friends, particularly Mr. Arthur Scargill and the National Union of Mineworkers? Mr. Scargill envisages the expansion of the coal industry, which would mean fossil fuel being burned. The Labour party insists that nuclear energy shall be phased out and then eliminated. So presumably they are talking about more fossil fuel-powered stations based on coal, in which case the figures that the hon. Lady has given could not be met.

§ Mrs. Taylor
The hon. Gentleman exhibits total ignorance of the subject. I shall explain how our target would be achieved—[Interruption]—and I assure Conservative Members that it remains Labour policy. It is also the policy of most other EC countries. The British Government are lagging behind, admitting by not doing as well as other countries that they deserve to be in the second division on this issue.

§ Mr. Trippier
rose—

§ Mrs. Taylor
I shall give way to the Minister for the last time.

§ Mr. Trippier
The hon. Lady cannot be allowed to get away with her last statement. Nobody inside or outside the House can believe what she is saying. The Labour party claims that it could stabilise CO₂ emissions by the year 2000, when it is already committed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) pointed out, to phasing out nuclear power, which makes a 20 per cent. contribution to our energy requirements, and replace that by coal. It would be physically impossible to achieve Labour's aims, because that phasing out would bring about an increase in CO₂ emissions. The hon. Lady is being totally misleading.

§ Mrs. Taylor
The Minister should study some of the research that has been done in this area. He is admitting, from his comments today, that he has not examined the issue in sufficient detail. Otherwise he would know that our policy statements and commitments about stabilising CO2 emissions are realistic and achievable and predate the White Paper.
I appreciate why the Government are trying to wriggle out of making binding commitments on the international scene. What is the Minister's view of the United State's position, and why are the British Government almost helping America to get away from making binding and legal targets and commitments? Many issues must be raised—[Interruption]—and it seems that the British Government are not taking a leading position in dealing with these issues—

§ Mr. Roger King
Oh dear.

§ Mrs. Taylor
—and that they do not recognise or want to make progress—[Interruption]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I appeal to hon. Members to desist from making sedentary and audible comments, which impede the progress of debate. Other hon. Members are waiting to make speeches. I hope that we shall have better order than we appear to have at the moment.

§ Mrs. Taylor
Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because the facts embarrass the Government, Conservative Members would prefer to have them shut out.
I urge the Government to be as candid about targets —and the Minister to be frank when giving his point of view—as the Labour party. Our commitment is clear. Will the Minister clarify further just what is the Government's commitment? The White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", says—the Prime Minister said it again on Monday—that the Government will accept a target for the stabilisation of CO2 emissions by the year 2005 only if other countries do the same. Why does the document say, "only if other countries do the same"? What happens if other countries do not meet that obligation? For example, what happens if the United States lags behind? Does that mean that Britain should also lag behind? If the Minister wishes to intervene to clarify that point, I am happy to give way.

§ Mr. Trippier
I am happy to clarify that issue. We are already committed to it. As I said in my opening remarks, it would be silly nonsense if all countries did not abide by 1234 international agreements. Clearly, it would be nonsense if we alone were to do so. We want everyone else to act in the same way.

§ Mrs. Taylor
The Minister has still not answered the question.

§ Mr. Trippier
They are doing it.

§ Mrs. Taylor
The Minister is dodging the issue. He has not said what would happen if the United States or any other country lags behind. I should like the Minister to say that, regardless of whether other countries meet the target, this country must meet it, even though the target is inadequate by our standards. Why do the Minister of State and the Prime Minister always have the rider, "if other countries also meet the target"? Why cannot we have the clear commitment that the Labour party has made even on the date, which is not as good as ours?
We cannot opt out of the effects of global warming or our responsibilities to set and meet our own targets. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will explain his attitude on some other suggestions that are being put forward at the climate change convention. For example, I hope that he will tell us that he intends to reject the attitude of the Japanese, who simply say that everyone should do their best. I also hope that he will say that the targets should be confined to CO2 emissions and that the burden should not be spread so that developing countries are faced with difficulties with which they cannot cope.

§ Mr. Roger King
The hon. Lady suggested that the Government are not taking a leading role in promoting conservation and reducing CO2 emissions. Has she, perchance, seen today's issue of The Timesin which there is an article entitled Heseltine attacks Sununu over gases"? The Secretary of State has written an extremely strong letter to Mr. Sununu saying that he is no longer prepared to accept the lethargy of the United States in its resolve to tackle CO2 emissions, for which the United States accounts for some 23 per cent. Therefore, the Government are taking a leading role even against our closest ally.

§ Mrs. Taylor
I do not wish to intrude into a possible conflict between the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman refers to the United States as our closest ally, but some of his colleagues think that our European allies should fill that role. One letter does not excuse the fact that the Government have been covering for the United States at international conferences.
Conservative Members have asked how realistic our targets are and how they could be achieved. They should be well aware of the evidence on energy efficiency submitted to the Select Committee recently. This country's efforts with regard to energy efficiency are extremely poor. Friends of the Earth evidence shows that we could easily achieve our targets on CO2 emissions simply by improving energy efficiency. It is a sad commentary on what has been happening to this country in recent years that there has been such a decline in areas such as double glazing and heating control, which could have done so much. Markets have declined, not least because of the Government's policies and approach.
It is no wonder that Sir Anthony Pilkington, whose group owns an insulation factory, has praised the Labour party and said: 1235 this country is suffering from a lack of Government policy on energy conservation. We have suffered time and again from a lack of Government policies. We have seen their priorities, such as the privatisation of electricity. The Government's priority was not to consider the environment or press ahead with flue gas desulphurisation. Rather, it was to sell off, at great cost to the taxpayer, an industry which is now charging high prices, making large profits and paying top management scandalous and outrageous salaries.

§ Mr. Mans
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Mrs. Taylor
No, I must press on, because there will shortly he a statement and I have taken longer than I intended.
It is not only on climate change and energy efficiency that we have not made much progress in the past year. Pollution from vehicles is a major problem, with which the Government still refuse to deal. The problem of sites of special scientific interest was mentioned earlier. The Nature Conservancy Council estimates that 161 SSSIs are affected by the English road programme. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation has said that 372 areas of wildlife interest are affected; 30 National Trust sites are threatened and the M25 is threatening and will affect 37 ancient woodlands. Time and again we see that the Government's priority is not public or rail transport. Because of that, we are all suffering in environmental terms and from a lack of choice about the form of transport that we use.

§ Mr. Spearing
Is my hon. Friend aware that in paragraph 5.58 of the White Paper the Government agree that in London, rail transport for commuters is the most effective means? However, on the notorious east London river crossing, a six-lane motorway will be the main means by which commuters from north Kent will reach the notorious Canary wharf scheme, where 50,000 jobs are going. They will then go through Newham and add to the exhaust pollution there. Would not it be better to extend the docklands light railway over that bridge to provide the choice of which my hon. Friend speaks?

§ Mrs. Taylor
As ever, my hon. Friend has done his homework on that issue and has not only come up with an idea but knows the feasibility of the project. Therefore, as always, he has a strong case.
If we compare the priority that is given to rail transport in this country with that given elsewhere, we realise why our rail system is so appalling. It is starved of investment. Britain spends 0.12 per cent. of its gross domestic product on support for the railways. The European average is 0.7 per cent., which means that European countries spend on average six times as much supporting their rail service.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber mentioned Oxleas woods. I confirm to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the EC has sent a formal letter to the British Government because of their failure to implement the environmental impact assessment directive, which includes the problems that have been created at Twyford Down, the east London river crossing and the Hackney Mll link road. The Government are not implementing the directive properly and the EC is about to intervene. If the Minister was monitoring properly what was happening, he should be aware of that fact.
1236 The Minister referred to the following point in two lines and I understand why he did not want to say more. We have seen some remarkable developments in the past few weeks. First, the director of the National Rivers Authority, John Bowman, and then the recently appointed head of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's most senior conservation adviser in Great Britain, Sir Frederick Holliday, resigned. Sir Frederick resigned because of clear political difficulties that had undermined his position. The saga of the break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council was not a happy one, and the blow to the new structure was serious and should make Ministers understand that they will have to make choices. In this case, they will have to choose between the needs of conservationists and the wishes of the rich land owners, including some of those in another place. It was clear that some Ministers made their choice and, as Sir Frederick said, the implications of the issue go far beyond Scotland to affect nature conservation in Britain.
Sir Frederick Holliday is obviously not a man to resign lightly or without good reason. Clearly, he could not accept that the personal interests of a few Scottish landowners should take precedence over the needs of the environment. The way in which his committee has been bypassed in relation to those vital changes is extremely serious. The Minister said that he was pursuing the matter urgently and would let Sir Frederick have his views next week. From the Minister's comments on SSSIs generally, I do not think that very much that he can say will be reassuring.
During the debate on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) said on 24 June, at column 817 of Hansard, that the Department of the Environment had been consulted. That makes the Department of the Environment party to the decision that was made. Is that true? If so, what did the Minister tell his Scottish colleagues? I am happy to give way if the Minister wishes to clarify the position.

§ Mr. Trippier
I was consulted.

§ Mrs. Taylor
I am grateful for that clarification. Does that mean that the Department of the Environment has less clout than the Scottish Office? The Minister was overruled and I presume that the Secretary of State backed him up; does that mean that the Scottish Office has more clout than the Department of the Environment? It says little for the much-feted ministerial committee for co-ordinating environment policy. Where was the co-ordination of environment policy on that issue?
It is no wonder that the Council for the Protection of Rural England states: The promise of a significant shift in the attitude of the Government Departments has entirely failed to materialise. The Minister must realise that it is not just other Departments that have reneged on pledges to care for the environment; the record of Ministers at the Department of the Environment is not so bright. Let us consider their policy and record on common land. The 1987 Conservative manifesto gave a clear, specific commitment that the Government would legislate to safeguard common land on the basis of the Common Land Forum. The Minister will be aware that there were questions throughout 1987, 1988 and 1989 on when that legislation would be introduced.
1237 Almost a year ago, at the end of the parliamentary Session last July—I think that it was the day before the House rose for the summer recess—the Minister issued a statement, in reply to what appeared to be a planted question, saying that the Department was reneging on that promise and commitment in the manifesto, and nothing has happened since. All those involved in the Common Land Forum, apart from the landowners, were extremely distressed at what was happening but they tried to be accommodating and see what could be done. They offered to compromise and suggested to the Minister introducing a short Bill to protect existing common land. The Minister refused to do so. I think that when people vote in the next election and look at the environmental commitments in the Conservative manifesto, assuming that there are any, they should measure those promises against the record of what the Government have done in relation to a clear, simple, straightforward commitment given in the 1987 manifesto, on which they have taken no action.
We have proposed an environment protection executive. The Minister will recall that we moved amendments to try to incorporate such an executive and agency into the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As late as 30 January last year, the Minister and his colleagues voted against an independent environment protection executive, which was also ruled out on page 232 of the White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", published last October. The Prime Minister said that there was to be a U-turn and the Government would issue a consultative document later in the year.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
I wish that, instead of talking about citizen charters and providing protection for the people, the Government would do something about the fear in my constituency about the level of dioxin in milk. Despite all their blather, the Government refuse to have a public inquiry into the case of two farms where the farmers have been deprived of their livelihoods because they are not allowed to milk their cows any more. There are 25 other sites where there are doubts about safety levels. The standards were changed at the end of 1990 by a factor of 10. If that had not been so, every farm in the district would have been included in the danger zone. The Government talk about a charter, but refuse to have a public inquiry to allay the fears of the people in Bolsover or pay compensation to the farmers. They are all talk and no action.

§ Mrs. Taylor
As my hon. Friend says, the Government are frequently all talk and no action. The case he has 1238 highlighted reflects the widespread concern of many people, especially parents, at the deteriorating standards and present contamination.
The Royal Society for Nature Conservation stated that the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to the policies advocated by some for years. It describes the Prime Minister's speech as smacking of piggy bank politics. We do not mind that; our backs are broad enough to stand it. We welcome the reversal and the fact that the Prime Minister made that speech.

§ Mr. Trippier
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Mrs. Taylor
No, because there is to be a statement in a moment.
We are pleased that the Prime Minister made his statement on the same day that the Fabian Society document was released. The document went further than anything the Government have ever published and explains exactly how the environment protection executive would work in practice. It is easy for people to make a comparison between a Government who snatch at ideas when they run out of steam and the Labour party, which is preparing for government and knows how to implement its policies.
However, I am worried that there is to be a long period of consultation, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue in his wind-up speech. I am tempted to ask the Minister why we need another consultative document and more time. After all, Ministers are the very last people to be committed to the policy. Everyone else is clear and knows the direction in which they want to move. If the Minister wants there to be a consultative period, I make the offer that I will put in a word for him with the Fabians and the consultations can take place on the basis of that document.
My fear is that, yet again, we shall get too little, too late from the Government. Time and again, we have seen that the Government are not willing to take the actions that are required to give environmental proptection the priority that it deserves. The Government's attempt at integrating environmental policy with other Departments has been a sham and a failure. As was demonstrated by the Minister's speech this morning, the Government have run out of steam. They have no record on which they dare face the electorate. The sooner the election comes and we get a Labour Government committed to giving the right priority to environmental protection, the better. As soon as the election comes, we will be ready for government and we will implement the policies that we have already worked out.