European Commission (Hansard, 18 May 1994)

§ 1. Mr. Mackinlay
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what environmental issues Her Majesty's Government are in dispute with the European Commission.

§ The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer)
There are no outstanding cases.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that some of us find that answer quite amazing? It is known that the Government have been tardy in implementing the water directives, with the consequence that the Commission brought us before the European Court. Can he assure us that the nitrogen oxide directives will be implemented in full, especially in the east Thames corridor, which does not have the air quality monitoring units that exist elsewhere? They are desperately needed because of the high and rising incidence of asthma in the south-east of England.

§ Mr. Gummer
The United Kingdom has an extremely good record in implementing and enforcing European Community law. Between 1988 and 1992, a number of environmental complaints against the UK were examined by the Commission, but they resulted in only 2 per cent. of the European Court of Justice environmental judgments against member states. That makes our record very much better than that of most other member states.
The hon. Gentleman was surprised by my answer only because he has been taken in by the publicity of his own Front Bench, which always runs down Britain instead of supporting its very fine environmental record.

§ Mr. Sykes
Is not it wrong for the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—a constituency that is not exactly everyone's idea of an environmentally sensitive area—to trump up charges and create divisions in a week when his party is daily beset by divisions, left, right and centre?

§ Mr. Mackinlay
At least the hotels do not fall in the sea.

§ Mr. Gummer
The House will accept that in these matters it is better to keep to the relevant fact, which is that there are no outstanding cases against the United Kingdom. 794 That shows that we are doing our best to meet the very high standards that we set ourselves and which other countries do not meet to the same degree.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be a little more open with the House and admit that there are areas in which the European Community has said that we should do things, but where the British Government and people have not. The obvious example is the one that he admitted to the House just over a week ago: that we have only 80 per cent.—not 100 per cent.—compliance with the bathing water directive and the need for clean beaches.
Will the right hon. Gentleman now introduce a package that will allow us to obey European law and comply with the directive? Will he work out, across the parties, if necessary, and with local authorities and other agencies how the money can be found to implement that?

§ Mr. Skinner
Go on: tell him he's a two-faced Liberal.

§ Mr. Gummer
I always try not to state the obvious from the Dispatch Box.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) must accept that we are meeting the requirements of the European Community to which we are signatories. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should do so faster than we have agreed. He will remember that he has not suggested that we should spend even more than the £3,000 million a year that we currently spend. As usual, he wants us to do more than the EC wants, but he is not prepared to pay the bill. Whenever he is offered the bill, he tells his constituents that someone else will pay.

§ Mr. George Howarth
Does the Secretary of State accept that, despite his protestations to the contrary, the problem is seriously growing? How does he explain that, in coastal towns, 40 per cent. of the raw sewage goes straight into the sea? How can he explain or defend the fact that, on the urban waste water directive—another thing to which the Government have signed up—there is no programme in place to meet the compliance which is expected by 2005? The Secretary of State is finding excuses not to do things. When will we have a Secretary of State who tells us how he will meet the directives in the time expected of him?

§ Mr. Gummer
We are committed to meeting our requirements and obligations and we are spending £3,000 million a year. The hon. Gentleman can hardly say that. When challenged last week, the Labour party produced no figures or facts and no policy on water at all.
The hon. Gentleman should remember that, in terms of European Court of Justice judgments, Italy, Belgium, Germany, France, Greece, Netherlands and Luxembourg all have worse records than the United Kingdom. We have one judgment against us, which shows how very much better we are doing than most other EC countries.

§ Mr. Mans
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many Select Committee reports associated with the environment, it was clear that much of the evidence which the Commission brought forward in relation to the directives was faulty? The Commission is now modifying considerably the criteria on which these directives are based. Again and again it was shown that the British Government are well ahead of the game, compared with many other member states of the European Community.

§ Mr. Gummer
I have had further discussions with the Commission and its view—it is also the view of the United Kingdom—is that we have to base matters on the best available science. It seems to me that the only place where people think we are not meeting the requirements and are not seeking to take the lead on the environment is in the House of Commons—on the basis of what are, I think, party political arguments rather than facts.