§ Mr. ThomasonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account was taken of the effects on environmental technology manufacturers, of the postponement of the upgrading deadlines in process guidance notes PG 6/7(91), PG 6/8(91), PG 6/13(91), PG 6/14(91), PG 6/15(91), PG 6/16(92), PG 6/18(92), PG 6/22(92), PG 6/28(92) and PG 6/32(92). [3107]
§ Mr. Robert B. Jones[holding answer 29 November 1995]: The deferral of the upgrading deadlines for all the listed process guidance notes will allow time for a thorough review; the Department was conscious of potential effects on environment technology manufactures.
§ Mr. ThomasonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment what independent assessment he received of the cost estimates provided to his Department by the industry sectors directly affected by process guidance notes PG 6/7 (91), PG 6/8 (91), PG 6/13 (91), PG 6/14 (91), PG 6/15 (91), PG 6/16 (92), PG 6/18 (92), PG 6/22 (92), PG 6/28 (92) and PG 6/32 (92); and by whom such assessments were made. [3124]
§ Mr. JonesAll the listed process guidance notes, published in 1991–92, were drafted by environmental health officers seconded to the Department who took account of all information provided by industry consultees. The notes are now being reviewed and any cost estimates received will be carefully assessed. In particular, account will be taken of two studies being undertaken by consultants for my Department and for the Department of Trade and Industry into the costs of reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds from solvent-using industrial sectors.