§ 2.35 p.m
§ Mr. W. T. Williams (Warrington)The Order Paper sets out that it is my intention this afternoon to raise the subject of the proposed closure of the Howley Power Station. In fact my intention is rather to raise the question of the non-closure of Howley power station. I have had the opportunity of speaking to the Secretary to the Minister and I understand that the Minister will be in no difficulty about the nature of the matters I propose to raise.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)indicated assent.
§ Mr. WilliamsThe background to the matters I wish to raise this afternoon is as follows. Howley is a ward in Warrington which I have the honour to represent. It is situated almost in the centre of the borough. It is the centre also of a large residential area, composed mainly of houses built 100 to 150 years ago, and is therefore included at this time in a substantial slum clearance scheme developed by the local borough council. In the nature of things, among those still left in the ward are a large number of elderly and infirm people. Of Warrington it has been said many times before in this House—but it is still relevant—that it has as great an incidence of bronchial disorders as—if not greater than—any other urban area in the country.
1468 The council has spent a great deal of effort and a lot of money in the past seven years in introducing a comprehensive smoke control scheme. The present position is that 16 out of the 17 orders required to cover the county borough have already been confirmed by the Department of the Environment and it is hoped that within the next year the last of these smoke control areas will have been designated and the major cause of so much ill-health in Warrington overcome.
When I was first elected to Warring-ton, 11 years ago, one could stand at the Bank Quay station, when the various factories were closing down their furnaces and, if one had to wait, as I have often had to wait, at that station at that time, within minutes one would be covered with a fine silica dust. Warrington was always covered in those days with a grey pall of smoke.
That has gone because of the improvements in industrial plant, the willingness of the local manufacturers to co-operate with the council, the modernisation of their plant and the general conversion of furnaces and boilers to oil or, in some cases, the closure of the most offending plant causing this gross pollution.
But the power station at Howley, situated, as it is, in the centre of Warrington, surrounded by hundreds of houses in this generally cleansed area, pours out pollution like some great black genie escaping from a bottle. The air pollution caused by the power station is very serious.
I have had a good deal of correspondence and discussion with the Secretary of State for the Environment on the matter. He knows—as no doubt does the Under-Secretary of State—that the air pollution caused by the power station has given rise to a great deal of bitterness and resentment on the part of the citizens of Warrington. The council has had a running fight with the Central Electricity Generating Board for a number of years. It has succeeded in getting precisely nowhere. During the same period I have continually urged upon whatever Minister will listen to me complaints about the effect of this pollution on the people who live in the area. The health of the local people and the amenities that they enjoy have been badly affected over the years by the continuing nuisance, which neither I, here, 1469 nor my councillors and council officers have been able to prevent.
It is clear that I speak with some concern about this matter, but I want without heat to present what seems to me to be a fair estimate of the nature and extent of this pollution, in the hope that the Minister will make a more generous and more understanding response to the problems created by this nuisance than we have hitherto succeeded in getting from anybody.
As I have said, the gross industrial smoke pollution of 10 years ago has gone, but the power station remains the largest emitter of sulphur dioxide in the borough. I was told only last week that it is now estimated that the amount of sulphur dioxide coming from that plant —certainly during winter months—is far greater than that of all the remaining industrial users in that part of south-west Lancashire.
Even now, if one comes to Warrington on a winter day—and more especially when the plant is either starting up or closing down—one sees the power station emitting large quantities of dark smoke and, sometimes bright orange sulphur dioxide, which is visible to the naked eye. Until this month—I realise that the alterations about which I shall speak shortly may not have had time to take effect—between 20 and 30 tons of dust and grit poured out of the power station stack on to the surrounding district every week. This mixture covers everything in an area up to about half a mile around the stack with a deposit of fine, dirty silica dust.
One does not have to have a great deal of imagination to appreciate the consequences of that constant outpouring upon the health and cleanliness of the surrounding area. Only recently when I was visiting Howley I was shown some curtains that had been hanging for six or seven months in the windows of one of the houses of the ward. The woman who showed me the curtains just ran her hand along them and they tore; they were rotten. What does the Minister think is the effect upon human lungs if that is the effect upon cotton curtains?
I should not like to live constantly in that environment. I suspect that the Minister would not like to live constantly in it, any more than I would. I should like to know how many 1470 managers of the power station live within half a mile of it. It is much easier to be indifferent to the welfare of people and to be more concerned about the economic questions that appear to influence the C.E.G.B. if one does not have to put up with the consequences of that indifference.
The position of this station, right in the heart of the borough, surrounded by houses, maximises the effect of the pollution that continually pours from its obsolescent plant. I do not want to overstate my case. I concede immediately that attempts have been made to deal with the problem. The gravamen of my case is that in spite of those attempts the situation remains intolerable.
The attitude of the board leaves much to be desired. Gathering together the things that a long volume of correspondence and public statements made by the spokesmen of the board add up to, I conclude that a better way of describing the situation would be to say that the board has said that the plant is now operating at its maximum optimum efficiency of 80 per cent. and that at that rate the effect is that about 20 tons of filth is pouring into the lungs and homes of the people of Warrington every week.
When pressed about this matter the board says, "The plant is operating within the limits prescribed by the Alkali Inspectorate for the control of pollution." I say at once that I have no dispute against that claim; the appalling thing is that it cannot be disputed that the level of pollution is within the provisions of the alkali inspectors' agreed limits, but because these are limits of general application they apply to stations irrespective of their locality. If a station is situated, as Howley is, in the centre of a residential area, where it is proposed that new residential developments shall take place, in my submission it is intolerable that those limits should be regarded as acceptable.
It is true that the board has recently been shamed into a belated recognition of the seriousness of the situation. After a good deal of pressure both inside and outside Parliament it has agreed to carry out improvements to reduce the present levels of grit, dust and smoke.
When in March of this year, I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider closing the plant because 1471 of its effect upon the health of the people already suffering from bronchial troubles, he replied that it would not be practicable even to calculate the proportion of air pollution in Warrington attributable to the power station. It would be interesting to know who gave him the information, because Warringtons public health inspector said, in a statement in answer to that reply, that it is possible to do this calculation and that his department had had a measuring instrument sited in Howley for a year past that showed that very heavy deposits of grit and dust were directly attributable to the power station. Indeed, he said that these figures had been made known to the board and that it was disputed that they remained intolerable.
As late as October last, the board was still at the stage merely of considering the installation of a gauge for measuring and monitoring deposits. In September, I wrote to the Minister to complain about the continuing intolerable level of pollution. I was told that the board, in an attempt to reduce emissions was installing controls that would have the effect in the coming winter of reducing the average sulphur dioxide emissions by as much as three to six tons a day. There is no way by which lay men can evaluate the conflicting claims of experts, but there can be no doubt that these are substantial amounts of pollution that have for years been affecting Warrington and the public health inspector is right when he says that, when allowance is made for the obsolescence of the plant, which varies in age between 20 and 30 years, mechanical failure or possibly failure of skill, even the reduced level of pollution must remain too high to be tolerated in a residential area.
I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider what the board's insistence on maintaining this plant means in social terms. It was always understood that when Fiddler's Ferry was built it would eventually supplant Howley. Now the unfortunate people of Howley, when the prevailing wind is in their direction, have to put up with pollution both from Fiddler's Ferry and from Howley's old plant. Yet it is not denied that Fiddler's Ferry, when fully operational, will produce 20 times as much electricity as Howley. Its pollution level is very much lower, and it is 1472 not, I think, any part of the argument of the board that circumstances demand the maintenance of Howley if Fiddler's Ferry were fully to be developed and to exercise its production to the limit of its capacity.
It does not seem to me—and this is a point I make with all the force at my command—that producing electricity from Howley only because it is economically not expensive is a justifiable claim, bearing in mind the responsibility that the Government have, if not the board, to the environment. The health of the people of this area, the effect of the continuation of this pollution, which has been over and over again stressed, upon the council's slum clearance scheme, and the devastating effect it has had upon the morale of those in Warrington who are attempting to maintain a smoke control programme that has greatly helped in the rest of Warrington, face the Government with the responsibility to say that the C.E.G.B. should be instructed, the Government being concerned about the dam- age to the environment and the harm to the health of the people, to be guided by other than purely economic considerations.
I have attempted to deal with the matter with moderation. I feel, however, strongly about it. So do my people in Warrington, from the highest to the lowest. Unless the Minister is able to say today that these matters have weighed with him, that he in turn will deal with the claims of the C.E.G.B. in such a way as to be able to close this plant down, I give him notice that this is not the last time that I shall pursue him on this matter.
§ 2.55 p.m
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) for raising this subject and for giving me some notice of the history of this unfortunate affair and of what lies behind his moving and convincing speech. I have only heard the facts of this matter in the last few days, but I must confess to being equally disturbed with him about the implications of the Howley power station and the emissions which have come from it in the past. I can well understand the concern of the local 1473 people—as he said, both great and small—and the feeling of frustration they feel about the lack of progress they have made in their worries about the future of this menace.
I do not know whether any of the managers of the power station live in Howley or anywhere else, and I am afraid that as the hon. and learned Gentleman did not give me notice of that question, I cannot respond to it. But I feel certain that the C.E.G.B. and the managers of the power station are very well aware of the concern locally about this nuisance which he has described. Howley power station has a bad reputation for smoke and pollution and dust and there is, as he says, a high level of bronchitis and other respiratory diseases in the area, although I must point out that there is no evidence that the cause of that high level is the power station as opposed to any other source from which it might have come. One equally shares the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern that the slum clearance scheme, leading to a new housing estate in the area of Howley, should not in any sense be adversely affected by the power station.
Whether the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted it or not, he has a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry answering the debate, and therefore I can with authority deal with the industrial side of what he has said and the question he has put today—can this power station be shut? I must point out that this is a commercial decision for the board. I have no power to order it to shut the station. I cannot instruct, as he suggested, the board to do so. The provision of electricity generating capacity is entirely a matter for the board and the plans for investment, for building new power stations, which it puts forward for approval by my right hon. Friend, are matters for the board, bearing in mind that it has the knowledge and expertise about what should be the nation's demands for electrical capacity in the future.
Howley is an old station. It is 20 years old, roughly, and it will clearly be one of the earlier stations to be closed as and when new plant replaces existing plant—provided always that the total electricity demand in the country can be met. But the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that the consequences of cutting 1474 out stations prematurely can only be that there might be a risk of power cuts and that there might even be higher charges through having new plant in operation earlier than normally required. We must look at this not entirely as a question of the supply of electricity in the Warrington area, but also as a question of the national balance of supply and demand and the use of the national grid. I believe that the C.E.G.B. believes it necessary to keep the station for some time if it is to be able to match peak loads in the years up to 1978, which is the date the board has given the hon. and learned Gentleman for its possible closure.
On the other hand, it is now an old station and is therefore low in the merit order and it is unlikely to be used except for meeting peak demands. There will not be a continual use of the station, because it will be required only when demand is so heavy that all available plant has to be brought into action. It is not an economic station. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that economics must not be allowed to triumph over the environment in this matter. It is not that the station is economic: it is, as it were, a standby station to be used mainly for meeting peak demands in the winter.
I therefore have no power to order the C.E.G.B. to shut the station, and nor would it be right for me to seek to influence it. It is responsible for deciding how much plant it needs and when it can afford to allow stations to go out of existence. However, I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to continue his discussions with the board, because I think that it is much better for these matters to be carried through by negotiation and discussion than for the Govment to intervene, especially when they do not have the power to effect a closure which may not be justified on industrial grounds. The C.E.G.B. would be severely criticised if it were unable to provide the total quantity of electricity demanded in winters coming up to 1978, and this closure must remain a matter for the board.
But, having said that, I emphasise that there are no privileges for the C.E.G.B. in the matter of pollution, or creating health hazards in the atmosphere. We certainly expect the highest standards. These are principally matters for my 1475 right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the Government as a whole lay down high standards for the control of pollution due to power stations, or any other industrial enterprise. I tell the hon. and learned Gentleman at once that no silica is emitted from this power station and I am informed that it is unlikely that the emissions from the power station could affect curtains or other fabrics in the way he has described.
The principal emissions are sulphur dioxide and dust or grit, which is tiresome, dirty and unpleasant, but may well not be toxic. It is the sulphur dioxide itself which could be dangerous. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment told the hon. and learned Gentleman in the House on 17th February and on 22nd March that measures were to be carried out to minimise the nuisance caused by emissions from the station. He has power under Section 7 of the Alkali Act, 1906, as amended by the Clean Air Acts, to require the use of the best practicable means of preventing the escape of noxious or offensive gases, including smoke, grit and dust, to the atmosphere and to render such emissions when discharged harmless and ineffective.
The recent measures adopted by the station's management, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told the House in a letter to the hon. and learned Gentleman on 27th October, are, first, that all five boilers are being modified so as to enable them to burn light fuel oil over the grates in order to improve combustion performance and reduce emissions; secondly, the recent installation of dust monitoring equipment on all boilers so as to check the amount of dust entering the atmosphere.
Those two major modifications have been carried out since last winter and this will be the first winter when either of these new installations will be fully operational. I am informed by the Chief Inspector of Alkalis that recent tests on the emissions from the power station made before the completion of these installations revealed a range of results wholly within the inspectorate's limits.
1476 I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman realises this. But these tests were made even before the installations were carried out and when they are completed, as one would naturally expect, there will be a much better performance from the power station. There is therefore some difficulty in condemning the power station for its emissions of dust or toxic gases when they lie well within the prescribed maxima laid down by my right hon. Friend.
However, I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall watch the situation very closely over the coming winter. If there is a great improvement from the new installation, I am sure that he will be the first to acknowledge it and to say that the situation has improved for his constituents. If on the other hand there is no improvement, and if I have reports from the Chief Alkali Inspector that there is a problem, we shall enforce with the utmost rigidity the standards laid down.
If anything can be done in negotiations between the C.E.G.B., the Warrington Council and others concerned to find ways of improving the power station's performance, I am sure that the C.E.G.B. will be only too pleased to co-operate. But I appreciate, and the Government as a whole appreciate, the apprehension of the people of Warrington about this menace, and we are open to any suggestions or ideas for improving the position while the station has to remain open. It is for the C.E.G.B. to determine how long it must keep it open. I shall bring to the board's attention what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said today, and I hope that it will be able to dispense with the station sooner than the date of 1978 which it has provisionally given. However, that must be a matter for the board.
I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that his raising the matter in the House today has not gone unnoticed or unheard. We shall continue to watch the position very carefully and will do everything in our power to make sure the nuisance is abated.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Three o'clock.