ENVIRONMENT (STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE) (Hansard, 21 July 1972)

§ Sir Gilbert Longden (Hertfordshire, South-West)

It is a curious feature of the manner in which we conduct our affairs that, whereas our country is generally represented at international gatherings of greater and less importance, Parliament is seldom informed, still less given an opportunity to discuss, what happens at them. When, for example, 1274 did we last debate the proceedings of the Council of Europe, or those of the Atlantic Assembly, or even those of the United Nations? Yet a great deal of time and energy is spent by Government Departments and individual Members of Parliament in preparing for these meetings, to say nothing of the taxpayer's money. I consider that their results should be discussed regularly in this House.

The latest international meeting of this kind was the Conference on the Human Environment held last month at Stockholm. It was attended by some 120 members of the United Nations, and their mutual objective was to discuss how the quality of life in all the countries of the world could be made better for their inhabitants by improving the surroundings amidst which we all live and, if possible, to decide upon measures to make these improvements effective and permanent.

It seemed to me that this was a worthwhile, even a noble, effort, the first of its kind in history, and that Parliament should show some interest in it. Since, therefore, the parliamentary timetable between now and the recess will not allow a full debate on the conference, I am grateful for this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to tell the House and the country a little about it, even though we are necessarily confined to the 30 minutes of an Adjournment debate.

It seems to have been universally agreed that the fact that the conference was held at all owes much to the energy and enthusiasm of its Canadian Secretary-General, Mr. Maurice Strong, who refused to be discouraged by the predictable vagaries of certain countries and can be relied upon to follow up such successes as the conference achieved.

From our own country there went a strong delegation led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who was reinforced by the advice of the four working parties which he himself had set up—Lady Dartmouth's on the human habitat, Sir Eric Ashby's on pollution control, Mr. Verney's on resources management and Mr. Stevenson's on the rôle of young people. I am sure that, thanks to my right hon. Friend's leadership, to the high quality of our 1275 delegates, and to much careful preparatory work, the conference owed a great deal to British initiative.

The Soviet Union and some of her allies were not present, and the Communist world was led by the People's Republic of China. The inevitable but here largely irrelevant attack upon the United States was led, however, by the Prime Minister of the host country, whose speech of welcome was hardly calculated to win friends all round. It was perhaps as well that the United States did not retaliate with an attack upon the moral pollution which so notoriously distinguishes Mr. Palme's capital.

There was controversy as to the greatest source of pollution. Some thought that it was "the acquisitive instinct". Mrs. Gandhi, on the contrary, thought that it was poverty. Perhaps it depends upon where the pollution is. In the developed, industrialised nations the main problem is to cure the pollution generated by industrial "progress", while to the developing nations, which are more concerned with economic growth, pollution is a future risk rather than a present problem.

The affluent society brings pollution in its train, hence its alternative name of the "effluent" society. But if the greater prosperity engendered by modern technology can create pollution, it can and must also be made to prevent and cure it.

My own view has always been that people create pollution and that in the population explosion lies the greatest threat to our future. Yet, so far as I can see, this aspect was barely touched upon at Stockholm. It was shunned, too, at the last meeting of the Atlantic Treaty Association which I attended at the Hague. That conference, for the first time, set up a Committee on the Environment; but when I proposed to include in that committee's Resolution a paragraph about the need to control the increase in the population, it was voted down.

Whatever may be the principal cause of pollution, I believe the greatest enemy of its cure is that old, anachronistic demon—nationalism. At Stockholm we saw the Chinese opposing all nuclear tests but their own; the Americans and 1276 the Japanese opposing any ban on whaling; the Brazilians arguing against the proposed watch over the world's forests because that would infringe their sovereignty; and a total failure to agree upon any international standards for the use of pesticides, and so on.

Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) writes in the New Scientist for 29th June: although pollution is indivisible, it begins at home. Each country is free to take what action it likes to limit its own population, to conserve its own territorial resources and to curb pollution from sources within its control. A State concerned with good housekeeping contributes to alleviating the world problem. I believe that this country has done as much as any other, and perhaps more, to give an example of good housekeeping. But if, for a start, we can collaborate with all the other nations to purify the air, the sea, and our rivers, obviously progress on a world-wide scale can be achieved.

I was therefore glad to read in the Declaration of Principles adopted by the conference not only that Man has the fundamental right to adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality which permits a life of dignity and well-being", but also, as a corollary, that he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. I have long thought, and said, that there should be a Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities as well as one of Rights, and here, for the first time, perhaps we have a step towards the former.

I certainly do not scoff at the so-called "Doom-watchers". I think those who do are foolish. I am not qualified to judge whether they exaggerate. I believe they are trying to alert us to probable future dangers and that, unless we co-operate in time to prevent them, our children and their children will find life on this planet, if indeed possible, insufferable. Such co-operation would be an excellent example of how the surrender of some control over one's individual and selfish interests can increase one's power to protect those interests.

In conclusion, I should like to ask my hon. Friend some specific questions.

1277 Many an international conference makes a geat deal of noise but little progress. Was this one an exception? Do Her Majesty's Government consider that something of real value was achieved; and, if so, what happens next? Can we expect to see some really effective action to solve these problems?

How far did the Stockholm Conference go in reconciling the conflicting interests of the developed and the developing countries and in making available to the developing countries the experience and aid of the industrialised nations? How far, in particular, will the United Kingdom be able to help the developing world with technical advice?

Finally, what action can we expect from the United Nations and what steps shall we here be taking to follow up the results of Stockholm?

I thank my hon. Friend for having come to the House to answer this brief debate and for the excellent work which he personally did when representing this country at Stockholm. It is clear that the United Kingdom has a big lead in these matters, and we are, I think, the only country in the world which has set up a Department of State to deal specifically with them. I am confident that, under the leadership of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment, we shall be able to maintain that lead and to persuade our friends in other parts of the world to follow it.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)

My hon. Friend the Member for Herefordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden) is a considerable Englishman, but he is also a well known and distinguished internationalist, and it is, therefore, all the more appropriate that it should be he who has enabled the House to consider the results of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. The conference was not an isolated event. It was the culmination of two years of hard work by all concerned, particularly by Mr. Maurice Strong and by officials of the Department of the Environment, and I am glad to say that our country was able to play a full part in the all-important preparatory work.

1278 I should be the last person to pretend that the conference did anything more than make a start on the job of tackling the environmental problems with which the world is faced. The important thing is that we have made a start and that we have done so on an international basis.

Many nations were present at the conference and there were, inevitably, as many different emphases on the environmental priorities. The developing countries in particular saw these in a different prospective from that of the developed nations but it was, nevertheless, a matter of considerable satisfaction to my right hon. Friend and myself that the conference achieved a wide conspectus of world-wide agreement across virtually the whole of the environmental field.

In his opening speech at the conference my right hon. Friend identified eight areas in which the United Kingdom hoped to make practical progress, and I am glad to be able to report to the House that in all eight our hopes were not disappointed. For example, we hoped for progress on ocean pollution, and such progress was, broadly, achieved. Secondly, we hoped for clean rivers. Most of the contamination that is poured into the oceans comes from polluted rivers, and we were anxious to make rapid progress on this front. I am glad to say that the action plan agreed at Stockholm calls for a programme by all nations to clean up the world's great river systems, and I was very glad to be able to offer United Kingdom know-how to any country which might require it.

Thirdly, there was the "Earthwatch", or, to put it in less colourful terms, an agreement to set up a world-wide monitoring organisation for pollution, especially of the upper atmosphere. The new system agreed at Stockholm will be developed as far as possible from existing monitoring resources, both national and those of international agencies, and Britain will play its full part.

Then there was the matter of the improved exchange of technical information about the environment and pollution. The United Kingdom delegation pressed very strongly for an international "referral" system under which those who have an environmental or pollution problem can be put in touch with those who have already done work that is relevant 1279 to it and are able to help in solving it. I think that this will help to avoid some of the duplication of work which frequently goes on, and I am glad that we obtained agreement on that, too.

We wanted to see at Stockhom progress for helping the developing world. All nations present were agreed on the need to seek to eliminate poverty, illiteracy and disease, which are, after all, forms of environmental pollution. To do this, however, the United Kingdom believes that we must reject the notion that environmental problems can be overcome only by restricting economic growth. Rather we must encourage sensible economic growth but do so without creating the environmental scars and pollution which disfigured much of Britain as a result of our own industrialisation. I am glad to say that our own aid programme will reflect this need.

Then, too, we were concerned about international organisation for dealing with environmental problems. We maintained in Stockholm the view that it would not be right to have another vast and all-encompassing United Nations agency dealing exclusively with the environment. We took that view because experience has taught us that environmtal questions inevitably arise, and properly so, across the board in the work of many existing United Nations agencies. It would be wrong, for example, to cut across the present activities of the World Health Organisation or the Food and Agriculture Organisation. They are doing a good job and it is best to build on their extensive experience. Nevertheless, we saw a need for a much greater degree of co-ordination. I am happy to report that the Stockholm conference endorsed that view and recommended that a new governing council with a suitable secretariat should be set up under the United Nations.

The seventh point discussed at Stockholm inevitably and rightly was money. The conference agreed to set up a voluntary United Nations fund for the environment with the target of $100 million over a five year period. The Government will make a substantial contribution to that fund.

Finally, we hoped for a substantial and meaningful declaration on the human 1280 environment. My hon. Friend has referred to that, and he was right in suggesting that there were many conflicting national interests which needed to be reconciled. I may say in passing that there were one or two irrelevancies which were sought to be brought into that declaration. However, I am glad to say the final text which emerged on the last day of the conference was broadly satisfactory to Her Majesty's Government and all the nations present. It marks clearly the importance which all countries attach to the preservation and improvement of the human environment. It removes from all nations any easy alibis or facile excuses for doing nothing or little about it.

The results of the conference will come before ECOSOC in October, and thereafter before the United Nations General Assembly in November. At both these meetings we shall take the opportunity to ensure that the impetus of Stockholm is not lost.

Turning to some of the specific points which my hon. Friend raised, he was quite right to mention population, which was discussed in some of the Stockholm committees. My hon. Friend will know that there is to be a special conference on world pollution in 1974. One session of that conference will specifically consider the interplay between people, resources and the environment. I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom will play its full part in preparing for that conference. My hon. Friend will also be glad to know that one recommendation from Stockholm was that the World Health Organisation should expand its capacity to give advice on birth control to all nations that seek it, and intensify its research into problems of human reproductive biology. I understand that that request has been well received.

As to the "gloom and doom" school, one of the impressive things to me about Stockholm was the general consensus that the world is not about to destroy its natural environment. There was no complacency. There was a clear recognition of the dangers, but there were few notes of despair or despondency. However, as I have said, the conference represents no more than a beginning. A vast amount of detailed work, much of it unspectacular but certainly of great value, took place. A copy of the action plan 1281 which emerged from the conference has been placed in the Library of the House for the benefit of hon. Members.

I turn now to the future. We must now build on the foundations which were laid at Stockholm. We must make progress where it counts, on the ground, where ordinary men and women can see and feel and hear it.

To that end it is necessary to defend the natural world from abuse and from man-made pollution and ugliness. But we have to do more than just defend it. We must take the offensive, too. It is not enough simply to protect the environment of those who have it good. In Britain we are committed to making life better for those—and they are the majority—who have to live and work in an environment which it not good enough. Also, it must be international. There can be no question of defending the environment of one half of the world—and that the richer half—at the expense of holding back the development of all the rest.

I want to deal now with some of the specific lines of action which my Department and other Government Departments now expect to follow up and to make early progress on. The first is ocean dumping. A meeting of the nations concerned is expected to take place in London at the invitation of the Government in October. I am hopeful, and believe, that a worldwide convention on marine dumping will be agreed then and will be opened for signature by all countries.

The second line of action is the referral system for environmental information. An expert group, including people wise in the use of computers, will also meet in London, and I am hoping that it, too, will be able to make progress before the end of this year.

Thirdly, there is the new United Nations Council for the Environment and its secretariat. We have indicated that we should be happy to see this body's headquarters in London. The United Nations is considering this and other applications made for the location of the headquarters. I reaffirm that we should be very glad to have it in this country.

Fourthly, there is our contribution to United Nations funds. I can say this afternoon that the contribution from this 1282 country will be substantial but, in particular, that it will be new money over and above our existing international aid commitments.

Fifthly, we are reviewing our national arrangements for monitoring environmental pollution, whether of rivers or of air or, in particular, of the new trace metals. This review is essential and will help us contribute more effectively to the programme of global monitoring because we shall be able to provide our own experience and know-how to other countries which need them.

Sixthly, we aim to establish in the Department a capacity to construct and test mathematical models of our environmental situation and to test the quality of the inputs to such models so that they are a really useful aid to our long-term planning. Again we shall be glad to contribute our own experience to other countries.

Seven, there is the world wide clean rivers programme. I am glad to say that our own considerable experience with the techniques of pollution surveying and with the mathematical modelling of river systems is available to any other nation faced with similar problems.

Eight we are discussing with the member States of the European Economic Community and with our fellow candidate countries environmental topics on which a common European Community policy can be founded, and in that respect I know that my hon. Friend, with his distinguished European connections, will be glad to know that we are thinking in terms of product standards for motor vehicles and other traded goods—for example, standards for diesels. This includes the monitoring of new pollutants and possibly the development of early warning systems when new products are coming into the environment. Such systems need to be devised well in advance of those products becoming broadly available.

Finally, we believe that we are able to offer a great deal of information on the application of all kinds of environmental engineering. We know a good deal about, for example, sewerage technology and river systems. We know even more through the alkali inspectorate about upper atmosphere monitoring and about toxic waste and other 1283 forms of environmental planning concerned with historic towns and so on. We are anxious to collaborate with our European partners in devising a European-wide policy for the protection of the environment. I am sure that it is right for us to do this.

If one thing emerged from Stockholm above all, it is that no country can be an environmental island. Many of the most pressing environmental problems, especially those affecting the great common assets of air and water, can be tackled only at international level. We have only one world to pollute, to over- 1284 populate or to deplete. If this one is ruined, assuredly we have no other.

So at Stockholm, we in the British delegation sensed the first faint glimmerings of a new light on the horizon. We were not naive enough to forget or to discount the grave issues that divided most of the nations present. Yet we made a beginning, and, for my part, I came away from Stockholm just a little more hopeful and optimistic about the future of mankind than I was when I arrived there.