Council of Environment Ministers

HC Deb 10 December 1984 vol 69 cc741-6 3.47 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave)

With permission. Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the meeting on 6 December of the Council of Environment Ministers, at which I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

The Council expressed its sense of shock at the recent disaster in Bhopal and conveyed its deepest sympathy to the Government of India and the people affected. The Council discussed lead in petrol, other vehicle emissions, the limitation of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere, the establishment of a Community information system on the environment and draft directives on emissions from large combustion plants, emissions from the titanium dioxide industry, the recycling of beverage containers and environmental assessment.

On lead in petrol, the Council reached agreement on a directive that provides for the introduction of unleaded petrol throughout the Community not later than 1989 or earlier if individual member states wish. The minimum octane levels of premium grade unleaded petrol will be 95 RON, 85 MON, at the pump. The octane number of any additional unleaded regular grade was left for member states to fix. Formal adoption of that directive must now await receipt of the opinion of the European Parliament.

On other polluting emissions from cars, the Council agreed that a high-level working group of officials should report by the end of January on the alternative routes available to secure further reductions in these emissions. That work will provide the Council with an assessment of relevant technologies and examine whether there should be different solutions for cars of different sizes. It will take into account energy and production costs and European traffic conditions.

A directive on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide was agreed with minor amendments, and subject only to a parliamentary reserve by the United Kingdom. Agreement was reached on the funding and legal basis of the first phase of an information system on environmental data in the Community.

The four other proposed directives — on emissions from large plants, emissions from the titanium dioxide industry, the recycling of beverage containers, and environmental assessments were not agreed. The United Kingdom had objections to the first three, and in no case were we alone in having such objections. Denmark maintained its reservation on the fourth proposed directive.

The Council accepted a proposal by the United Kingdom that the Commission should be invited to consider, and report on, ways of ensuring that environmental concerns are taken into account in the Community's agricultural policies. I also recorded our concern that the Commission's recently proposed directive on motor cycle noise does not go far enough in dealing with the smaller-engined machines or in setting a sufficiently early date for reductions.

Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

I should like to associate myself and my colleagues with the Minister's sentiments about the tragic and devastating accident in Bhopal. I trust that the Government are making all necessary help available to the Indian authorities. That accident serves as a timely reminder of how dangerous modern chemical plants are, and that in our constant efforts to monitor nuclear plants we must be for ever vigilant over conventional plants, too.

The Minister's statement contained many important points, and I should like to ask him specifically about several of them. In a slightly offhand manner—I know that he did not mean it that way — he talked about establishing a Community information system. That is very important. What does it mean? Are the Government and the Community now going along the same road as the Americans in arguing for assessment of environmental impact? There seems to be quite a lot of credit in that proposal.

With regard to the recycling of beverage containers, can the Minister give us an assurance that experiences in research will not be restricted to the EEC and that we shall take into account the experiences in America, where the Americans have had those schemes for many years? Also, outside the Community, there have been such schemes in Denmark and Norway.

I was puzzled by the agreement on nitrogen dioxide. Will the Minister explain why NO₂ was considered separately from other acidic emissions such as sulphur dioxide? How does the Minister justify taking NO₂ separately? Does it mean that we shall have a debate on NO₂? Furthermore, may we expect a debate on acid rain before long, as we have been promised?

I welcome the Minister's decision to ask the Commission to investigate ways of taking the environmental impact of agriculture into account in the common agricultural policy. However, we expect it to be more than a token gesture. It must be more than a cosmetic exercise because it goes to the heart of the CAP. Many people regard it as completely indefensible that we are producing for the sake of producing when we cannot even distribute that production to the Third world countries and while we are destroying our own environment.

We welcome the fact that agreement has been reached and that lead-free petrol will be available by 1989. However, the Minister omitted as much as he told us. For example, is it still the Government's intention to reduce the level of lead in petrol to 0.15g per litre by 1985? Can the Minister give us an assurance on that specific point? The hon. Gentleman also said that lead-free petrol would be available by 1989 or earlier if individual member states wish. I understand that the West German Government will introduce it earlier. Have the Government any idea when they will introduce it?

The key point about lead in petrol is related to new cars. There was a key omission from the Minister's statement. Without clarification on that point, I am afraid that the statement is utterly meaningless. Unless we know when new cars will be required to run on lead-free petrol, not when lead-free petrol will be available, we cannot be convinced that the Government are prepared to agree to the introduction of lead-free petrol, thereby protecting the health of a great many young people up and down the country.

Mr. Waldegrave

The reason why I had nothing to say about the type approval and about the time when new cars would be required to run on lead-free petrol is that we were not making that directive. What we debate is not up to individual Ministers; it is up to the Commission. There was no directive before us on that matter. That is in a separate directive, and the Government's position remains what it has always been: we shall try to ensure that there is no slippage from the date of 1989. We can hardly be blamed for not discussing it at the previous Council meeting if it was not on the agenda.

I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the Government intend to reduce the level of lead in petrol from 0.4g per litre to 0.15 next year, as we have always said. As to whether lead-free petrol will be available earlier, the Government believe that the oil industry and the motor car industry need the octane number, which we have obtained for them, in order to plan sensibly. If they can introduce lead-free petrol earlier—some companies are likely to do so—the Government will welcome it.

The information scheme is separate from the environmental impact assessment. The latter has been agreed, except for a constitutional reserve by Denmark, and we hope that the Danes can agree it at the next Council meeting. The information scheme, which was discussed at the previous Council meeting, establishes the Commission as the gatherer and holder of environmental information across Europe, which is sensible, and we have provided the legal basis and funding for that.

As to the recycling of beverage containers, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I met a distinguished group of Labour Members from south Wales, including the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who emphasised to me the difficulties and dangers for the tinplate industry in south Wales. I hope that they will welcome the fact that we heeded their advice and have not agreed to a directive, although we would agree to a recommendation.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about nitrogen dioxide, but the individual countries have no responsibility for the order in which matters are introduced. This directive is about the effects on health of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere, not about acidification, and it has separate roots. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the agriculture directive. The principal negotation is for the Agriculture Council, but the Environment Council must do all that it can to emphasise its importance to the Community.

Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green)

Although we are gratified that the Government accepted all but one and a half of the nearly 20 recommendations of the report on acid rain by the Select Committee on the Environment, those outstanding leave grave concern in some quarters. May we have an urgent debate on the report and the Government's reply, if not before Christmas at least soon thereafter?

Mr. Waldegrave

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is in the Chamber and will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. There will be such a debate, but the timing has not been decided.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

Does the Minister accept that the dreadful tragedy in India suggests that we should make a much more vigorous and penetrating appraisal of modern chemical industries? That being so, will he assure the House that when the promised pesticides legislation is introduced it will serve a real and modern purpose and will offer more protection than do present arrangements?

Mr. Waldegrave

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that legislation is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The terrible disaster in Bhopal has reminded us of the good safety record of our chemical industry. [An hon. Member: "What about Flixborough?"] Flixborough was our worst disaster; bad though it was, it was two orders of magnitude fewer than the disaster in India.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

My hon. Friend obviously agrees that the Bhopal incident was an appalling tragedy. Does he also agree that, prima facie, the tragedy could have been avoided if the same standards had been applied in India as were applied in America? Does he agree that Britain should advise its chemical companies that when they trade overseas we expect them to treat overseas lives with the same respect as they treat lives here, and that they should never set up plants overseas with lower safety standards, thus endangering lives, whatever the profits, or business may be?

Mr. Waldegrave

My hon. Friend's question goes a little wider than the Council meeting, and it would be wrong for me to comment on the responsibility for the disaster. My hon. Friend's latter point was sensible. British Governments of both parties have taken the lead in the EC in considering the external effects of trade in dangerous products, including chemicals, and we shall maintain that lead.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy for the people and Government of India. However, given that in Britain there is manufactured and stored some materials that are reputedly 10 times as toxic as that which escaped in India, what steps are being taken to inform people living in the vicinity of the factories producing toluene diisocyanate of the fact that these products are being made next door to them? Is the Minister satisfied with the safety measures, and, if not, what will the Government undertake to do to reassure the people of Britain that there will be no such disaster, which would be of a potentially larger scale here than in India last week?

Mr. Waldegrave

As soon as that disaster took place, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked for an inventory of all such similar substances in the United Kingdom, and he was right to do so. My advice is that the substances are not manufactured in the United Kingdom, but are stored here. We are checking on all the security arrangements. I repeat that, terrible though the disaster in India was, it reminds us that our chemical industry has a good safety record over the years, and I am sure that we shall be anxious to maintain it.

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington)

I welcome the prospect of an early debate on the important subject of acid deposition. Can my hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the environmental data? For example, is it the case that the Government intend to extend the range of air quality monitoring stations and to feed that information to the EEC Commission? Secondly, is it still the Government's intention to proceed with an early and comprehensive Bill to improve the measures against air pollution?

Mr. Waldegrave

On the first question, the answer is yes; we intend to extend the monitoring network both in rural and urban sites. As to the second question, we must in due course have a new Clean Air Act, because the framework directive that we agreed earlier in the year in the European Community will require it. Its timing has not yet been settled.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Is it true that the Government will be exempting three water authorities from the EEC nitrate pollution rules as a result of pressure from farmers who want to save money on the back of the environment? In the light of the Minister's statement, which effectively ducks the issue of acid rain, is it not fair to say that the attempts of the Conservative party conference to paint that party as green on environmental issues was a disaster, a failure and a misrepresentation of the truth?

Mr. Waldegrave

There was no substantive discussion at the Council meeting of the large plant directive, which is what I imagine the hon. Gentleman is talking about, although it is only part of the story about acid deposition. The representatives of three or four countries spoke briefly on it, and three or four countries were against the directive as presently drafted. The hon. Gentleman should remember the other side of the question. It is not only the Central Electricity Generating Board that is against the additional costs involved. We have had similar representations from the TUC.

On the matter of nitrates in water, every application for a derogation in the Community procedure will be looked at individually on its merits. There will be no question of putting at risk the health of anyone in this country.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle (Lincoln)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the effect of lead in petrol on children has been causing increasing concern in recent years? Therefore, is not the best thing to come out of this meeting the fact that the Common Market countries have agreed to follow the excellent lead given by this Government and have agreed to phase out lead in petrol in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Waldegrave

I did not expect to be congratulated by the Opposition, but the day was important for those of us in the European Community who have campaigned against lead. The Community has finally agreed a directive, which I know will be welcomed by my hon. Friend and by many people both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton (Fife, Central)

Is the Minister aware that several well-informed authorities in this country believe that there are no technical problems to prevent lead from being extracted from petrol at a much earlier date than 1989? Will he treat this matter with far more urgency than the Government have shown hitherto in the light of the continuing threat to children's intellectual and mental health?

Mr. Waldegrave

The hon. Gentleman forgets that there will be a 60 per cent. improvement next year because the Government are moving to 0.15 instead of 0.4. We have to take into account, as we are often rightly urged to do by Labour Members, the employment prospects of people in the motor car industry and elsewhere. We think that the measured progress which we are agreeing, and which has achieved the unity in Europe that has been a major objective all through, is right. We have nothing to apologise for in this matter.

Mr. Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet)

I generally welcome my hon. Friend's statement. When he refers to nitrogen dioxide, is he referring just to what is colloqually known as NO ₂ or to all oxides of nitrogen?

Mr. Waldegrave

The directive refers to NO ₂ only, and deals with concentrations at a level that may be considered a risk to health. It has nothing to do with the acidification issue.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

On the recycling of beverage containers, the Minister will be more than well aware, from the representations that we have made to him, of the importance of this matter to south Wales, and therefore of our pleasure at the lack of progress. What are the next steps? Is it proposed that the draft directive be returned in a diluted form, or will it come back in the form of a recommendation?

Mr. Waldegrave

It is up to the Commission and the Presidency to decide what will be on the agenda at the next Council meeting. Our position remains the same—that the recommendation is more suitable for this particular legislation. It is worth remembering that hon. Members say that we must go faster on every environmental issue, but the Labour party is not united on this matter.

Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland)

I accept what the Minister said about Bhopal. However, is he aware that the health and safety inspectorate has for some time been operating at one third below its target? Is that not a terrible risk to take just to save money?

Mr. Waldegrave

The Health and Safety Executive is not the responsibility of my Department. I am certain that the inspectorate is working at levels necessary to carry out its statutory duties.