HC Deb 11 July 1984 vol 63 cc1019-20
2. Mr. Chope

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the outcome of the recent European discussions on atmospheric pollution and acid rain.

5. Mr. Forman

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement in the light of the recent conference of Environmental Ministers in Munich.

Mr. Waldegrave

Both the Munich air pollution conference and the Environment Council in Luxembourg revealed a common will by European Governments to make further progress on air pollution control. That is a very satisfactory outcome.

Mr. Chope

Does my hon. Friend agree that insufficient emphasis was placed on the impact of nitrogen emissions as a major contribution to atmospheric pollution, especially as Britain has kept its level of nitrogen emissions constant, while some European countries have increased their levels by 50 per cent.?

Mr. Waldegrave

My hon. Friend is right, in that in approaching the acidification problem it is no good considering only sulphate. We must also include nitrogen emissions. Although the figures are not completely reliable, it is true that there does not appear to have been an increase in nitrogen emissions from this country for the past 10 years. For the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, the Government have given a broad welcome to the European Commission's approach on vehicle exhaust controls, which would meet a large part of the problem.

Mr. Forman

Although there is an argument for hastening slowly in this important area so as not to spend public money unnecessarily, what swift and cost-effective measures has my hon. Friend's Department in mind, and will take, when there is scientific consensus on this important matter?

Mr. Waldegrave

The most important efforts must go into designing combustion processes for motor cars in terms of the lean burn engine, and into the pressurised fluidised-bed and other combustion methods for power stations, which will deal with the problem at source. That way we shall not have to try to sweep up the damage afterwards.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Do "European discussions" also include the most recent meeting of the Paris commission and its recommendation on the implementation of ALATA in relation to nuclear discharges? Is the Minister aware that within Cumbria some people remain worried because BNFL intends to take 10 years to implement that recommendation and the commission wants a far earlier implementation of it? Will he seek to require that?

Mr. Waldegrave

That is far outside the scope of the conferences on air pollution. The fact that the British Government were able to sign the recent Paris commission declaration, should be, and I think, is, welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.

Mr. Roger King

Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will not be panicked by the implementation of controversial catalyst systems as are now required in Germany into introducing measures to clean up car exhaust emissions? Will he try to ensure that there is firm evidence that the motor car is the prime source of pollutants in acid rain?

Mr. Waldegrave

The catalytic convertor seems to be a bad solution. The properly designed lean burn engine is a much better solution.

Dr. David Clark

Does the Minister appreciate the damage being done to Britain by our failure to sign the Ottawa — now presumably the Munich — declaration, which calls for a 30 per cent. reduction in air emissions by 1993? Why will the Government not sign that document, in view of their repeated declarations that there have been reductions in SO2, and why cannot Britain join its EC colleagues, the Scandinavian countries, the Soviet Union and even Bulgaria in trying to clear our atmosphere?

Mr. Waldegrave

I must disillusion the hon. Gentleman about the Soviet Union, which has not signed the agreement. It said that it would strive to reduce trans-boundary fluxes by 30 per cent., which is a very different matter. For the additional 10 per cent. of gain over what we have already gained since 1980, £600 million does not appear to us to be cost-effective.