§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
12.10 am§ Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow)Without the sun there would be no life on earth, but the sun is an enemy as well as a friend. It emits ultra-violet radiation which would be very dangerous to all life. Fortunately, we have a defence in the ozone layer.
What is ozone? To give it its technical description, it is a blue gaseous allotrope of oxygen derived or formed naturally from diatomic oxygen by electric discharge or exposure to ultra-violet radiation. The ozone layer occurs in a region of atmosphere between 15 and 30 km high. There is not a great deal of it; if it were all gathered in one layer at ground level it would be about the thickness of a £1 coin.
How is the ozone layer formed, and what does it do? Ultra-violet light, which has a very short wave length and is emitted from the sun, splits the oxygen molecules into two atoms and forms ozone by reaction. Thus, in a beautiful natural interaction the sun provides the earth with a defence against its own ultra-violet radiation as the ozone layer absorbs that radiation, stopping it reaching the ground. Now this crucial defence is being eroded and dissolved. Over Antarctica it is shattered. What on earth is happening?
The British Antarctic Survey has studied the ozone layer since 1957. In 1982 it noticed strange depletions in the layer over Antarctica. Before then, observed and predicted changes were less than 1 per cent. per decade. Now the ozone content has more than halved in a period of 30 to 40 days each year. It is down to the thickness of a penny.
This is happening particularly over Antarctica because of a phenomenon called the polar vortex. The combined effects of extreme cold at —80 deg C and strong westerly winds ensure that the air over Antarctica remains isolated from the mid-latitude air, which is relatively rich in ozone. In spring, with the dying down of the vortex, the level of ozone should recover. It has done in the past, but now it does not, and ozone is most depleted where there should be most of it.
Why is the ozone disappearing? Theories based on the solar cycle and on a mechanism of upwelling air are no longer tenable. An enormous experiment, the airborne Antarctic ozone experiment, was carried out last year between 19 August and 30 September by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration in conjunction with the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the Chemical Manufacturers Association, joined by the British Meteorological Office.
The powerful experiment showed that the abundance of chlorine monoxide—I shall come to its sources—at 18 km was sufficient to account for the observed rate of decrease of ozone. Within the polar vortex the amount of hydrochloric acid was very low, which led the scientists to believe that the release of chlorine from hydrochloric acid must play a major part in the story of the ozone hole. The scientists also obtained some evidence to support the view that the release of chlorine occurs from particles in the polar stratosphere.
795 What is causing the destruction of the ozone layer? There are natural causes, but there has always been a balance between the rate of destruction and the rate of renewal. The ozone layer cannot cope with the man-made gases, chloroflurocarbons, or CFCs, which were invented in 1928 and have proved extremely useful. They are relatively non-toxic, non-flammable and stable. They are used as propellants in aerosols, in refrigerators and air-conditioning systems, in the dry cleaning industry, foam-blowing processes, for such things as fast food packaging, fire-fighting, home insulation and as solvents in the microelectronics industry.
The CFCs, after use, escape into the stratosphere, where they are decomposed by sunlight to free chlorine, which destroys ozone. Unfortunately, CFCs have a very long life; they can last for more than 100 years. This means that an 85 per cent. cut in CFCs is needed immediately just to stabilise concentrations at today's levels. In 1986 global production of CFCs was about 750,000 tonnes.
What would be the consequences if the ozone layer were destroyed? The Fat Boy in "Pickwick Papers" said:
I wants to make your flesh creep.No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to make your flesh creep, nor do I want to make your flesh ulcerate. Malignant melanoma skin cancers, corneal tumours on the eyes and acute photokeratitis are just some of the effects of undiluted solar ultra-violet radiation.Beautiful bronzed bodies lying on the beach will be a thing of the past. We need not think that because we do not get as much sun as, for example, Australia and New Zealand, where skin cancers are already on the increase, we will not suffer as badly. Clouds do not stop ultra-violet radiation. Ozone depletion also has appalling consequences for plants and, therefore, agriculture. Effects include decreased photosynthesis and yield and changes in flowering patterns. Field research on soya beans, for instance, shows a 25 per cent. decrease in yield as a result of exposure to a comparable increase in ultra-violet radiation.
Concern about damage to the ozone layer is relatively new. It first arose in 1974, following publication of a paper on the subject by two American academics, Rowland and Molina. That concern led to increased international research into the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer and to precautionary action in many countries. In 1977 the United Nations environment programme set up the coordinating committee on the ozone layer. This was followed by the Vienna convention on the protection of the ozone layer, adopted in 1985. The United Kingdom signed it in May 1985 and ratified it in May 1987. Before then, different measures were taken in different countries. The United States banned all non-essential uses of CFCs in aerosols, but did not control other uses of CFCs, which continued to grow, particularly in foam, plastics and solvent cleaning. Canada and the Nordic countries did much the same, but the EEC, in decisions in 1980 and 1982, sought to limit CFC production while reducing CFC uses, particularly in aerosols, with a reduction of 30 per cent. by the end of 1981.
However, it was clear that international measures were the best way forward. Negotiations on a protocol to the Vienna convention began in December 1986 and were concluded on 16 September 1987, with the adoption of the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone 796 layer. This was signed by the United Kingdom, the EEC, the United States of America, Japan and 23 other countries and should come into force on 1 January 1989. It provides for control of emissions of the five most dangerous types of CFCs in three stages: first, a freeze on consumption, calculated at 1986 levels, 18 months after the protocol comes into force; secondly, a 20 per cent. reduction by the year ending 30 June 1994; and, thirdly, a further 30 per cent. reduction by the year ending 30 June 1999. Thus there will be a total reduction of 50 per cent. by the year 2000. However, the protocol allows for the corresponding production figures to be 10 per cent. higher in the first two stages and 15 per cent. at the third to give industry the room to rationalise and to ensure continuing supplies for developing countries which are party to the protocol to meet their basic domestic needs.
These measures are subject to review at least every four years, beginning in 1990 in the light of new information. There are special provisions to help countries which produce small amounts of CFCs to rationalise and to allow countries with extra production already planned to take that into account, subject to limitations on their base year figures. EEC countries can fulfil their obligations jointly. There are provisions limiting trade with countries which are not party to the protocol and giving developing countries more time to comply. But these provisions are designed to encourage more countries to join the protocol.
Whether or not these provisions are satisfactory, it is at least a sign that many countries are concerned, to a large or small extent, about the damage to the ozone layer. Views differed about what was necessary as at that time there were scientific uncertainties about the extent of the damage and the speed with which alternatives to CFCs could be developed and brought into use.
Since the NASA experiment which, unfortunately, finished after the Montreal protocol had been signed, scientific opinion is now much clearer on the damage that has been done and is being done. A hole the size of the United States in the ozone layer over the Antarctic is the clearest possible warning that we are overburdening the atmosphere. I believe that the measures taken in the protocol—and I pay tribute to those responsible for it—are not sufficient to protect the ozone layer. The parties to the protocol can agree to amend it, if there is new evidence pointing to the need for more stringent measures. We now have that new evidence and we need those more stringent measures with great urgency.
It is no good procrastinating and saying "Oh dear, the ozone layer has gone. Now we had better do something." If we lock the stable door after the horse has bolted, we can always get another horse, but to replace part of the atmosphere is a different matter altogether. It will be most interesting to see what results come from the joint French, West German and American expedition to the Arctic to check the position there.
What is to be done? I should like to set out a six-point programme. First, in the light of new knowledge, the parties to the Montreal protocol should meet as soon as possible to reconsider and toughen its provisions. Secondly, as there is still an enormous amount to be learnt about the atmosphere and the ozone layer, we need more and urgent research, more theory, more modelling and more use of super-computers. The Stratospheric Ozone Review Group set up by the Department of the Environment which published its first report in August 1987 is due to report again later this year, but there must 797 be better co-ordination between the various groups studying the atmosphere and I call for a national institute for atmospheric studies to be established.
Thirdly, all aerosol cans must be labelled. This is already happening with those cans which do not produce CFCs as propellants being labelled "Ozone Friendly", but the labelling should be mandatory. Meantime, one can get from Friends of the Earth a list of products which do not use CFCs as propellants.
Fourthly, all non-essential uses of CFCs must be eliminated as soon as possible. I am glad to see that ICI and ISC Chemicals have recently announced their participation, with 11 other companies, in a programme to develop suitable alternatives to CFCs. This work must be pushed on. Meantime, essential and non-essential uses should be strictly defined. We cannot risk the future of the earth for the sake of deodorants and fast food cartons. Having said that, I congratulate those companies which have stopped using CFCs in their packaging and aerosols.
Fifthly, we need a rigorous British standard for mobile air-conditioning plants in vehicles. These plants use CFCs as coolants and tend to leak.
Finally, there is a substance even more devastating than chlorine in the damage that it causes to ozone. Bromine is being used more and more in fire extinguishers which, at the urging of insurance companies, are tested at frequent intervals. A substitute for bromine must be found urgently, and it would help if some other means of testing fire extinguishers were used.
We have our warning and our opportunity and we must not miss it because it may be the last we have.
§ Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) for allowing me to intervene briefly in his Adjournment debate. I wonder whether he and my hon. Friend the Minister would agree that recent moves by manufacturers of chlorofluorocarbons, not least ISC in my constituency, should be encouraged.
Manufacturers have pressed for the recent protocols, including the Montreal protocol to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow referred, as a breathing space to enable them to develop other chemicals —principally the halogenated chlorofluorocarbons—which in the long term will replace the chlorofluorocarbons currently used in the world market. This will enable ISC and ICI, the two principal United Kingdom companies in this market, to provide the same benefits to the consumer while avoiding the potential detriment to the environment represented by chlorofluorocarbons.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will encourage those companies to continue that necessary work to fill a gap in the market.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan)I will reply first to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). I fully recognise and support the important work being undertaken not only by the company in his constituency but by ICI and other international companies in researching and developing alternatives. That initiative is critical to the success of the work initiated in international forums.
798 I thank my hon. Friend for intervening at this late hour to place on record his well-known and deeply appreciated concern about this important issue. Perhaps I may, through him, also thank the company to which he has referred and the 10 other companies involved for their support, which is essential in identifying alternatives and in persuading consumers to change their pattern of consumption of goods containing not just halons but chlorofluorocarbons. The work being undertaken is well worthy of praise and a first step along a road that we wish to encourage further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) raised this important subject in a powerful maiden Adjournment speech and I congratulate him on his extremely useful contribution. It is not an easy subject and to have mastered it so early in a parliamentary career which I know will include great progress in the future is worthy of congratulation from both sides of the House. I am grateful to him.
The potential threat to the ozone layer is a major environmental issue of concern not just to the people of this country but to everyone on the planet, and rightly so. The ozone layer screens us all from harmful ultra-violet radiation from the sun and the consequences of significant global depletion would be very serious for human life as well as for animals and plants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow drew particular attention to the so-called Antarctic hole. The discovery of large depletions in the ozone layer over the Antarctic has focused attention even more sharply and has led to a great deal of international activity in which United Kingdom scientists have participated. Indeed the hole was discovered by Dr. Farman and colleagues at the British Antarctic Survey. The hole appears for some two months during the Antarctic spring and then recovers, but during 1987, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, it was clearly deeper and lasted longer than in previous years, and that must be a matter of concern for scientists throughout the world and to politicians.
There are many theories about the causes of the phenomenon. The initial findings of the major international scientific study of last autumn, in which the Meteorological Office collaborated closely, strongly suggest the involvement of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs as they are generally known. However, it is not quite as simple as that. The hole appears to be the result of a complex interaction of both chemical and meteorological processes. The key question is whether it is a localised phenomenon, unique to Antarctica, or whether there are global implications. In their initial findings the scientists leading the study have refused to rush into print. They emphasise that it is premature to speculate on the global implications until the causes of the hole are better understood. The results of the study are now being analysed, with the aim of publishing them after peer-reviewing in May.
Far from ignoring the problems, as some ill-informed critics have suggested, the British Government very much share the concern about the ozone layer. We have been closely involved in the measures that have already been taken to protect it. As long ago as 1980 the United Kingdom and other European Community member states took precautionary action when they agreed measures to control emissions of the two most widely used CFCs. Those are chemicals with the potential to destroy the ozone layer. They are widely used as propellants in aerosol 799 cans, in the manufacture of foam plastics, in refrigeration, air-conditioning and as solvents. The Community decided to limit overall production of CFCs 11 and 12 by placing a ceiling on production capacity. That was supplemented by a reduction in their use in aerosols by 30 per cent. and co-operation in reducing emissions from other uses. In the United Kingdom those requirements have been achieved by voluntary agreements with industry.
While Economic Community action concentrated mainly on overall production, a different approach was adopted by the United States. Far from banning CFCs outright, as is often claimed, the United States simply banned non-essential use of CFCs in aerosols. That left growth in other uses quite unconstrained. As the Americans have acknowledged, growth in other sectors, in particular rigid foam, has completely offset the effect of reductions in aerosol use. As a result, per capita consumption of CFCs in the United States remains as high as it is in the Economic Community.
Because the threat to the ozone layer is a global problem, I emphasise that it needs a global solution. The United Kingdom has been fully involved in wider international action. First, in 1985 the United Kingdom signed the Vienna convention for the protection of the ozone layer. We were the first Economic Community country to ratify it in May last year. That framework convention, which will come into force later this year, covers such important matters as co-operation in monitoring research and information exchange.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow rightly stated, on 16 September last year in Montreal the United Kingdom and the European Community signed a protocol to the Vienna convention, along with the United States, Japan and 21 other countries. The protocol represents international commitment to control global emissions of not only CFCs but halons, which are chemicals used in fire extinguishers.
Although it may be unconventional and not customary in the House, it would be right of me to pay tribute to the work carried out by Fiona McConnell and her team at the Department of the Environment who did so much excellent work to ensure that the protocol was successful with a major British input and a major British lead. When I describe their work as having "commitment" and "sensitivity", that is no understatement. Those words are accurate and I use them to pay tribute to the work that the team undertook. If it is possible to distance myself for a minute from officials, it is a pleasure for me to state that if I was not at the Dispatch Box now, but sitting on the Back Benches, I would have equal commitment to the strength of the dedication and excellent work of the team to ensure that my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow and for Bristol, North-West were so well informed.
It does not matter to the ozone layer where chemicals such as CFCs come from. The Montreal protocol focuses on controlling overall emissions, not specific uses. That is clear endorsement by the international community of the need to tackle the totality of emissions rather than banning particular uses, which has been shown to be inefficient and ineffective.
The protocol provides for CFC consumption to be halved in three stages by the end of the century. First, it will be frozen in 1990 at 1986 levels. Secondly, it will be 800 cut by 20 per cent. in 1994. Thirdly, there will be a further 30 per cent. reduction in 1999. In addition, the consumption of the halons will be frozen at 1986 levels in 1992. The protocol also allows the possibility of individual parties' production to run at a slightly higher level than their consumption. The purpose of that provision has been misunderstood. It is solely for the purpose of giving industry the flexibility to rationalise and to ensure continuing supplies for developing countries which are parties to meet their basic domestic needs.
We are anxious that participation in the protocol should be as wide as possible. It was to encourage this that negotiators in Montreal agreed generous treatment for low-consuming developing countries by allowing them extra time before they impose controls. For the same reason, imports from countries not party to the protocol will be banned.
I pay tribute to the important role played by the European Commission, which was mandated to negotiate on behalf of the Community. The United Kingdom was also actively involved in the negotiations in strong support of the Commission. I believe that the Montreal protocol is a major environmental achievement. It is the first international measure designed to prevent rather than cure a global environmental problem. Everyone agreed that we could not afford to wait for positive proof of global ozone depletion.
Inevitably, there were differences on how far and how fast it was necessary and reasonable to go, given the scientific uncertainties about the extent to which the ozone layer might be depleted, the availability of alternatives to CFCs and the speed with which new substances and technologies could be developed. I have no doubt that the 50 per cent. cut in consumption is the highest on which it would have been possible to reach consensus, and no country sought a higher figure in the final round of negotiations in Montreal.
In my view, we have achieved a good environmental balance for taking prudent, anticipatory action which gives both producers and users of these extremely useful chemicals time to adjust. Industry has been given a clear signal of the need to develop alternatives to meet the timetable agreed by the international community. I might add that the United States sought a 20 per cent. increase in production at the first stage to benefit the industry, but the European Community resisted that move on environmental grounds and it was reduced to 10 per cent.
The crucial question, of course, is whether the protocol will do the job. Are the measures sufficient to safeguard the health and welfare of future generations? Clearly, there are uncertainties. How many countries will join the protocol? Will the Soviet Union sign up? How much growth will there be in developing countries' consumption? What can be done to prevent non-parties from producing CFCs and halons? Nevertheless, the Government's view is that, on the basis of current scientific understanding, the prudential measures in the protocol are adequate to prevent significant depletion in the global ozone layer. However—this is most important—if new evidence points to the need for more stringent global measures, the protocol can be amended.
It is important that the evidence suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow should be given a significant review. I am sure that that will be the case. 801 There are clear provisions for the measures to be reviewed every four years, but that does not negate the possibility of new scientific data being reviewed at any stage.
I hope that what I have said assists my hon. Friend and convinces him that the Government take the threat to the ozone layer seriously. We have played an active part in measures that have been taken to protect it, and we continue to keep the situation closely under review. If there are major new developments, further global action must and will be taken. I give that commitment. The agreement is remarkable for allowing enough flexibility for such a commitment to be given when there is a major 802 development in the international scientific community concerning the impact on the ozone layer of a variety of chemicals on the market.
I hope that I have helped my hon. Friends. I am grateful to them for raising this matter and I am sure that the House is indebted to them for the time that they have spent researching it and offering their wise counsel.
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes to One o'clock.