§ Mr. PikeI beg to move amendment No. 135, in page 5, line 7, at end insert—
'(2A) No regulations shall be made under subsection (2) above in respect of air pollution before the laying before Parliament by the Secretary of State of a document setting out a national transport policy for the purpose of reducing harmful emissions to the air from motor vehicle and promoting forms of transport which minimise the pollution of the environment due to the release of substances into any environmental medium.'.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 148, in page 5, line 32, at end insert
'and any plan shall be accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which shall include an assessment of the likely significant effects of the plan on the environment.'.No. 149, in page 5, line 36, after 'revised', insert `including the Environmental Statement'.
§ Mr. PikeGiven the time, my speech will be shorter than I intended if we had reached this set of amendments at a reasonable hour. That does not mean that the proposals contained in the amendments are not extremely important. I am sure that you appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that amendment No. 135 has so many different facets that one could have a major debate on the items covered by it.
It is extremely important that the Government should consider transport policy and fuel emissions far more seriously than they have to date. We are all aware that some progress has been made on lead emissions with the gradual move towards lead-free petrol—the tax incentive on the price of that petrol has encouraged the move towards it. Lead-free petrol, however, deals only with the problem of emissions from petrol and diesel vehicles, but we must remember other considerations. The Minister will accept without hesitation that emissions from vehicles and power stations represent the two major contributors towards global warming and it is important to remember the implications of that for the world as we approach the next century. Whether we are considering catalytic converters or lean-burn engines, much more positive steps must be taken to encourage developments to tackle the problem of fuel emissions.
If we had a proper transport policy that provided a good, efficient public transport system, which attracted people away from their own vehicles, it would make a major contribution to combating pollution. We must have a cheap, efficient and reliable public transport system and the necessary infrastructure to uphold it.
We need only walk around the streets of London to appreciate the problems caused by vehicle emissions and their effect on global warming. We should consider what we are breathing in as a result of massive traffic jams caused by people using their private cars when they should be attracted to public transport. I am not one of those who 1140 believes that it is all right for me to use my car while wanting to introduce regulations to prohibit others from using their private vehicles. Some people believe that it is all right for them to use their cars, but want action taken to stop compulsorily other people from using their own. We should not adopt such a policy.
If we are to have the necessary integrated public transport system, massive public investment is needed in the buses, the underground and the railway system. We should all recognise that such investment would be good not only for our transport system, but for energy conservation and the environment as a result of subsequent reductions in pollution. That is why the implications of amendment No. 135 are extremely important.
If time permitted, I should like to have gone into greater detail about all the aspects of those different policies, which are all part of the same extremely important argument, and must be the direction in which we ultimately move. They have extreme relevance to the Bill and if the Government were to accept this positive amendment, they would make a great contribution towards not just protecting the environment, but enhancing it—as the Minister of State has said repeatedly during the debate on the Bill. If we were to pass amendment No. 135, I am sure that we should be doing that.
Amendment Nos. 148 and 149 relate to providing environmental assessment statements and considering the implications of emissions covered in clause 3, and are extremely important. Having been a member of the Select Committee on the Environment for the past five years, I have learnt that when one deals with one environmental problem, one can create another. Energy is probably the biggest single example of that. If we say that we do not want fossil fuel power stations, do we turn to nuclear power, wind power or barrages, which each have problems? If we change one problem for another, we need carefully to assess the implications involved.
As the Third world rapidly develops, one of the biggest factors during the next 10 years and into the next century will be a massive increase in the demand for energy throughout the world. We all know that pollution and environmental problems do not recognise national boundaries. Therefore, we must ensure that we consider that aspect positively.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England strongly supports the assessments that we seek in those two amendments. It gave one example, which we looked at closely in the Select Committee on the Environment, and we previously dealt with it in a different way—flue gas desulphurisation. If we want to deal with the problems created by coal-fired power stations—as shown in the two Select Committee reports dealing with acid rain—there are a number of options, and two major ones. One is FGD, which creates a demand for large quantities of limestone, and which has environmental implications because of the quantities required.
If we were to start talking about excavating large areas of the Peak district, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) would fight with every ounce of his body to ensure that we did not destroy that part of the country, and I would fully support him. But we much acknowledge that there will be a demand for limestone, which in turn will create large 1141 quantities of gypsum, some of which can be used, some of which cannot. Therefore, while that might seem an easy option, it may be necessary to look for another.
If we were to have an assessment, we would consider the matter objectively and decide whether, environmentally, such a programme was the best solution for dealing with emissions from power stations. We must decide on the best environmental solutions to such problems in a realistic and balanced way.
All those issues are extremely important and I could speak at great length about all of them. I have made an extremely brief case tonight, but I hope that the Minister will respond to it in the same positive spirit in which I have made it.
§ Mr. TrippierI much appreciate the spirit behind the amendments to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has spoken, but I must ask him to be a little more patient, especially about amendment No. 135. As I have said several times, we propose in the autumn of this year to bring forward a White Paper that will deal with all the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We shall not duck them. Those issues will have to embrace the environmental consequences of responsibilities that go far wider than those of the Department of the Environment—this amendment, for instance, concerns the Department of Transport.
I have great difficulty with amendments Nos. 148 and 149, although I understand the spirit behind them. I suggest that they would cause a bureaucratic nightmare. The amendments call for a full environmental statement every time a plan is amended. The first plan that we intend to introduce will limit national emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from large combustion plants. I doubt whether Opposition Members would challenge the need for that. We are doing many things on this front, but the clear-cut demands of the amendments would be, as I have said, a bureaucratic nightmare.
I am not certain what information would go into the statements. Are we, for instance, concerned with local effects or transboundary effects when we are dealing with secondary pollutants that produce, say, low-level ozone? The immediate local impact may depend on the climatic conditions and so be difficult to predict in the short term.
What is the purpose of the statements? What do readers who are unhappy with them do? Do they appeal? If so, to whom? What requirements for discussion are there to be?
The amendments are unnecessary and I urge the House to reject them. I hope that we shall meet the spirit of the main amendment with the publication of the White Paper.
§ Mr. PikeI believe that the issues in amendments Nos. 148 and 149 are important. I hope that they, too, will be incorporated in the White Paper presented to the Tory party conference later this year. We need to show publicly that all the implications of environmental matters have been examined.
I wait to see what the White Paper does about the subject of amendment No. 135. I also wait to see what action the Government take on it. If the Government do not deal objectively and properly with those issues in the White Paper, and do not follow that up with action, they will be major issues at the next general election. I believe that the public will recognise that the Labour party has the policies to deal with transport and pollution problems.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.