§ 3. Mr. McAllionTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to attain the targets for reductions in sulphur emissions in the United Kingdom set by the directive from the European Community.
§ The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier)The Government set out their general plans for implementing the directive in a consultation paper published in August 1989. A further consultation paper setting out more detailed figures will be issued shortly.
§ Mr. McAllionIn her speech to the United Nations the Prime Minister boasted that Britain had a £2 billion programme of flue gas desulphurisation which would reduce acid rain emissions from our power plants. Why within six months of that speech has the programme been slashed by at least a third, and why is Britain turning to the much less effective but cheaper alternative of importing low-sulphur coal which has the added disadvantage of threatening thousands of jobs in the British mining 270 industry? Is it because the Government give a higher priority to cutting public spending and boosting private profits than they do to protecting the environment or the jobs of British workers?
§ Mr. TrippierThe Government give a higher priority to the environment than the Labour party ever could. I detect from the hon. Gentleman's question that not only is he in a mess, but so is his party. The Labour party seems to wish us to burn as much coal as possible, but at the same time to reduce CO2 levels. It will be interesting to see how it squares that circle with the release of its policy document tomorrow. Labour's concern for the environment is not worth the paper it is written on. Its order of priority is the National Union of Mineworkers first and the environment second. That illustrates perfectly why the Labour party will never be a credible party of the environment.
§ Mr. ButlerWhat will be the relative cost to the consumer in attaining those targets, of flue gas desulphurisation and of the importation of low-sulphur coal?
§ Mr. TrippierI hope that the consultation paper that will be issued shortly will give the informaton on costs that my hon. Friend requires.
§ Mr. AllenWill the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Energy why it supported British Coal's programme of closing the pits that produced low-sulphur coal? Will he also ask the Secretary of State to reinstate the programme to ensure that our power stations are cleaned up so that they can use British coal rather than cheap imports, and we can retain jobs in the Nottinghamshire coalfield?
§ Mr. TrippierI am certain that the overriding concern of British Coal is economics. The hon. Member knows that its strategy is aimed at achieving a competitive coal industry. That is the best guarantee of mineworkers' jobs. Keeping uncompetitive pits open will destroy jobs in the long term.