Acid Rain (Hansard, 19 July 1984)

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon)
My Lords, I understand the additional annual costs to the electricity supply industry in England and Wales are estimated to be approximately £350 million. This is equivalent to an electricity price increase of around 4 to 5 per cent.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Earl for his Answer to my Question. However, would he agree that the increased costs would be quite serious not only for the domestic consumer but also for industrial consumers as well and would indeed put up our industrial costs and injure our competitive position? Would the noble Earl also agree that, although the "Large Plants" directive may he popular in certain quarters in a "sloganish" type of way, it may nevertheless not be the correct and most effective route towards dealing with the effects of acid rain on the environment, although it may prove to be the most expensive? May I have the noble Earl's assurance that the Government will resist any attempts to implement the "Large Plants" directive until proper and wide-ranging research has taken place into the reasons for acid rain and the best way of curing it?—and that would include afforestation policies which have been embarked upon by many countries throughout Northern Europe.

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that the capital cost of reducing SO₂ emissions by 60 per cent. by 1995 would be nearly £1.5 billion, which is obviously a sum that we should find difficult to produce and it would, indeed, take the edge off our competitiveness. The United Kingdom is willing to seek further substantial emission reductions but on a reasonable time-scale. It is for this reason that the Government's research expenditure in this field is now set at £5 million per annum. We are prepared to negotiate constructively on directives with our European partners and that, no doubt, we shall do.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this directive has been closely studied by Sub-Committee G of the European Scrutiny Committee and whether a report on the subject will shortly be forthcoming?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, my understanding is that Sub-Committee G is at the moment taking evidence on pollution. My department submitted evidence to it in May.

Lord Chelwood
My Lords, in regard to my noble friend's reply about a reasonable time-scale, would he be good enough to tell the House what views the Government have formed about what is known as the "30 per cent. Club" which seven countries, now including France, have joined as an earnest of the seriousness with which they take this subject and of their good intentions? Is it Her Majesty's Government's intention to join this club, which would at least take us roughly half way as far as the Commission is asking us to go?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, the difficulty of joining a club which issues a starting date of 1980 is that all countries have different trends. In our particular country our emissions have already fallen by 37 per cent. since 1970, which is not a record but it is something of which we are very proud. However, in answer to my noble friend, we are saying, yes, to further substantial SO₂ reductions to a reasonable time scale; yes, to parallel NOX reductions; yes, to further strengthening of our research; and above all, yes, to an international agreement.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, will my noble friend attach the greatest importance to speed as regards this matter—because, if the results are proved to be positive, there may, by 1995, be no more forests and no more fish in Norway to save?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I think that my noble friend is altogether going too far. There is totally insufficient scientific evidence to establish a clear link between emissions and environmental damage and no guarantee whatever that the substantial expenditure required by the directive would be cost-effective.

§ Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that nitrous oxide emissions may be just as harmful as sulphur emissions and that the two together may be even worse than either? Therefore, would he not think it unwise to concentrate entirely on the sulphur emissions?

§ The Earl of Avon
Yes, indeed, my Lords. I could add, of course, hydrocarbons as well.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the scientific evidence with regard to cause and effect of acid rain is by no means conclusive and that his cautious approach to this matter, as representing that of the Government, is fully justified? Is he aware that, when the Report of the Select Committee of this House on this subject is published, he will find this point fully substantiated?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I look forward to the publication with enthusiasm.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, will the noble Earl take especial note of what his noble friend Lord Nugent has just said—that we may, in fact, land up having more haste with less speed, and that speed will not necessarily find the right solution—indeed, it might find the wrong solution to the wrong problem?

§ The Earl of Avon
My Lords, I hope that my answers have not shown excessive speed, and I believe that the Government's policies are right.