Sulphur Dioxide Emissions (Hansard, 17 December 1987)

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

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the formula for reducing sulphur dioxide emissions adopted by the "club" is arbitrary. It takes no account either of the substantial emission reductions in the United Kingdom between 1970 and 1980 nor of our substantial programme to desulphurise three major power stations, the main benefits of which will accrue after the 1993 target date. By the turn of the century, we expect to have seen a greater reduction in our sulphur emissions from their peak than many members of the "30 per cent. club" will be able to show.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Britain is generally considered to be the dirty man of Europe as regards sulphur emissions? Is it the case that 21 nations signed the agreement to reduce their sulphur emissions by 30 per cent. by 1993? Is it the case that the West Germans are spending £13 million to reduce their sulphur emissions by 80 per cent. by 1997? If those statements are true, why is it that the British Government are standing out against an international agreement which has very wide repercussions for people all over Europe and particularly those in the Scandinavian countries?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the answer to that appears in my original Answer. Our record before 1980 was much better than that of most other countries. But the "club" rules do not count that. It is true that the Federal Republic of Germany is spending more than we are, but so far as I know it is the only European country that is. I repeat that few countries will be able to match our sulphur reductions between 1970 and the end of the century if we hit our targets; and we are determined to do so.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there will be deep disappointment and also resentment not only in this country but also in the Nordic countries and West 831 Germany at his reply? In a situation where the Nordic Council has commissioned more than 1,000 pieces of research showing that emissions from this country cause enormous damage in those countries, surely it is not right for the Minister to quibble either about the base date or the concluding date of the 30 per cent. agreement. As regards the improvement in three power stations, I ask him to say whether he has any plans for the improvement of existing power stations as well as new power stations.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I believe that it will be recognised in the countries which the noble Lord has mentioned that we have a very major programme going on and will be spending about £1 billion on cutting sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions from existing power stations between now and 1997. With new stations the figure could well rise to £1.5 billion. I am also glad to say that we have agreed with our European colleagues on the vehicle emissions directive which has recently been agreed in the Environment Council of the European Community. That is also important for the damage being done in Europe. I therefore do not agree with the noble Lord when he says that what I have said today will be met with resentment; it will be met with understanding by our European colleagues.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there is a good deal of unsubstantiated accusation in the rhetoric surrounding the subject? Will he also bear in mind that the reduction of sulphur emissions may result in higher costs to our electricity boards, which may affect employment as well as our exports?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am interested to hear my noble friend put forward that point, which could well be a valid one.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, can the Minister say if the Government are doing all that why on earth they should not join the 30 per cent. club? It would appear to be a form of snootiness or superiority.

§ Lord Belstead
No, my Lords. The reasons are those which I gave in my original Answer. The timing of the rules is such that we cannot quite comply, although we very nearly can. It is actions and not words which count. We are going to reduce our sulphur emissions in this country by some 50 per cent. in the last quarter, roughly speaking, of this century. That will be an objective which very few countries will beat us to.

§ Lord Ironside
My Lords, once the UK profile on SO₂ reduction is heavily dependent on the fitting and retrofitting of flue gas desulphurisation plant, will my noble friend confirm that priority will be given to major investment designed to ensure that that programme is carried through promptly and efficiently?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, we have the programme. The Central Electricity Generating Board is determined to carry it through.

§ Lord Craigton
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether it is true that in that respect Britain is the worst polluter in Europe?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, taking the per capita emissions as a base, so far as sulphur oxides are concerned, we are tenth in Europe, below Denmark, Spain, Finland, Luxembourg and most of the Eastern bloc countries, as well as the United States and Canada.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, do I understand the Minister to have told the House that the British Government intend to spend roughly £1 billion between now and 1997, compared with the £13 billion being spent by West Germany? Is it the case that in the Victoria and Albert Museum marble statues have to be enclosed in glass to protect them from the pollution in the atmosphere of London? Is he aware that the Nordic Council, of which my noble friend has already spoken, estimates that in order simply to preserve existing sensitive areas a reduction of 85 per cent. in sulphur emissions, rather than 30 per cent., is immediately necessary?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I must say that in choosing the capital city of London the noble Lord has selected about the most unadvantageous example that he conceivably could have chosen. We have an enormous amount to be proud of in cleaning up the atmosphere and the Thames.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, will the Minister answer my question? Is it true that marble statues have to be put under glass to protect them from the present level of emissions?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to take a walk around the capital city he will see plenty of statues that are not under glass.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
They are decaying, my Lords!