HL Deb 13 March 1989 vol 505 cc6-8

2.51 p.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they are satisfied that the United Kingdom's donation of £3 million towards the United Nations Environment Programme is large enough to indicate this country's concern in reducing damage to the ozone layer.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, the United Kingdom's increased payment of £3 million to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is expected to make us the second largest contributor, after the United States. This is a clear indication of the Government's concern not only to support international measures to protect the ozone layer but also of the recognition of the value of UNEP's work in other areas of growing concern, such as exports of toxic wastes and the threat of global warming.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and for doubling the donation towards this problem. Now that the problem of the damage to the ozone layer is more clearly identified, does the Minister agree that this sum of money looks paltry compared with the size of the problem with which we are dealing? Will this funding be kept under constant review because of the apparent urgency of the situation which is now developing?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, although it was British scientists who discovered the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere, we cannot solve the problem single-handedly as a nation. It requires every single country in the world to participate.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I understand that the very welcome increase in funding arose from a disagreement between the briefing of the Prime Minister and that of the Secretary of State for the Environment. If the briefing had informed the Prime Minister that the figure was £2 million, would the result have been a £4 million increase?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong. To increase the contribution to UNEP was of course agreed before the conference.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, has the Minister seen the report on research that the Forestry Commission has undertaken which indicates that a hectare of trees laps up 5 tonnes of CO2? Would not another 10 million acres of trees in this country be quite a contribution?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, that is why in particular broad-leaved trees are being planted on an increasing scale. However, again that is a world-wide problem.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, while everyone in the House welcomes the increase to which my noble friend and the noble Earl have agreed, why have the Government cut the grant to NERC so substantially—almost by half? Why over the past nine years has his own department cut its grant with regard to research into pollution from about £42 million to £28 million?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the Question is about funding to UNEP. I am very happy to take up with him the question of funding to NERC, which we have covered on numerous other occasions.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, why does the noble Earl not take it up now?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, because, with respect, it is wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, in reply to my first supplementary question, the Minister referred to the international responsibility in this matter. Can the Minister tell us why the Government were not represented at the international conference that took place over the weekend to discuss this problem and other related subjects? Does it not appear that unless a certain Prime Minister is conducting the orchestra no tune will be played?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the discussions that were held in The Hague at the weekend were very limited in nature because only about 20 countries attended and there were some objectionable parts in the declaration even after it was watered down and signed.

The conference that we held was a very positive conference requiring action immediately on the ozone layer; and that is the result.