Orimulsion (Hansard, 22 November 1993)

§ Lord Moran
My Lords, perhaps I may point out that the date in the second line of the Question as it appears on the Order Paper should read "27th" and not "29th" November. I apologise for that mistake.
The Question was to ask Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the concerns expressed in this House on 29th November 1991 (HL Deb col. 1314), whether they are satisfied that the continued burning of orimulsion at Ince B and Richborough power stations will not increase acid deposition in the surrounding areas or slow down the process of reduction in those depositions.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)
My Lords, prior to the authorisation of Ince and Richborough, Her Majesty's inspectorate of Pollution modelled the impact of the stations on environmentally sensitive areas and, consequently, the emissions have been constrained. Specifically, Ince and Richborough are required to fit pollution abatement equipment in advance of other stations.

§ Lord Moran
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, which is considerably reassuring. But is she aware that a report on acidification by the three statutory conservation agencies of 29th October last year showed, Wales to be the worst affected part of Britain with effects on fish, dippers and otters"? In the light of that report, is the Minister further aware that the burning of a highly polluting fuel such as orimulsion at Ince B on Merseyside, which is very close to North Wales, is viewed with much concern in the Principality, although there is a welcome for the firm regulatory stance which has been taken by HM Inspectorate of Pollution and for the plan, as I understand it, to require appropriate sulphur abatement techniques at Richborough and Ince by 1st April 1998?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, the noble Lord well understands the importance which HMIP places on this issue. I am sure he will agree that this House and this Government are always very conscious of the importance of such issues in Wales. He will also be aware that in part it is the nature of the soil which determines the effects of the emissions. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord that the amount of sulphur dioxide that stations are permitted to emit is no more than was previously allowed when they were burning oil.

§ Lord Mason of Barnsley
My Lords, is it really necessary to burn orimulsion at the power stations when there are abundant coal supplies available? Does not the Minister agree that it would be better to couple one or two coalmines to these power stations and consequently save many miners' jobs?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, I am pleased to say that when I was a Minister at the 25 Department of Trade and Industry I was delighted to answer energy policy questions from the noble Lord, and that is what this question is.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this is a matter of considerable concern in North Wales? Can she say whether the situation has been reported to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and whether he is conducting an inquiry into it?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we are well aware of the concern in Wales. Her Majesty's inspectorate works closely with the Welsh Office. After today I shall make absolutely certain that this matter is under discussion, as I am sure it will be.

§ Lord Wade of Chorlton
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, on the basis that the Government's regulations are being complied with, what form of energy these power stations should use is a commercial decision?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. What is important is that the Department of the Environment and Her Majesty's inspectorate are concerned with the protection of the environment, whatever the fuel.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to remind herself (because the House will recall) that she is answering on behalf of the Government and not on behalf of one particular department? The question asked by my noble friend Lord Mason was about the use of orimulsion. The Minister cannot get away from answering it by saying that it is the concern of another department.

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, I was not trying to get away from the question, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, puts it. This Question is about environmental effects and I would stress again that the inspectorate is concerned to ensure the protection of the environment irrespective of the fuel.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, is the Minister aware of any plans to have more such power stations? Does she know whether there have been any applications for more?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, at the moment there are no further applications with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, following the supplementary question that was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, from the point of view of general energy policy would not the Government be better devoting more effort to using coal in an environmentally acceptable way than facilitating the use of orimulsion?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, I well understand the concern of the noble Lord on the issue, but it is outside the realm of this Question.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that this is an environment Question and that the question of whether we burn orimulsion or coal in our power stations is an environmental question? Furthermore, it is a question about the future of the British coal industry, which the Government have done their best to destroy. Would the noble Baroness revert to her original Answer and say whether the equipment that she mentioned, unspecified, in these two power stations is flue gas desulphurisation equipment which would allow orimulsion at least to generate less sulphur dioxide than it does at present? If that is not the case, then are we to be subjected to further emissions of sulphur dioxide from the burning of orimulsion as opposed to coal, which will increase the acid rain problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, in relation to the burning of orimulsion, I advise the noble Lord that the operators are required to fit sulphur abatement equipment by 1st April 1998, which is three years in advance of the requirement for other stations. That is because of the additional information that has been obtained on this product. That requirement emphasises our concern about this issue.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, is the noble Baroness now saying that until early 1998 two power stations will be allowed to burn what is recognised to be the dirtiest fuel in the world and that we shall suffer?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, as I said in an earlier answer which perhaps the noble Lord missed, I stress that the amount of sulphur dioxide which the stations are permitted to emit is no more than was allowed previously when the stations were burning oil.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that people outside this place, particularly in coalmining areas, will be appalled that she is refusing to answer questions about coal and the coal-firing of power stations on the very day that a further two mine closures have been announced? Is it not shameful that we should be allowing the burning of this filthy fuel in our power stations while we are closing down the best part of our coalmining industry which could provide fuel that is both cheaper and far cleaner, particularly if flue gas desulphurisation plants are introduced? Cannot she do better than she has done so far?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, I well understand the concern which the noble Lord raises on these issues. What we are looking at this afternoon in this House is the question of whether the burning of orimulsion is polluting the environment excessively. I had hoped to answer noble Lords by pointing out that because of the work and requirements of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution, the pollution from orimulsion is no greater than from any other fuel. Which fuel is chosen is a matter for the operator.

§ Lord Mason of Barnsley
My Lords, why cannot those stations be converted to coal?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, one of these stations was converted from coal. Again, this is a subject in which decisions are based on the knowledge of the operators.

§ Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe
My Lords, may I revert to the question that was put to the Government by my noble friend on the Front Bench and ask the Leader of the House whether the noble Baroness, whom we all love very dearly, was ill advised when she answered in the way that she did? Is it not a fact that the Government Front Bench must answer for the Government?

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, if I may, I should prefer to answer the noble Baroness myself. I was not ill advised. It was my way of saying that I believe that this is outside the scope of the Question. I apologise if that caused offence to Members of your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness one further question? I am sorry to press her about this. She said that the choice of fuel was a matter for the operators. Is it not the case that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, replied from the Government Front Bench on 27th November 1991, the burning of orimulsion on a long-term basis is with the agreement of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution under S.I. 318? It is therefore not a free choice of the operator.

§ Baroness Denton of Wakefield
My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that that is the standard to which it has to be burned. I stress again that the choice of what is burned is a decision for the operator.