House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Jul 1991

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. Before we make further progress, I must repeat that which the House already knows, that the Chair has no authority to control the length of speeches. So far this morning Front-Bench Members have taken not less than 40 minutes and, with the exception of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), Back-Bench Members have taken no less than 30 minutes. If everyone who wishes to speak is to be called in the debate hon. Members should remember that they are stewards of their own destiny and should act accordingly.

12.53 pm

Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen) : I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is a pity that it is the only such debate in this Session and that it is being held on a Friday rather than on a day earlier in the week. I was pleased at the Prime Minister's announcement on Monday about setting up an environmental protection agency. The need for such an independent agency was put by the Select Committee on the Environment, the Labour party and the minority parties. The argument was also advanced last year in the Standing Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill and it has also been put time and again in the House. Such an agency was not proposed in the White Paper in September, but people are delighted that at the last minute, as a kind of death-bed conversion, the Government have decided to set up such an agency.

Mr. Trippier : The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. The White Paper said that it would be considered. Would he mind apologising?

Mr. Williams : I meant that there was no commitment in the White Paper or at any stage last year or over the years

Column 1267

by the Government. However, as we prepare for a general election the Government have found that their green cupboard is relatively bare and have plucked a proposal from our manifesto and now try to dress it up as an environmental protection agency. We welcome the Government's commitment--if they are returned to office which I doubt--to set up an environmental protection body. What role will the National Rivers Authority play in the new body? There is serious concern that the NRA will be split up and that only the part responsible for pollution control will be transferred into the environmental protection agency. The Labour party is pleased that, since its establishment, the NRA has shown itself to be a watchdog with real teeth. It is a success story for the Government and we want it to be transferred lock, stock and barrel, into the agency. Will the NRA be transferred in full or fragmented? If it is fragmented, it will be weakened, which will have an effect on what would otherwise be the strongest EPA in Europe.

I hope that when the EPA is set up--I trust that that will be done by a Labour Government--it will take responsibility for all solid waste disposal, particularly toxic waste. Solid, liquid and gaseous effluents would then be under its control. I should like it to take over the responsibilities of the Countryside Commission and some responsibility for agriculture, because that involves environmental protection. I should like it to go further and take over energy efficiency which is a critical part of environmental protection. There may even be some elements of transport policy into which the EPA should have a strong input.

We want a robust, independent and well-financed EPA. To help to finance it, we could have green taxes--not just charges as in integrated pollution control. We want more than the charges for monitoring. We want pollution taxes, to give companies an incentive to pump out less effluent. We could also have landfill taxes. When companies or individuals are prosecuted for pollution, any fines levied could be payable to the EPA. That would give the agency an incentive to prosecute more. We want more vigorous law enforcement. A critical part of the new agency is its independence from the Government. Here, there is a marked difference between our proposals and those of the Government. We propose a two-tier structure--an executive and a commission. The executive will be responsible for day-to-day policing, monitoring and prosecution of polluters, while the commission will be accountable to the Government. In that way, environmental protection will be at arm's length from the Government. That independence from Governments is important if the agency is to prove effective.

The danger with the Government's proposals is that the EPA will be part of the Department of the Environment and therefore subject to ministerial interference. The day after the Prime Minister made his speech, we saw the result of such interference. Our foremost nature conservationist, Sir Frederick Holliday, resigned as chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It is clear from the press reports and his comments yesterday on "The World at One" why he resigned. He was unhappy about clause 11 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill and the fact that he was not brought into the consultations on the moves to undermine the power of the new body that the Bill sets up. We do not want such interference in the EPA when it is set up. That is why the Labour party's proposals of a

Column 1268

commission and an executive will ensure a more effective protection body and a better guarantee of its independence.

In our debate today, all hon. Members are aware of the Government's White Paper published in September last year. After months of publicity, we looked forward to something robust and meaningful. Instead, we got 300 pages of glossy pictures, with lots of exhortation and encouragement but very little by way of firm action. That applies to the Government's record throughout the last 10 to 12 years. Their only major environmental measure was last year's green Bill.

I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. I enjoyed its proceedings, but throughout I realised that the Bill was pretty small beer. It deals with important matters such as integrated pollution control, litter, waste collection, recycling and so on, but the financial provision for the implementation of those measures is only £30 million. That was the value placed by the Government on cleaning up the environment.

That figure must be compared with what is done in the United States. On 8 March 1991 Science carried an article on the costs of cleaning up the environment. It says :

"The United States spent $115 billion in current dollars on cleaning up pollution in 1990. That's about 40 of the defense budget and just over 2 of the gross national product. And if a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report is correct, by the year 2000 the total will climb to $171 billion to $185 billion." That is about 2.7 per cent. of the United States gross domestic product. Compared with the $115 billion spent last year by the United States, our little green Bill commitment amounted to only £30 million--a factor difference of 1,000. That is a measure of the priority given by this Government to cleaning up the environment. When the Government eventually pluck up the courage to face the electorate--let us hope later this year--they will be judged not on today's debate, or on the Prime Minister's speech last Monday, or even on last year's White Paper, but on their record over the last 12 years. Their record does not stand up to scrutiny.

The water industry has been mentioned several times. The Government regularly under-invested in water during the 1980s. Their only policy was to privatise. Privatisation has led to higher bills and much greater salaries for the chairmen of the water companies. However, the quality of our drinking water is lower now than it was in 1979. The pollution of beaches by sewage effluent is worse now than it was 10 or 12 years ago. We await the benefits of any environmental improvements that the Government have set in hand.

As for agriculture, this is a critical year for the future of the common agricultural policy. It has caused extreme destruction of the environment. Hedgerows have been dug up. Farmers have engaged in intensive agricultural methods and used more fertilisers, pesticides and chemicals, which cause pollution.

The MacSharry proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy mean that when the deep cuts come the big farmers will suffer. They enjoy 80 per cent. of the benefits of the CAP. What do the Government say about the proposals? They are hostile to them, simply because they will hit the big farmers. I agree with MacSharry that small farmers should be protected for both social and environmental reasons. Their style of

Column 1269

farming is much more environmentally friendly. However, the Government are very much in the pockets of the big farmers--the agri-business lobby.

The Labour party wants the small farmers to survive and much more emphasis to be placed on environmental protection. Instead of the CAP supporting increased agricultural production, leading to massive surpluses of food, it should concentrate on environmental protection--the green premium, as we describe it.

The Government's record on transport is clear. They have projected an increase of 142 per cent. in traffic over the next 35 years. That increase is ludicrous. The Government are clearly the big car party. They invest £500 million a year in British Rail and public transport, compared with £3 billion a year in France and Italy and £4,000 million in Germany. The Government's emphasis is completely wrong. The Government's record on energy is wide open to attack. I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Electricity Bill two years ago. We were completely hostile to its main proposal to privatise electricity. At every stage during the Bill's passage, we tried to move amendments to introduce energy efficiency. Our main proposal was for least-cost planning.

Least-cost planning is followed in the United States. The regulators of American power utilities must demonstrate to the regulator when they propose to build a new power station that the power station is necessary and that the money could not be better invested in home insulation. Instead of building a new power station for £1,000 million, it would be better to invest that money in home insulation and district heating schemes. About seven times as much energy would be saved pro rata as would be generated with the same amount of money. The Government turned down all our amendments about least-cost planning.

Great savings can be made with energy efficiency. The Minister had great difficulty earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in accepting that major savings are possible through energy efficiency. An article appeared in the New Scientist a couple of years ago which referred to the record in the United States from 1973--the onset of the oil crisis-- to 1986. It stated :

"In the United States the annual demand for energy is still below that of 1973 even though the country's gross domestic product is up by 40 per cent."

Over that 13-year period there was a 40 per cent. growth in GDP and a cut in energy demand. The article continued :

"Japan has gone one better. The country used 6 per cent. less energy in 1986 than it did in 1973 even though its GDP grew by 46 per cent. over the 15 years."

It used 6 per cent. less energy while its GDP grew by 46 per cent. That is a 50 per cent. increase in energy efficiency over the period. Those are not the findings of an abstract scientist or the results of a feasibility study ; that is the record achieved by advanced countries comparable to ours. Compared to them, we are at the bottom of the league.

That article in the New Scientist also stated :

Column 1270

"The International Energy Agency estimates that if energy conservation measures that are now economically viable were fully implemented by the year 2000, energy efficiency would be more than 30 per cent. higher than current levels."

This Government have cut the Energy Efficiency Office's budget. There has been much exhortation, but the Government have not got their hands dirty in terms of doing anything.

There is quite a lot of opencast coal mining in my constituency. That is wildly and widely unpopular. Under this Government, opencast coal production has increased from 12.9 million tonnes in 1979 to 18.9 million tonnes in 1989. That is a 50 per cent. increase in production. Nothing can be more environmentally destructive than opencast mining. There is a presumption in favour of such development in the mineral planning guidance notes. Labour will reverse that when we are in government.

Coal as a source of energy is much discredited, because it is dirty and sooty. However, clean coal combustion is now possible. The Government are aware of that, but they do not believe in investing in it. In the 1970s, in Grimethorpe, Yorkshire, fluidised bed combustion was developed. It was possible to remove all sulphur in that way, but scientists working at Grimethorpe are now going overseas because that British technology is being developed overseas.

Last Monday, at The Sunday Times exhibition at Olympia, I talked to someone involved in research into the topping cycle. He explained the background in some detail and spoke of his personal frustration in not getting sufficient support from the Department of Energy. That technology will be the main method of electricity production in the next century. The biggest resource is coal--not nuclear power, oil or gas. In the next century, electricity will be made from clean coal combustion, despite the carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, we are in that no-win situation. It will be clean coal combustion.

Acid rain is no longer one of the environmental glamour issues, but it is a serious problem. In my constituency, thin soils cannot buffer acidity in the rainfall. In Wales, the Lake District, Scotland, and Scandinavia there are serious problems of acid rain poisoning our rivers, leaching aluminium into our rivers and drinking waters, with its relationship to Alzheimer's disease and so on.

Belatedly, in 1987, the Government recognised that acid rain was a problem. They undertook to agree to the European Community's directive to introduce cuts in sulphur dioxide emissions, but, when faced with the privatisation of the electricity industry, what did they do? They reneged on those commitments and cut by a third the number of power stations to be installed with flue gas

desulphurisation equipment. The awful fact is that when the Government leave office, not one of our power stations will have FGD equipment. We must compare that with Germany, Holland, Austria and Sweden, where virtually all power stations have FGD equipment. When the election comes, the "dirty man of Europe" tag will fit the Government.

1.11 pm

Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove) : The parrot cries of energy efficiency from the Opposition Benches remind me irresistibly of the war cry of the Wilson Government--the white heat of technical revolution that was going to save

Column 1271

their bacon in 1969 and 1970. It creates a wonderful picture of the Labour party being as credible as double-glazing salesmen. I refer to the contribution that the motor industry wishes to make to the improvement of the environment. I pause only to note the deep- seated hostility of the Labour and Liberal parties to the motor car and the motorist, despite the fact that 30 million people hold driving licences and there are 22 million cars on the road. I have no doubt of the consequences of that if it were followed to its logical conclusion.

I welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the start of this week, following the Department of Transport paper on the environment. My right hon. Friend set out clearly some of the major considerations : that climate change is a global problem, but that the United Kingdom is responsible for only 3 per cent. of global emissions of carbon dioxide ; that road transport in the United Kingdom is responsible for less than a fifth of that 3 per cent ; the largest polluters are the power stations that are so beloved of the Labour party ; and that businesses, industries, the motor car and other road transport are hotly pursued by domestic central heating as a source of carbon dioxide emissions. We need to get the matter into perspective.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will chair the strategy committee. He also pointed out that one of our main aims must be to work with the market and to awaken individuals to their responsibilities in improving the environment. My right hon. Friend mentioned four subjects. I welcome the fact that two of them were energy saving and transport, about which I wish to speak. In his paper, my right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport referred to the need to give market signals and to provide information, to the role of regulation and to the provision of infrastructure.

There is a balance to be struck in all these matters. If we are considering emissions from motor vehicles, it is important to note that there is a difference between a cleaner engine and a cooler engine--the cooler engine being the one that gives off less CO and contributes less to global warming. The catalyst helps to clean up other emissions, but leads to further emissions of CO and thus militates against efforts to reduce global warming. As I have said, there is a balance to be struck. We are trying to achieve a cleaner, cooler, quieter and safer vehicle. For the cleaner vehicle, which cleans up emissions other than CO , great progress has already been made with unleaded petrol, the fitting of catalytic converters and by doing away with the use of chlorofluorocarbons in motor vehicles. However, further progress could be made with the greater use of diesel engines, which are more economical, more energy efficient and give off less CO . They could therefore make an important contribution to reducing global warming.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and I have been going around Government Departments for nearly two years outlining a programme whereby the motor industry would contribute towards the achievement of the stated target of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) of maintaining CO emissions at their current level until 2005. It is a matter of regret that in the Budget the Government did not pursue the advantages of the

Column 1272

proposals that my hon. Friend sought to introduce as amendments to the Finance Bill. I hope that our further amendment may be selected for consideration next week.

I much admired, as well as enjoyed, the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister, but must advise him that the motor industry wants identified targets towards which it can work. If we have targets for energy efficiency and for emissions--as are being introduced in the EEC--and for noise and for safety, a programme of manufacture can be developed so that we can work towards those ends. My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield and I would argue that we should go down the route of market signal and incentive, as we did so successfully for unleaded petrol. We have been urging similar incentives for diesel, which would not only reduce its price in this country and bring it closer to the price elsewhere on the continent where the advantages of economy are already well understood, but would help our hard-pressed industry in this time of recession.

There have been some cheap jibes, notably in the literature of the green parties, about company cars, which have been mentioned this morning. I regretted to note a similar reference in the Department of Transport's White Paper. If we examine the facts, we find that the measures that were introduced in the Budget have increased the tax for employees while leaving their bosses with a lower level of tax. According to the Inland Revenue's own figures, more company cars are owned by people on schedule D than are used by those on schedule E. So once more the employees are paying higher tax than those who employ them.

There is also an argument about the arm's-length cost of the company car, as established by the contract hire rate. We also ignore the fact that company cars are newer and better maintained. The quickest way to make improvements is to bring new vehicles into the vehicle park. Otherwise, it will take at least 10 years to work through the 22 million vehicles which are currently on the road and ensure that they are all fitted with a catalyst to achieve the improvements that we all want. One way of helping to speed up that process is to encourage a greater turnover of vehicles and get new vehicles on the road. We must get rid of the 2 million unlicensed vehicles and the innumerable badly maintained vehicles which are the greatest polluters, as well as the noisiest and unsafest vehicles of the lot.

I hope that a stricter MOT standard will be introduced. I hope that we shall not only move immediately to four gas testing, which I was discussing with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) earlier, but introduce calibration of equipment and standard of workshop and additional safety and noise requirements.

Noise is an important polluter. I have a warning for my hon. Friend the Minister from a constituency factory which is interested in the production of axle load indicators. It has advised me this week that the EEC legislation is moving towards adopting overall payload rather than axle weight. Yet we have always been given to understand that it is axle weight which is so damaging to our road structure and so influential on noise levels.

Time does not permit me to make all the remarks that I had prepared, so I must come to a conclusion to allow my colleagues to take part in the debate. The quality of the environment is an important freedom for us all. When I took my young son swimming in the river two summers ago, I suddenly realised that it was an unusual experience

Column 1273

for him, whereas I was taught to swim in the river. Both the schools that I attended took us swimming in the river. I hope that my son and my grandchildren will also in due course be able to swim safely in the river.

The motor industry is anxious and willing to make its contribution to improving the environment for all of us, as well as giving us the advantages of mobility and security. Security is important for mothers on the school run or women travelling late at night who do not feel safe on public transport. It is an important issue. We are willing to make that contribution. We ask that targets be set and that research should be conducted into new technologies, including alternative fuels. What is the point of concentrating all our attention on what comes out of the exhaust instead of what goes into the engine in the first place? We welcome the White Paper and the fact that there will be a report, and we look forward to making our contribution.

1.23 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : I welcome the opportunity to discuss green issues, but I regret that this has been such a wide-ranging debate, because it is not easy to comment on some of the issues raised.

In the past three months, I have been fortunate enough to visit the constituencies of Stroud, Salisbury, Exeter, Falmouth and Camborne, Teignbridge, Suffolk, Coastal and Waveney at the invitation of prospective Labour candidates. I have spoken to the various environmental groups in those areas as well as to footpath officers, conservationists, representatives of the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and others about the Labour party policies contained in our document, "Earthly Chance". We discussed problems such as access to the countryside and how we can maintain the quality of the countryside. Those meetings were constructive and useful and I was pleased at the number of people who were excited by the proposals in the Labour party document.

The consensus that emerged from those meetings was one of concern about farm incomes and the difficulty that is placed on those who are required to maintain our countryside in the neatly farmed way which we have come to accept and enjoy. People were extremely interested in the Labour party's policy of green premiums.

During my campaign I was pleased to note that the Government announced their country stewardship scheme, because it looks as though the Government are following the Labour party. They have now recognised that we must find ways in which we can assist farmers to protect and maintain the countryside. We should not pay farmers just to undertake more and more food production.

I am concerned, however, that the Government are putting up only £13 million for the country stewardship scheme. On Wednesday, I gathered from the Secretary of State for the Environment that the money will be spread over three years and that it will be administered by the Countryside Commission.

I am pleased that the DOE has taken an initiative on the countryside, but it is important to compare it with the negative response to the set-aside scheme, which was

Column 1274

proposed by the European Community and is administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Have we got the balance right? I plead with the Government to expand the country stewardship scheme. Perhaps they should hand it over to MAFF to administer, but the principles set by the DOE should be retained so that we can do much more to protect the incomes of those in the countryside. We are talking not just about farmers' income, but about that of farmworkers and those in the neighbourhood who provide support services. I urge the Minister to consider the scheme to see how some of the money from the EC for the set-aside scheme can be used in a more positive way to develop and protect the countryside.

We must do much more positive work to protect the hedgerows. I am delighted that the Government have stopped giving grants to people to tear up the hedgerows, but I still regret that too many hedgerows are disappearing through neglect. They must be properly maintained and, after 30 years, they need to be properly layed. Throughout my visits, it became the exception rather than the rule to see a well-layed hedge.

I am absolutely appalled at the amount of litter we see. It is not a question whether an authority is Labour controlled, because most authorities have an appalling litter problem. I welcome the Environmental Protection Act 1990 although I am not certain whether the Government have got it right. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us when the provisions on litter contained in that Act will come into operation. When will on-the-spot fines be introduced? When will individuals be able to take local authorities to court if they fail to deliver the goods?

I do not blame local authorities entirely for the litter problem. The fact is that people still drop too much litter. Unfortunately, people are schizophrenic in their attitude to litter. When I visit schools, the pupils are terribly enthusiastic about green issues. The are concerned not just about the rain forests and the whale, but about the problems of littter. There may be huge posters about litter, but when I leave those schools I often see a trail of sweet papers and ice-cream wrappers.

We must convince people that litter is everybody's problem. I am concerned about the problems in the Tameside and Stockport areas of my constituency, where the litter collection service is a disgrace. Tameside has continually said that it does not have the money to do it and is looking for ways to improve the service. I fear that, so far, it has not succeeded in achieving any improvement. On the other hand, Stockport fully embraced the Government approach and privatised its refuse and litter collection services. It worked on the basis that, as the Government had claimed, if it privatised the services, the work would be done more cheaply and with better quality. Despite what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said about the great Liberal green policies, the response of the Liberals in Stockport, where they comprise the largest party on the council, has been a disaster.

The Government's policy was followed, the services were put out to tender and a bid was accepted from Focsa, a Spanish company, which was to carry out the refuse and litter services. Leaflets were distributed to all households

Column 1275

stating that there would be a better service. In the event, the service has been far worse, and I have had to contact chief officers about sites not being cleaned up properly.

The local authority discovered that it had made a mess by letting the tender to Focsa because some streets had not even been included in the tender. The company had put in a low bid simply to get the business, hoping that in the future it could put the price up. The authority is now faced with having to decide whether to withdraw the contract from the company and, if so, whether it would then be possible to find another company to provide a service at the right price. At present, litter collection there is a disgrace and it is time that the Liberal-dominated council sorted the matter out. The Minister referred briefly to the issue of green labels, but I was disappointed with what he said. He repeated the promise that we have often heard in the House--it was stated in an Adjournment debate of mine last March--that it was hoped to have a scheme in place by 1 January.

Mr. Trippier : I had to cover many subjects in my speech and could not spend long on that one. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am satisfied, having attended the last meeting of the Environment Council in Europe, that the eco-labelling directive will come out of the next Council meeting in October or, at the latest, in December of this year.

Mr. Bennett : The Minister promised that a scheme would be in operation by January. If that is to happen, manufacturers must be told in September or October what to state on the packets, depending on the products and how long it takes to produce them and get them to the shops. I hope that the scheme will be in operation quickly. The longer the delay, the more people are conned, as he suggested, by buying products that are claimed to be environmentally friendly when they are not. Much good will is lost in that way.

I like the idea of waste disposal credits. It makes sense to encourage people to recycle material rather than use it to fill up holes in the ground. But a problem exists between the collection and disposal authorities. If credits are given to collection authorities, they remove various items, but the disposal authorities take out the same items, so the two are working in opposition directions. Greater Manchester waste disposal authority is working hard to extract tin cans, but becomes concerned when the volume of cans in the refuse falls below a certain level because it is then not worth while to run all the refuse through the magnets and so on to remove the cans.

North West Water plc and Tameside local authority--two totally different organisations--have great charters about green issues. North West Water says how environmentally friendly it is, and explains how it has tackled certain problems and how it wants to encourage access to the countryside. The trouble is that trees are cut down to produce those documents on green issues, but when it comes to specific cases neither the local authority nor the water company takes a blind bit of notice.

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has called for an inquiry into the Kingswater development. I hope that the inspector will find in favour of the local residents, who do not want one of the nicest areas of open space between Manchester and Tameside to be destroyed by a business park. A problem has developed in the past couple of weeks. The local authority considered the planning

Column 1276

application in the autumn and in January the Secretary of State called for an inquiry--it is now set for 12 September. The local authority's Queen's Counsel has now told the local authority that it is in a mess, because it has no concrete proposals for road access to the site and he has recommended that North West Water should ask for the inquiry to be delayed for six months. The Tameside officials do not want such a delay and are now trying to rush through a road proposal, which was due to be announced yesterday or today. People will have 28 days to object to it, and a local authority meeting will be held to discuss it sometime towards the end of August. The local authority could then simply tell the inspector on 12 September that there is a concrete road proposal. The road proposal reverses a decision made by the inspector on the proposals for a motorway in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter carefully and tell Tameside that it is not good enough to try to rush the road access proposal through in two months at the most, in preparation for the public inquiry. If local people are to be consulted effectively, the public inquiry on the Kingswater development should be postponed for six months. The road issue and the subject of the inquiry could then be properly considered so that proper local debate on the issue could take place. I shall write to the Minister in a little more detail on that subject.

The Government must get on with turning some of their rhetoric on green issues into practice. They must set out to make the country stewardship scheme work so that much more money is spent on conservation rather than merely on food production. We must have effective action on litter, because it is an absolute disgrace. A working system of green labelling should be in place by 1 January. Finally, we must do much more to ensure that we do not continue to tip natural resources into holes in the ground, because we may have to dig them out in the future. I welcome the opportunity for a debate on green issues, but I wish that the House had more time to discuss them today and more opportunities to return to them.

1.38 pm

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : About five years ago, having spent almost a lifetime in personnel work, I put my name forward to become a member of the Employment Select Committee. For some reason I was overlooked, so I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) why. He told me not to worry because there was a vacancy on the Environment Committee--which also begins with an E. My membership of that Committee was my introduction to the subject. The past five years have been thoroughly exciting and interesting, and I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee for the work that he has done in those five years to bring so many issues to the public's attention. Many of them are commonplace today, but were then rare and novel--for example, acid rain and other subjects that we were supposed to have debated this morning but which have not been mentioned. I can understand why as it is difficult to isolate the environment in the United Kingdom from that in the rest of the world. That is one fact that we have discovered from our work on the Select Committee during the past five years or more.

The reports before us have some element of criticism of the Government, some suggestions and some positive points that may be controversial. But every one of our reports has come out with the unanimous support for the

Column 1277

composition of the Committees. The manpower changes in those Committees has been quite high, particularly among Labour Members, as more and more of them are promoted to become Opposition spokesmen and women. None of the reports has come out with a minority view. That means that we have sought to put the environment above party politics, and we must continue to do so.

Therefore, I was disappointed--although perhaps I should not have been surprised--by the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), which was nothing more than a catalogue of carping comments, with selective statistics, and which did nothing to elevate the debate or introduce any constructive proposals. That is not the way that we try to do things on the Select Committees.

I always make a wry note of the fact that, because of the way this place works, the Liberal party, from which there is never anyone present at Select Committee meetings, is always offered an early and long bite of the cherry in debates in the Chamber, despite the fact that Liberal Members show no interest in the subject in the House. If someone has to go to a funeral, it is not beyond the wit of man to find someone else to sit in and participate in a debate. However, Liberal Members do not do so, and there is a void in the Chamber and on the Select Committee. That may not be entirely the fault of the Liberal party ; it may be partly due to the way in which Select Committees are chosen. The Select Committee on the Environment is a public Committee to which anyone can come, but, to my knowledge, during the five years in which I have served the Committee, not once has a Liberal party observer been present or taken any interest in anything that we have done.

Sir Hugh Rossi : May I set the record absolutely straight? There was a Liberal Member on the Select Committee of the Environment until 1985, when he was made Liberal Chief Whip and had to resign from the Committee. I asked for that place on the Committee to be kept open for the whole of one Parliament so that the Liberals could replace him, but no one could be found from among their ranks who was willing to serve. At the general election, the Labour party asked for and obtained that place.

Mr. Holt : I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee, whose experience goes back even further than mine, for explaining the correct position.

We have heard talk about the terrible pollution on beaches, but it was not mentioned that the Select Committee has found that measuring equipment used today to determine whether the water contains pollutants is superior to that available 30 or 40 years ago. There is no doubt that, if today's equipment had been available then, we would have found that the beaches were worse in those days than they are today, but we have no way of recording that.

Last week we heard that the east Germans reckon that it will be 10 years before raw sewage is no longer spread around their beaches. We are a long way from that, and a long way ahead of the east Germans, but we still have more work to do.

Chlorofluorocarbons present a huge international problem. I asked an Indian Government official how the Indian Government would deal with the problem of

Column 1278

refrigeration and CFCs in the Indian sub- continent, as more refrigerators were used there and as the people turned more to western standards. He said, "I challenge you to go up to an Indian peasant woman who has lived all her life with the wish to have a refrigerator and to tell her that she cannot have it because it will increase the CFCs in the atmosphere, although people in the west want to keep their refrigerators." When we spoke to the Brazilians about the tropical forests, they said that they did not have a problem of cutting down the forests. They said that the west had the problem of too many cars. They said that if we cut out our cars, they would not have a problem with the forests. Trying to introduce some rationale takes the whole debate on the environment outside normal party politics. We should consider the matter more objectively and constructively.

For the first time, we have a Government who have listened to what we have said and who have introduced some of the measures that we have proposed. It was interesting to note that, when we first said that we would investigate indoor pollution, the following week the Department of the Environment, for the first time, issued a circular on indoor pollution. That was a coincidence par excellence. It shows that the Department listened and it shows the value of the Select Committee and its reports.

I endorse the remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) about the Minister not mentioning Northern Ireland in his speech. It is an area of particular beauty and, as we saw when we went there, there are pollution problems that we should take on board.

I represent the chemical heart of England on Teesside. There are problems there of toxic waste and cleaning up. We have the new power station from Enron and gases come ashore there to create power. Close by, there is the Hartlepool nuclear power station. We are aware of all the pollution problems, and we are also aware that one cannot turn the clock back. We cannot say to people that they must not have this or that, because they have been used to turning on the switch to get electric light, and to having electricity for cooking and for all the other things that we take for granted. It all has a price which has to be paid in environmental and in financial terms. Getting the balance right is the most important job that the Government must tackle.

I listened to Opposition Members talking about polluted beaches. We have them in Durham. Why? We have coalfields there. Until this Government came to power, no Government had done anything about that. The problem has been recognised, time limits have been set, and something will be done. The churlishness of the Opposition in failing to give the Government recognition for that does their cause no good.

There is no doubt that the water industry was starved of cash under the 1974-79 Labour Government. I was a member of the Thames water board at the time and I know how difficult it was for us as a water authority to keep up with basic maintenance, let alone to carry out replacement and renovation. Everything in the ground was getting older, but could not be replaced or repaired.

It is a shame that we have had this debate on a Friday. It would have been a better debate if more Back-Bench Members had been able to make contributions. They would have been better than the nonsense that we heard from the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Some of her remarks do not deserve comment, but I want to mention

Column 1279

Friends of the the Earth. They are an irritant to many people, but they sometimes make good points. If we did not have them, we should have to invent them. Why not recognise that we have pressure groups? All of them have axes to grind and much of the time what they say will be of little consequence. However, occasionally they get it right. It would be good if the Government could occasionally say that the Opposition have a good point and that they accept it. It would be even better if the Opposition would occasionally say that they support the Government on an issue and that they understand the Government's problems. They should say that they understand that the problem of pollution has developed over decades and centuries. We should approach in a far less partisan way matters such as contaminated land for which no records exist.

I warn the Government not to place too much hope on Europe, because it will clearly make the wrong moves on eco labelling. European countries do not know what they want and are pulling in different directions. Consequently, we shall have to take matters into our own hands. I am sure that the Select Committee on the Environment will make recommendations on that important subject. Members on both Front Benches should agree on eco labelling, and we should not play party politics about whether a label will contain too little or too much. The public will have to trust such a label and we should agree on what it should contain.

The environment is and will continue to be a major issue. In a party speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said that we have only a leasehold on this earth. She was absolutely right. It is the Government's responsibility to make sure that environmental issues are properly treated, and it is the responsibility of Back Benchers to make sure that the Government do that. I look forward to another five years' service on the Select Committee, which is carrying out precisely that task.

1.53 pm

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : Not long ago, my journey from Birmingham to London took two and a half hours and the fuel consumption of the car that I then had was about six gallons. Now, the same journey takes just under two hours and my present car's fuel consumption is no more than two and a half gallons. The difference is due to the fact that the Government have completed the M40 motorway which has relieved congestion along an arduous and outdated route through Banbury and Oxford, causing pollution, congestion and heavy fuel consumption.

New roads and those that are being built have freed up traffic which is therefore not consuming as much fuel and, obviously, not causing as much pollution. The other significant reason for decreased fuel consumption is that I have changed my car. I now drive a diesel vehicle and I am reaping the benefits of a superior form of internal combustion engine which is more energy efficient and which provides the power and performance that I want.

Some differences between petrol and diesel cars are quite staggering. The touring economy of a car is obtained by taking the calculations of fuel consumption for the urban cycle, at 56 mph and at 75 mph and weighting them. Under that formula a car such as the Montego powered by a two-litre petrol engine has a fuel consumption of 35.4

Column 1280

miles per gallon. The diesel equivalent will accomplish 55.8 miles per gallon. That is an enormous increase and it is due to the ability of the diesel engine to squeeze extra energy out of every litre of fuel.

A bigger executive car such as the Rover 827 will deliver 26.6 miles to a gallon of petrol. Its diesel equivalent, the Rover 825, will cover 40.7 miles to the gallon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) said some months ago, an alternative form of engine would enable us to make enormous strides in saving fuel and in reducing the output of carbon dioxide, which is a difficult gas to control. Of course there are other pollutants, but, because a diesel car can travel further on a gallon of fuel, it will cause much less pollution than its petrol equivalent.

The introduction of catalysts to solve the problem of exhaust emissions from petrol cars may be a good and sensible idea, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove pointed out, catalysts actually exacerbate the problem because those dangerous pollutants are turned to CO . Therefore, the vehicle not only goes less far on a gallon of fuel but emits further carbon dioxide.

It has been said that the wider use of diesel vehicles will lead to an increase in other forms of pollution--black smoke, soot on buildings, health hazards, particulate emissions--and that that is a further reason for not embracing the diesel car. However, despite long-standing research into the consequencies of diesel exhaust, there is no evidence that it is in any way carcinogenic. Although German and United States agencies, which are generally in the lead in research on exhaust emissions, have done an enormous amount of testing, no hidden problems have been discerned. I understand that a committee has been set up in this country, but I have been unable to ascertain who belongs to it or what findings it is establishing. Presumably, it is either duplicating experiments conducted elsewhere or developing new experiements.

Particulate emissions are a result of the sulphur content of the fuel used. The European Commission has announced that, by 1996, the sulphur content of fuel should be reduced to a low level. However, there is no national standard for sulphur contents in diesel fuel. The oil companies try to keep it to a reasonable level, but it tends to go up and down according to the refining process. The Government have encouraged the use of unleaded fuel, so it would be easy for them to impose a reduction of the sulphur content of diesel fuel at a far quicker rate. We should be moving as a European group of nations.

There is strong evidence that unleaded fuel, which is more accurately and highly refined than leaded fuel, contains more benzine than leaded fuel. Experiments in the United States have shown that this seems to have carcinogenic side effects on those who inhale the fumes when filling up their cars. Therefore, it is not the case that unleaded petrol has no side effects on health. There is some linkage there, although there is not on diesel fuel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and I have had similar problems in our attempts to encourage the Government to introduce an incentive for the buying of diesel cars, along the line of the fiscal incentive to use unleaded fuel. If people were encouraged to buy diesel cars, it is possible that we would reduce CO emissions by the year 2005, or even halt them at the present level. Unless we adopt a policy of incentives, there is little chance of the motor industry and the car user being able to play a part in reducing CO emissions.

Next Section

Home Page