2.
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met representatives of Greenpeace; and what matters were discussed.
My right hon. Friend and I have not met Greenpeace.
Does the Minister agree that, in that case, more regular meetings are needed with Greenpeace and that, at those metings, the decommissioning of nuclear plants should be discussed, especially those of Sellafield and Springfield which discharge into the River Ribble and the coastline of my constituency at Southport? Does he also agree that the three-mile safety limit should be extended to 15 miles around the nuclear power stations where 3 million people live?
I am always happy to meet Greenpeace and any other organisations to discuss matters of energy policy. We have made our intentions on nuclear policy perfectly clear. There will be a full review of nuclear policy in 1994. We all look forward with interest to discovering the energy policies of the party that the hon. Gentleman represents. There seems to be some confusion between those in his party who were once members of the alliance.
Will my hon. Friend confirm that he shares Greenpeace's concern for the environment? When he meets Greenpeace, will he find out whether it will acknowledge the cost of the measures it advocates and recognise that those costs have to be passed on to the consumer?
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a telling point. The comparison does not involve merely economic costs but environmental costs. One of the concerns, which I suspect Greenpeace and many of us have, is what to do about sulphur emissions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in an excellent speech to the Royal Society last week, the Government, as part of their policy, are fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment at the most modern of our coal-fired power stations, Drax in Yorkshire, at a cost of about £600 million for one single site. My right hon. Friend said:
Those costs must be taken into account when determining the best way forward."retrofitting desulphurisation equipment is not the only way to achieve reductions. Indeed it can create wider environmental damage because it involves mining limestone (sometimes from some of the most beautiful areas of our countryside), the disposing of gypsum waste, and adding something to carbon dioxide emissions and thus to the greenhouse effect. As so often, solving one problem can create or exacerbate others."
Can the Minister explain the present position, because he appears to be switching the arguments weekly? Can he tell us why the Government have allowed the two new generators to slide backwards on the £2 billion programme to fit flue gas desulphurisation equipment to 12,000 GW of electricity generation capacity?
Is not it the case that the Prime Minister's words of last November—and what Ministers said throughout last year— have now been turned on their head? While Drax is going ahead, the Government have allowed National Power and PowerGen to forgo the rest of the capacity on the basis that the importation of low-sulphur coal, which at best could cut emissions by 50 per cent., is the correct policy to pursue in preference to retrofitting FGD, which would cut emissions by 90 per cent. In its press release on that subject, Greenpeace stated that if the Government allow the new generators to do that, we will rightly be called the dirty man of Europe. How will the Government meet those targets in view of their ratting on last year's agreements?
The Government are committed to meeting the European Community large plant combustion directive in full and we will do that. I commend the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the most recent edition of the magazine "Power in Europe", which I suspect he reads with interest. It states:
The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will meet the European Community large plant combustion directive in full."In Brussels, European Community officials say the decision does not place the United Kingdom in contravention of Community environmental rules. 'We're concerned with the amount of sulphur in the air and not with how it does —or does not—get there,' said a source close to the European Community Commissioner for the Environment."
If my hon. Friend would like to keep one step ahead of Greenpeace, would he raise as a matter of urgency the fear expressed about the safety of French nuclear installations? Is he aware that there is a real fear among my constituents who live along the channel coast of a French Chernobyl, because the inspector of French nuclear safety has published a most damning report which states that, within the next 20 years, there is a one in 20 chance of a major nuclear accident in some of France's unsatisfactory nuclear stations, 14 of which are within 30 miles of the English coast? Will he raise that as a matter of urgency?
If those reports are continuing to cause concern to my hon. Friend and others who have constituencies near his, I will ensure that they have a full explanation of the situation.