---

Column 1098

pollution. But we have agreed to phase out sewage sludge dumping by 1998. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey must face up to the practicalities of his time scale, which would seek to phase it out within three years. The engineering and technical complexities of finding alternative means of disposal of 30 per cent. of the sewage sludge arising in the United Kingdom are great.

The reason why we have so much sludge to get rid of is that we treat more of our household sewage than any other country in Europe does. So we are talking about large volumes of waste, and it must be recognised that it can be disposed of in only three ways : into the earth, on the land or into the sea.

I should have greater respect for the hon. Gentleman's drastic timetable if I did not know that if someone wanted to construct an incinerator in or near his constituency he would be one of the first to object. We must face the fact that no alternative means of disposal is welcomed by or pleasant for those living nearby. Even when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey would not admit that these alternatives are politically, socially and technologically difficult.

I have exactly the same objection to the hon. Gentleman's other time scales --

Mr. Simon Hughes : As it happens, when there was a proposal to build, on the boundary of my constituency, a combined heat and power plant that would burn waste, I and my colleagues supported it. If the Minister checks the record he will find that whenever we have debated the disposal of waste I and my colleagues have argued that land-based disposal is better, and we have supported the Government when they have followed that line, because such disposal is more easily monitored. It is more important to deal with the toxicity of the waste beforehand so that the potential dangers are lessened. We have consistently refused to take the NIMBY approach, by contrast with some of the Minister's predecessors in the Department.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I am delighted--as, I am sure, Thames Water will be--to hear that the hon. Gentleman might not take a negative view if it was proposed to build an incinerator in or near his constituency to deal with the sludge from it which now all flows into the North sea.

The technical complexities of dealing with industrial waste and fly ash are also great. We are dealing with large quantities of dilute chemicals. When pressed, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that he did not want to shut down these industries overnight and that his time scales would give some leeway. His new clause would set a time scale of less than eight months, whereas in realistic negotiations with the companies concerned we are setting a time scale that would take us up to 1992, or in two cases a possible continuation into the early months of 1993. That is a demanding time scale and anything else would put jobs and the industries involved at serious risk.

7.30 pm

I emphasise that we are not in breach of undertakings given at the second North sea conference. The industrial wastes being deposited in the North sea are not significantly harmful and we have presented evidence to that effect to the Oslo commission. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the part of his new clause that calls for zero discharges of harmful substances by 2000. My hon.

---

Column 1099

Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) rightly said that that was entirely unrealistic because we are dealing with a wide range of wastes--domestic, industrial and agricultural- -some of which contain trace elements of contaminating substances, such as lead from pipes or from roadside dust. We also have a legacy from our past activities in mining.

All that means that whatever we do there will always be small quantities of harmful substances running off land into rivers and, therefore, to the North sea. We cannot simply wave a magic wand to try to get those discharges down to zero. We must patiently negotiate with our partners a realistic series of priorities and time scales to deal with dangerous substances. That is what we signed up to do at The Hague conference and in a few weeks we shall publish a detailed guidance note on how we shall implement The Hague conference declaration.

New clause 55 seeks to deal with pollution from ships. I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey says, but I assure him that his new clause is not necessary because we already have in place a speedy and effective system for dealing with pollution incidents. Hon. Members may recall the efforts of the French and United Kingdom authorities to recover dangerous substances from the motor vessel Perintis which sank in the western part of the English channel last year. Those efforts showed the effectiveness of the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit which received advice from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and dealt with the matter. The Royal Navy managed to recover a major part of the shipment of pesticides. That shows that we have in place the means of dealing with such problems and new clause 55 will not add to the powers that are already available under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 as supplemented by the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) Intervention Order 1980.

Some hon. Members spoke about the need to protect, and in some cases set up, marine conservation zones. I am sympathetic to that view, but I draw the attention of the House to the procedures that already exist for setting up marine reserves under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is not possible to draw lines on maps and say that the area delineated is a conservation zone. Patient consultation with those involved is required.

The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) complained about the time that it has taken to set up the Lundy island reserve. I think that he will understand that we must take fully into account those who live and work in such areas. In many cases we are talking about fragile local economies and we must get the wholehearted co-operation of fishermen, those who make their living along the shorelines, and those who live in such areas, even if that takes some time. I remind the House that the means exist for protecting our marine environment. I urge the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes : I do not think that there is as much common ground between the Minister and my party on the matter of dealing with harmful discharges as there is between us on the other matters. I hope that he will look again at the matter of marine conservation zones. People are disappointed that only one, Lundy island, has been declared under the 1981 Act. My new clause is a practical way to deal with important sites. I hope that the Government will respond later in another place and will agree with us on that.

---

Column 1100

In speaking about new clause 9, the Minister said that we have mixed general intentions and arbitrary targets. The Government have a policy of general intentions and targets and there are dates to which the Government have subscribed. The difference between us is that we say the Government are going too slowly. We could go more quickly and the environmental targets that we urge are much more justifiable than those that the Government have so far negotiated. The evidence shows that on all the occasions when there has been a negotiated agreement, Britain has argued for a later date while everybody else has argued for an earlier one. If the Minister wants more evidence of the fact that the Government are dragging their feet, he should look at the decisions to which the United Kingdom has been a party.

For those reasons, I and my hon. Friends ask that new clause 9, which stresses the urgency of measures to protect the North sea, be put to a Division. I ask hon. Members to support us.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :

The House divided : Ayes 28, Noes 178.

Division No. 190] [7.36 pm

AYES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Beith, A. J.

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Cohen, Harry

Crowther, Stan

Cryer, Bob

Duffy, A. E. P.

Eastham, Ken

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Flynn, Paul

Hood, Jimmy

Howells, Geraint

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)

Kennedy, Charles

Maclennan, Robert

Meale, Alan

Pike, Peter L.

Primarolo, Dawn

Skinner, Dennis

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. James Wallace,

Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

NOES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Amess, David

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Ashby, David

Atkins, Robert

Baldry, Tony

Batiste, Spencer

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Bellingham, Henry

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Benyon, W.

Bevan, David Gilroy

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Burt, Alistair

Butcher, John

Butler, Chris

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Cash, William

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Churchill, Mr

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cran, James

Critchley, Julian

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Day, Stephen

Devlin, Tim

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Dunn, Bob

Durant, Tony

Emery, Sir Peter

Evennett, David

Fallon, Michael

Fookes, Dame Janet

Forman, Nigel

Forth, Eric

Fox, Sir Marcus

Freeman, Roger

French, Douglas

Fry, Peter

Gale, Roger

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Goodlad, Alastair

Gorst, John

Gow, Ian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

---