House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Jul 1990

Column 34

I know that he has a love of the Welsh landscape. But we want to see the practical consequences of that and hear him declare himself a green Minister in planning terms.

We need to protect the integrity of our national parks, environmentally sensitive areas, sites of scientific interest and designated areas and we need a coherent countryside planning policy. The areas represented by many of my hon. Friends present today include valley communities and the fringes of urban industrial south Wales, as it used to be called, and industrial north-east Wales. In those areas we can see the result of over-development, whether commercial or housing, that is out of character with the landscape and would not be permitted in a national park, where there are strict guidelines controlling the appearance of properties and estates. We need to adopt the same kind of sensitive approach everywhere in the countryside. We might spend a lot of public money trying to re-create an attractive atmosphere in the inner cities, such as the marine districts of Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, attempting to renovate districts with old industrial heritages and make them into conservation areas, conserving old buildings or landscaping away the effects of mining and quarrying, but it does not make much sense if we are destroying our landscape and heritage at the same time because of new development. We need consistency of approach by the Department.

We need to set Welsh environmental issues in the global context of the threat to the ecosphere, with all its moral, ethical and--for the benefit of the hon. Member for Swansea, East--theological implications. We need to adopt a global approach when scrutinising the micro-environment in Wales-- and we need coherence in policy. We must assess the implications for our environment of all policy decisions, and we look to the Secretary of State for Wales, as the new green Minister, to respond to all our points.

4.25 pm

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt) : I beg to move, to leave out from House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :

welcomes the major programme of investment to be undertaken by the privatised water companies to improve the quality of water and the comprehensive measures outlined in the Environmental Protection Bill ; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the positive lead it is giving in areas of environmental concern ; and looks forward to the publication of the Government's White Paper on the Environment later this year.'.

I certainly regard environmental policy as my responsibility as Secretary of State, assisted by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State. Environmental policy is vital. The environment is one of the most important policy areas, and my objective is and will remain to improve the quality of life in Wales, with particular reference to the environment.

We certainly inherit problems from the past, but, equally, we are trustees for the future. Although we may be able to point to actions in bygone years that have caused the situation today, that is no excuse and no alibi for not ensuring that we take the most urgent and positive action to overcome the problems of our inheritance--so that we can hand over a heritage of an improved quality of life. I must also respond to what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) said about farming. Agriculture is vital to the future of Wales, and a strong and healthy agriculture is crucial to the quality of

Column 35

life there. We must ensure an improvement in that quality of life so that we have an even better environment in which to work and live.

As we draw together the policies for the 1990s, towards the year 2000 and beyond, I should have thought that there would be almost unanimous agreement in the House that the environment is one of the key areas on which we must make our policies relevant to the needs of today and to those of future generations.

Today's debate could be seen as part of the long-running campaign designed to draw attention to the perceived problems of the Irish sea, but despite the wording of the motion the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy drew back from such a confined analysis, and I welcome the fact that he widened the debate ; such was the purpose of our amendment. I readily accept that we have pushed him in the right direction, and I welcome the way in which he responded.

When dealing with the environment no single section of society and no single political party has a prerogative ; we are dealing with a vital component in the thinking of us all. Environmental issues matter not only because they have an impact on us but because whatever we decide will have a major impact on future generations, too. In that sense we are the stewards of the future and must exercise our stewardship judiciously and with care and prudence. In every possible sense we must take account of the importance of environmental issues. We must be aware of what we are doing and the effects, and we must consider all the evidence before deciding how best to proceed. We must appreciate the damage that can flow from certain policies because such damage is often long-standing. Some problems can be corrected only at enormous cost and with great difficulty. The Government are conscious of the need to care for and protect the environment and of the need to devise policies to ensure that what we value today is available to future generations.

Mr. Dalyell : I am grateful for the way in which the motion is worded, which shows that this is a United Kingdom debate. What do the Government propose to do about new modern trawlers that hoover--there is no other word for it--the sea bed, and especially the beds of the Irish sea and the Minches? Those trawlers drag dumped material to where it should not be, as ICI found in a recent explosives case. The actions of such trawlers lead to the destruction of many breeding grounds of fish and creatures on the sea bed. Serious damage is being caused. The problem has grown in the past four or five years. I am not attacking any Department, because the problem is not of the Government's making, but what do they propose to do about it?

Mr. Hunt : The problem goes back much more than four or five years. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will be aware of the positive approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the way in which he has raised such matters in the European Community. I do not want to go into great detail about those discussions, but if the hon. Gentleman has been present for debates and questions about fisheries, he will know that we are expressing serious concern about the need to ensure that not only are quotas strictly observed but that the breeding grounds are

Column 36

protected for future generations. I am pleased at the way in which the hon. Gentleman approached his question and I reassure him about the Government's intentions as expressed in the robust language of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Many of the policies to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred are being implemented and will continue to be implemented to meet the concerns that have been expressed. Caring for the environment requires constant assessment of the relative costs of what is proposed and the benefits that will follow. The environmentally preferable solution is often the most costly. We must be sure that we are prepared to meet such costs, and we must be mindful of their extent in areas which I shall discuss later. Judgments must be made between environmental costs and environmental benefits. For example, we hear much about the cost of dumping sewage at sea, but little about the disbenefits of alternative methods of disposal. We must look at the whole picture. We have already taken some steps, but economic growth is needed to meet the cost of improving the environment, and such growth often causes other environmental problems.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : The Secretary of State refers to the disbenefits of certain matters. If the long sea outfall is long enough for two tides, will not that sometimes be preferable to trying to absorb the chemical effluent from a sewage disposal plant?

Mr. Hunt : My hon. Friend has hit on an important point. As I said earlier, experts believe that long sea outfalls can--if judiciously managed --be an effective means of disposal. A report by Consultants in Environmental Sciences has examined the assessment.

Often, we must examine the environmental consequences of the alternative means of disposal. I am not aware of an urgent wish on the part of people living in certain areas to have a sewage disposal improvement plant adjoining their houses, or of any who are urging that we should allow effluent from sewage disposal plants to be injected into the sea near where they live. We must always ensure that we examine the total picture before reaching decisions about part of it, especially when that part has given rise to a pressure point from a section of public opinion.

Mr. Anderson : Is not that debate already closed as the result of pressure from the European Community? Did not the Government announce on 27 June that any long sea outfalls yet to be put into operation must include a treatment plant? As I understand it, no timetable has yet been announced in respect of Welsh areas such as Swansea bay. When will the Minister be able to announce that timetable, which is the subject of considerable concern in a number of Welsh coastal areas?

Mr. Hunt : I shall respond in more detail to the hon. Member's point in a moment.

In working out any timetable, we must be aware of the costs, and also the relevance of the alternative means of dealing with the sewage. The sewage will not go away ; we must find a better method of dealing with it. We must bear it in mind that alternative means of disposal can carry with them equally problematic difficulties for the environment. We must think through the consequences before embarking on the tight timetable that certain sections of public opinion are urging us to adopt.

Column 37

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept--given where his constituency lies- -that the fact that a quarter of all the sewage sludge that is dispersed into the waters around these islands is dispersed by the North West water authority into Liverpool bay can cause an enormous localised problem. Given that the Irish sea turns over its water only about twice a year--a very low turnover--that may not be the most appropriate way of disposing of sewage in that location.

Mr. Hunt : I am well aware of the consequences of over-disposals into an area that does not have the necessary turnover of fresh water, although I do not accept the double mechanism to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have not seen that statistic verified, but if it is correct it is equally relevant to the problem that we are discussing.

We must be aware of the environmental impact of alternative methods of disposal when we embark on assessing the costs and benefits. As I said, the problem is that we need the economic growth to pay for improvements in the environment. The Government must provide the means for securing economic growth, while developing environmental policies to ensure that what we have and value remains for succeeding generations. Equally--as our environment is affected not only by what we do but by what other countries do--we must do our best to promote sensible environmental policies, not just in this country but in the wider world.

I hope that it is accepted in the House, because I believe that it is widely accepted outside, that the Government have done a tremendous amount to promote and develop environmental policies. Let us take one or two examples. In 1974, a Conservative Government introduced the Control of Pollution Act, but there was a long wait until, under another Conservative Government in 1983, the benefits of that Act were put into operation. Last year, the Government established the National Rivers Authority, which was generally acclaimed as an effective way to improve the water environment. This year, we have in the throes of the parliamentary process the Environmental Protection Bill, which will provide us with the basic framework for our pollution control well into the next century.

Mr. Dalyell : I do not hesitate to ask this question as the university of Cardiff, with Professor Michael Claridge, who is president of the Linnean Society, and Professor Pritchard, has one of the most distinguished schools in this subject in Europe. The professors made the strongest representations about the natural history museum and the consequences of the changes there for research into all these matters. Will the Welsh Office use its influence to help those who are trying to help the museum to get proper funding for its worldwide responsibilities?

Mr. Hunt : I shall let the hon. Gentleman have a detailed answer to that point, but the policy is that the Welsh Office does not fund museums and galleries, with the one specific exception of the national museum. We shall certainly do our best to help and encourage funding for the museums and galleries in Wales.

Not only has this Conservative Government introduced these Bills and developed major environmental policies,

Column 38

but we have produced the economic climate that allows us to make the investment necessary to implement the Bills when enacted. Water pollution problems are not new. They are not the result of the policies of, or of any recent activity or inactivity by, the Government. Nor did they suddenly appear when water plcs were created. Water quality problems result, in some cases, from industrial and agricultural policies that go back for decades and from a lack of investment by water authorities in relatively unglamorous sectors such as sewage treatment.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : As a former member of a water authority, I do not feel that we should take all the blame for that, because the previous Labour Government slashed half the investment programme of water authorities. We should have happily spent the money if the Labour Government had given it to us.

Mr. Hunt : I am grateful for that intervention. If the last Labour Government had a record, it was in the size of the cuts imposed on water authorities. I agree that there were serious economic problems, and the IMF had been asked to come in and bale out the Labour Government, so there are understandable reasons why the investment programme was cut. However, it produced the serious problems with which we are now dealing.

It has been common practice in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world to discharge sewage effluent into the sea with only the most preliminary treatment to remove litter, rags and large solid particles, because it had been taken for granted that the size of the sea and the dilution that it provides, and the effect of the sun and the waves, would be sufficient to allow it to continue. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that, in many cases, it is.

Mr. Gareth Wardell (Gower) : Is not one of the fundamental difficulties the fact that, when the European Community introduced the bathing waters directive in 1976, the Department of the Environment deliberately chose to interpret "bathing beach" in such a way that not a single bathing beach in Wales fell under the definition? As a consequence, the Government were able considerably to delay the implementation of the directive.

Mr. Hunt : I did not wish to be drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) into criticism of the last Labour Government, and equally I should not be drawn into criticism of them by the hon. Member, although it may be attractive to do so to prove my point. The 1976 bathing waters directive was not observed by the previous Labour Government. I do not want to get drawn into the past, because I have a lot to say about what we are doing now, and what we propose to do in the future. I am responding to an intervention. I did not introduce this lengthy look into the past.

Water pollution problems result from practices that have been going on for a considerable time. I remember reading the report, published by the Consultants in Environmental Sciences, of a study for the Department of the Environment of large domestic sewage discharging into coastal waters via a properly designed long sea outfall. It observed little environmental impact. Beyond 50 to 100 m from the point of discharge, the survey failed to detect measurable impacts. Outside the immediate mixing

Column 39

zone, the study said that it would be difficult to detect differences in sea water quality resulting from discharges of treated effluent, or screened raw sewage.

The point is that this Government have tackled the problems of water pollution. The Water Act 1989, with the consequential establishment of the National Rivers Authority, and our recent policy announcements are the pivots of our policies on water pollution and show clearly our commitment to resolving the problems. We are determined that the water environment should be improved by all practical steps and in the shortest time scale commensurate with the available technology and resources.

Mr. Holt : As my hon. Friend will know, the Select Committee on the Environment recently carried out a detailed examination of long sea outfall, and its report will be published next week. I cannot say what is in the report, but I can hint that the long sea outfall will be given a fairly clean bill of health.

Mr. Hunt : I am grateful, and I look forward to reading the report.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy spoke about quality. The last national survey took place in 1985 and these are the latest figures that I have been able to find. They show that river quality in England and Wales is such that 94 per cent. of Welsh rivers were in classes 1 or 2, and 83 per cent. were in class 1. Some 98 per cent. of estuarial waters in Wales were in those categories. A report published by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea said that, apart from Liverpool bay, where the mercury levels were close to the European Commission limit, although they are now declining, the problems of the Irish sea are essentially minor and short-lived.

The Government are also doing more about river quality. One aim of the National Rivers Authority is to achieve a continuing improvement in the quality of rivers. Good quality river water is essential for environmental improvement, and polluted rivers are one of the main sources of sea pollution. This year, the authority is conducting a survey of river quality in England and Wales. When it is published, it will form the basis on which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will set river quality objectives. Those objectives will be the parameters within which NRA policies and decisions on matters such as discharge consents and abstraction licences will be founded.

With regard to Wales, the advisory committee that I established under section 3 of the Water Act 1989--and which will advise me on NRA matters-- will be meeting shortly. It will closely study NRA policies and will give me the benefit of its advice on how best I can ensure that the NRA implements its policies in Wales. I shall certainly give the NRA every possible encouragement to take positive action to secure improvements in water quality in the Principality.

Mr. Gareth Wardell : I am glad that the Secretary of State is setting improved standards. Will he ensure that the NRA has a better record for prosecutions, especially for industrial pollution, than did the former water authorities, as shown in the statistics recently produced by the

Column 40

Department of the Environment? Some water authorities did not initiate a single prosecution when rivers were polluted in 1988.

Mr. Hunt : Although I did not attend all the debates, I should have thought that it would have been made clear that one of the main reasons why it was thought right to introduce changes was the lack of positive prosecution. We separated the different responsibilities so that there could be an effective prosecution service. One of the first prosecutions by the NRA was for the Shell spillage last year into the River Mersey. The NRA acted with commendable speed and considerable effect in that case. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has rightly highlighted one of the main reasons why the Government thought it right to introduce that legislation.

The 1985 survey gave a number of reasons why river quality was not as good as it should be. The primary reasons were sewage effluent and agricultural pollution. That is why, in the next 10 years, sewerage undertakers in England and Wales will be spending £12 billion on sewerage services, including sewage treatment works and sea outfalls. Dwr Cymru will be investing £400 million during the next five years, including £140 million on sewage treatment works, and a further £300 million in the following five years. Work on some of the worst plants will be completed by March 1992 and will have an immediate impact on the rivers into which the works discharge.

I have been concerned about the overall increase during recent years in the number of agricultural pollution incidents. In 1988 there were more than 4,000 reported incidents of pollution by agriculturalists, almost all from silage or slurry liquor. Both are far more effective than raw sewage in damaging the aquatic environment. Last year, the number of incidents fell by 30 per cent., which appears to be a good record, but which I regret was more likely to be caused by the exceptional summer than by good housekeeping. Later this year we shall introduce regulations setting minimum standards for the construction of silage, slurry and agricultural fuel oil stores and given the NRA the power to require improvements to existing structures. That will go a long way towards reducing the devastating effect of such pollution.

The Government have also taken a number of policy initiatives that will have a direct impact on the sea. The North sea conference agreements, in which we played a leading role, are generally welcome and the Government have scrupulously abided by them. Not only that, but we took the decision to extend the agreement for the North sea to all other seas round the United Kingdom, including the Irish sea. All the agreements reached in the North sea conference have been applied to the Irish sea. That was clearly set out in the guidance note on the second North sea conference in 1988, which said :

"In the Government's view other seas around the kingdom require an equal degree of environmental safeguarding and the changes of policy implied by the declaration will in general be applied consistently throughout the United Kingdom."

That we have now done.

Particular policy agreements reached in the second North sea conference include, first, that the dumping of polluting material should be ended at the earliest practical date ; secondly, that as from 1 January 1989 no materials should be dumped unless there are no practical alternatives on land and it can be shown that the materials pose no risk to the marine environment ; thirdly, that sea

Column 41

disposal for sewage sludge be retained as an option, but that urgent action be taken to reduce the concentrations of certain dangerous contaminants and to ensure that the quality of such contaminants disposed of should not increase above 1987 levels ; fourthly, that marine incineration be substantially reduced by not less than 65 per cent. by 1 January 1991 ; and, fifthly, that the practice be phased out by 31 December 1994. We have abided by the North sea agreement.

On 22 February, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that industrial wastes were not to be dumped at sea after the end of 1992. The 1987 agreement accepted that wastes such as those licensed by the United Kingdom could continue to be dumped at sea, provided that they did not harm the sea and that there was no practical means of land-based disposal. Nevertheless, we have gone further and, with the co-operation of the companies concerned, we will end dumping of all such industrial waste.

Mr. John D. Taylor : The right hon. Gentleman referred to industrial waste being dumped at sea. Does that include waste from Sellafield?

Mr. Hunt : It does not. Industrial waste is carefully defined. I used that definition, and it was accepted, in the conference at which that was decided.

On 5 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that by the end of 1988 the United Kingdom would end the dumping of sewage sludge at sea. At present, some 70 per cent. of sewage sludge is disposed of on land. We have continued to encourage sewerage undertakers to develop land-based disposal methods for the remainder of the sludge. As a result of significant advances in incineration techniques, we decided that the disposal of sewage sludge to sea should end. The time lag is required because of the substantial programme of work and capital investment required to implement alternative disposal methods, including obtaining planning permission.

On the same day, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that we had concluded that a case could be made for treating all substantial discharges of sewage. We have decided that, in general, municipal sewage should receive secondary treatment, but that primary treatment would be more appropriate for discharges to coastal waters where it can be shown that that would not adversely affect the environment. It is estimated that introducing that level of treatment will cost about £1.5 billion, which is additional to the investment currently programmed to improve the quality of our bathing waters. That in itself will cost £1.4 billion, of which £100 million is to improve bathing water quality in Wales.

In the third North sea conference in March, further agreements were reached that will again be applied to all waters round the United Kingdom, including the Irish sea. It was agreed to end sewage sludge dumping by 1998 ; to cease dumping industrial waste by 1992 ; to destroy PCBs by 1995 if possible, and by 1999 at the latest ; to reduce by 50 per cent. or more by 1995 some 37 key hazardous substances coming from rivers ; to reduce from 1995 by 70 per cent. or more emissions to rivers or to the atmosphere of cadmium, lead mercury and dioxines ; to reduce by 50 per cent. atmospheric emissions of 17 dangerous substances by 1995, or at the latest by 1999 ; to halve from

Column 42

1985 levels the input of nutrients in sensitive areas by 1995 ; and to strive for a substantial reduction in pesticides, with control of their use and application by 1992. Those are important agreements, and as those policies come into effect, they will make a considerable impact on the seas round our coast.

We have not finished there. The Environmental Protection Bill, now passing through another place, will provide further assurances of a cleaner, safer environment. We shall introduce the concept of integrated pollution control with, for the first time, a single regulatory body controlling emissions to land, water and air. In that respect, as in others, we are ahead.

Our initiatives in recent years, and our continuing efforts in pollution control and environmental improvement are, by any standards, a considerable achievement. They demonstrate our total commitment to the improvement and protection of our environment and give impetus to other countries to follow suit. But we have not finished there. In the autumn, we will publish an environmental White Paper that will bring together in one document our achievements and will also set out how we intend to move forward with setting an environmental agenda for the rest of the century and beyond.

The Environmental Protection Bill's 147 clauses cover much territory, but they are united by one goal--a cleaner and safer environment. Far too often these days, people come near to discrediting what is fundamentally a good cause. The best way of avoiding that is to provide more information, not less. The Bill will give the public more access than ever before to information on industrial pollution and on how individual firms will be obliged to clean up their operations. The Government have pressed for a Europewide agency to monitor environmental quality in every member state.

The view is commonly held that environmental issues will play a prominent part in national and international political debate in the last decade of this century. Therefore, it is appropriate to begin with a Bill which will, whatever arguments may be made about it, provide a secure framework for much of our pollution control well into the next century.

Control and regulations are vital for improved environmental quality, just as they they are important to the raising of health standards and securing safety at work. However, they provide only part of the means of enhancing environmental quality. Our unequivocal view is that the best way of achieving that objective is a judicial mix of government regulation and market economics. The market and private enterprise are often challenged by regulation to achieve higher technological standards and better performance, and that is right. The environmental history of eastern Europe in particular demonstrates that state control does not go hand in hand with better environmental standards and regulation.

I do not know where the Opposition would strike the balance, but I trust that they accept that such controls are not without cost, and that incentives other than controls are often the best means of achieving environmental goals cost effectively. Whatever may be the Opposition's views on that point, they must share our belief that sensible and sustainable growth is the friend, not the enemy, of a cleaner and greener environment. It is vital that the coherent and sophisticated system of pollution control that we are introducing in the Bill is credible. Credibility

Column 43

requires that such a system is operated by strong and effective institutions, and that it should be open to public scrutiny. We are to some extent still in the early stages of establishing some of the institutions that will monitor and control pollution. For example, the National Rivers Authority has only recently started operating, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution did not come into being until 1987. Institutional questions will inevitably take some time to get right, and we shall consider them in the context of our work on the White Paper to be published later this year. There would be little point in establishing an excellent system of pollution control without a means of implementing it.

I referred to the history of pollution, and we are dealing with problems that have their origins a long way back. Others were created in the 1960s and 1970s. We have reduced the discharge from Sellafield to 3 per cent. of what it was in 1979, for example, so there have been major advances.

The Environmental Protection Bill is far from being our last word on our environmental policies. It would be ludicrous to try to solve all the problems in one Bill--doubly so in respect of environmental issues, which require the most up-to-date scientific information and unparalleled international co-operation to resolve. We will set out in the White Paper our environmental policy for the United Kingdom for the rest of the decade and into the next century. It will bring together a strategy for the environment in a single, comprehensive document dealing with all aspects of environmental work. It will confirm that we as a nation are prepared to play our part in creating a preferred environment, and that we shall fully discharge our obligations as trustees for future generations.

5.7 pm

Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) : Before I comment on the speech of the Secretary of State for Wales, on behalf of the Opposition I welcome back to the Government Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), with my best wishes for his full recovery. I cannot give the same welcome to the hon. Gentleman's beard, but that is a matter of taste.

We welcome this opportunity to debate environmental problems, particularly in respect of the Principality. The Government amendment allows more scope for debate than does the Plaid Cymru motion. The Secretary of State made several references to the Environmental Protection Bill. The Government were so concerned about that legislation and its impact on Wales that not one Minister from the Welsh Office or even one Conservative Member from Wales served on the Bill's Standing Committee--despite the fact that the Bill contains matters of considerable importance to Wales. The Minister from the Scottish Office did his best, but they were really matters for the Welsh Office. Doubtless that issue will be raised again.

Although the motion concerns pollution levels in the Irish sea, it touches on an issue of significance for the Principality. The Secretary of State referred to the benefits of water privatisation, but were he to undertake a survey in north, mid or south Wales, he would find almost universal condemnation of it. That is not simply because

Column 44

the people of Wales will have to pay a horrendous water poll tax in the next few months. They have other bills to pay, too, because they have, rightly, concentrated on improving the quality of the water in their rivers and reservoirs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) asked in a recent parliamentary question about the quality of drinking water in Wales. The answer that he received was that 21 of the 34 water works in Wales have failed the Government's tests for aluminium in water. Our beaches, which are so vital to the tourist industry, especially in the north and west of Wales, stand condemned in the eyes of the world because of the dirt and filth that pollute them. Our marine environment is precious to us all. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for having referred to the cuts in the natural history museum's budget. In answer to an intervention by my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State said that the Welsh Office does not deal with the funding of museums outside Wales. However, the Welsh Office funds research. Research at the natural history museum in London could play a large part in helping to solve the pollution problems in the Principality. I hope that when the Secretary of State returns to Wales he will arrange a meeting with Professor Claridge and discuss these important issues with him.

The drinking water inspectorate and the National Rivers Authority will become part of a new environmental protection agency when there is a Labour Government. The agency would be mirrored at both regional and local government level. It would have an important role to play in determining and monitoring pollution in the Principality. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) for having pressed the Welsh Office--it has been hard to do so in recent months--about the sewage outfall at Lavernock in south Wales. Only reluctantly did they receive the answer that it would be fully treated before it entered the Bristol channel.

Mr. Holt : The hon. Gentleman puts faith in the ability of local authorities to deal with waste. I remind him that local authorities in this country as a whole were given 10 years in which to submit their plans for waste disposal to the Department of the Environment. During that 10-year period, fewer than 50 per cent. of them bothered to do so.

Mr. Murphy : I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Were he to read the response given by the previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), to the Association of District Councils, he would find that the Secretary of State said that, in exercising their functions as waste disposal and collection authorities, Welsh district councils were doing an extremely good job. The main problem, however, is lack of resources. It is ironic that after more than 10 years of Conservative Government hardly any of the money that has come into our coffers from North sea oil has been used by the Government to deal with pollution, or with waste collection and disposal.

The debate highlights the problems connected with waste collection and disposal in Wales. The problems are different in Wales. The district councils are both collection and disposal authorities. They face new problems over recycling industrial hazardous waste coming to Wales

Column 45

from eastern Europe via West Germany and other countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will, I am sure, refer later to the landfill tip in Swansea which deals with waste from eastern Europe.

The Government have agreed to retain the existing structure in Wales. During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill the Government assured us that Welsh district councils will still be the collection and disposal authorities. The same will apply to Scotland. Scottish district councils will also be exempt from the private competition regulations that are to apply to England, but the Government are unwilling to exempt Wales, even though the position in Wales and Scotland is exactly the same. The last thing that Welsh district councils want when they are burdened with the collection and disposal of waste is to be still further burdened by having to compete with private industry.

Waste disposal by private industry is exemplified by one firm in my constituency, ReChem International, which is a blight on Wales because of the pollution it causes. Last week the financial press referred to ReChem as a good investment ; its profits were soaring, despite a slump during the past 12 months on account of bad publicity. Most of the company's profits are made from imports, most of which are polychlorinated biphenyls. The toxic waste trade is suspect and bitterly disliked. My constituency is the centre for the disposal of much of the world's most deadly poisons. That is wrong. Labour will end the commercial trade in toxic waste.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : This is an important matter. All of us are guardians of the world environment. What does the hon. Gentleman think that third-world countries should do with their PCBs if they are not allowed to export them to be destroyed by the countries which often provided them with the PCBs in the first place?

Mr. Murphy : That is an important point, but ReChem International does not import toxic waste from many third-world countries. I am glad that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) intervened, because it allows me to tell him that the industrial waste comes from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. None of those is a third-world country. The figures provided to us by the Welsh Office suggest that the vast bulk of the trade in toxic waste coming to the ReChem incinerator in Pontypool is from developed countries. Our view, which I am sure is held by many parties, is that each developed country should look after its own toxic waste.

It will be of interest to those hon. Members with port constituencies that the following ports have been used to import toxic waste : Chatham, Dartford, Dover, Felixstowe, Gravesend, Harwich, Immingham, Ipswich, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Seaforth and Tilbury. Toxic waste comes to Wales for disposal from each of those ports.

We all welcome the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Recently it recognised for the first time that people in south Wales are genuinely concerned about having the ReChem incinerator in their midst. The Select Committee's recommendations amount to a first step towards a major public inquiry into what should happen to that plant.

The Secretary of State has made much of the provisions in the Environmental Protection Bill and of what the White Paper will contain. However, that will have no

Column 46

significance unless appropriate resources are provided to deal with the problem. During the past few years, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has been seriously under-resourced throughout Britain, but particularly in Wales. There are not enough inspectors. The Government must give a full commitment to increase substantially HMIP's resources, to ensure that there is proper monitoring of pollution in both Wales and the country as a whole.

The most significant underfunding has been the underfunding of local authorities. We look to them not just to dispose of waste but to keep our streets clean and to ensure that litter is cleared away from our town centres. Throughout the past 10 or 11 years the Government have systematically robbed councils of rate support grant, which has made it increasingly difficult for Welsh councils to deal with litter. Although the Bill imposes a duty on local authorities to collect litter, it does not provide them with a single extra penny with which to carry out that duty. Therefore, that duty is bound to be empty and meaningless.

I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will battle with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the Welsh local authorities--which have a good record in local government--have more resources put at their disposal. If the right hon. Gentleman spent more time exercising his mind about putting resources into the local authorities instead of wasting millions of pounds on administering the poll tax, he would be thanked by the vast majority of people in Wales.

The fundamental problem lies with the Government. They dislike local government, and that has been evident from the number of Acts of Parliament affecting local government--more than 50 in the past 10 years. The Government are obsessed with privatisation and ideology. I suspect that that is why they have abandoned the pledge on the privatisation of electricity--that they would ensure that there are flue gas scrubbers in our coal-fired power stations. That is a major problem. The Government do not realise that there should be a proper mix of public intervention, regulation and bans and private sector intervention, in the form of the market, the price mechanism and green taxes. Opposition Members are at one in believing that, until Wales is rid of the Conservative Government, our environment will not get much better.

5.21 pm

Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central) : I welcome the debate, even though it is inspired by the Opposition, because I welcome any debate on the environment. This is an issue that is so important that it needs to be kept at the top of our agenda but unfortunately, all too often, we naturally become obsessed with inflation, interest rates, mortgage rates, the community charge, defence and so on. The environment tends to be lost from our sight.

It is important to give credit to the Government for what they have done well, as well as to demand action from them. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment are to be congratulated on the immense strides that they have made recently on the environment. I am delighted about that.

Suffolk, Central is landlocked and therefore has no coastal problems. My excuses for intervening in the debate are that I am especially fond of the sea, one of a declining breed of sea bathers, and an extremely keen sailor, and,

Column 47

perhaps more important--I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Mo n (Mr. Jones) will forgive me--I have been visiting the island of Anglesey for my holidays almost every year for more than 50 years. I am very fond of it and extremely anxious about what happens to it. The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter in the past. I was in Anglesey at Whitsun, as were many other folk. The weather was quite good. I went, as I always do, to my favourite beach, Traeth Bychan. When I drew my curtains on the first morning, I was horrified to see my favourite bay looking as though it was full of brown Windsor soup. That is the only way that I can describe it. It remained like that for several days, during which families and young children wanted to go for a paddle or a swim and to enjoy the sea. The shallow water where children would paddle was even worse. To continue my culinary comparison, the shallow waters were more like chocolate mousse.

I took my own samples and sent them off. I do not yet have the results. I do not know the reasons for the appearance of the sea. I have made inquiries at the university at Bangor--to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) referred--and elsewhere. I hope that I will receive some satisfaction and help from the university. From what I have been able to discover, it is almost certain that sewage will be implicated one way or the other.

Mr. Anderson : I warn the hon. Gentleman to be aware that the scientists may claim that it is only algae that is at fault. We had a similar problem with the sea in south Wales which, with the sun, went brown. We thought that the problem was caused by "Douglas Hurds", but it was not. Whatever they were, they had the same effect. There was a direct correlation with pollution, although a form of algae was responsible.

Mr. Lord : I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Algae has been talked of as a possible culprit in the case to which I referred. Certainly, much of what I saw and waded into briefly did not smell like algae. I have quite an intimate knowledge of the local sewerage system in that part of the world. When, as an undergraduate, I had to earn some money to keep myself alive during the long summer vacations--like many other people--I worked for the contractor who installed the two outfalls in nearby villages-- Benllech and Moelfre. I was involved there, albeit only as a labourer or a hod-carrier. There was a huge debate at the time about whether the outfalls would do the job, how long they should be and whether land-based treatment would be more satisfactory. Everybody who was concerned about the standard of water at that time was assured that all would be well.

I cannot tell hon. Members precisely how far beyond low water mark the outfalls go, but my guess is that it is no more than 100 m. That means that their effectiveness depends on the correct use of tide flows, wind direction and so on. Bearing in mind those factors, it is not unlikely that whatever is realised from the outfalls may find its way back to our beaches --possibly just at the wrong time of year when people wish to enjoy the beaches. It has been suggested that Liverpool bay is implicated, and that may be so. One cause of the pollution could be discharges further up the coast in Wales and up the Lancashire coast, which may come back down to cause the damage.

Column 48

No one can be really sure of either the cause or the long-term effect. But when our oceans are so precious, why take the risk? The only way to eliminate the problems in the long term is to deal with all our sewage on land. That is perhaps a radical solution, but I believe that we shall come to it eventually. I am concerned that, in all the huge projects that we are now discussing, the immense amounts of money involved--if not misspent--could perhaps be better spent. With hindsight we will wish that we had thought the matter through more carefully and seriously considered the possibility of treating sewage on land.

I know that there are difficulties. Every day, 300 million gallons of sewage are discharged to our rivers and seas. I know what an enormous task and challenge it would be to deal with that sewage on land. The Secretary of State has pointed out all the difficulties--the costs, the burden on industry and the possible environmental effects on the land as well as on the sea. I believe that the challenge is worth taking up.

For industry, necessity is the mother of invention, and I believe that industry would respond. When faced with the threat to the ozone layer in recent times, industry has responded rapidly to the problem of chlorofluorocarbons. In a more minor way, industry has solved the problem of the rings on Coca Cola cans which used to cause so many problems when they were thrown away or used to fiddle parking meters. The cans are now made so that the rings cannot be detached from them. Those are two examples --one major and one minor--of the way in which industry will respond to problems when forced to do so.

Mr. Holt : Has my hon. Friend read the report by the Select Committee on the Environment on land pollution, especially the part of it dealing with the problem that the Dutch have experienced because they simply do not have enough land to dispose of all the slurry? Their solution has been to cull some of their cows. Does my hon. Friend suggest that we start culling some of his farmers' cows in Suffolk so that we do not overdo the pollution that could be caused on the land? Perhaps my hon. Friend is not taking into account the fact that we should be incinerating a great deal of waste.

Mr. Lord : My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I am not suggesting that I have all the solutions to those problems. However, industry is working on them at the moment. For example, ICI is developing new plants to try to accelerate the process of treating sewage. It has also developed a product for treating the water that is released into our rivers after sewage has been treated. Although we can remove 90 per cent. of the bacteria that cause problems later, when the water is discharged to our rivers and seas, 10 per cent. of the bacteria remains. That is a major problem, although I understand that ICI has developed a system which eliminates that difficulty. It is an enormously beneficial move.

Next Section

Home Page