| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for raising such an important subject. I know that he is very concerned about the health of the textile industry, which, as he rightly said, is important to many of his constituents. He has certainly demonstrated that concern tonight, along with his mastery of the technical details of a complicated subject. He has used that knowledge to give the House a penetrating analysis of the problems facing the textile industry in his constituency, and in other parts of Leicestershire and the midlands.
My hon. Friend has outlined some of the issues that face the textile industry in its efforts to meet the standards required for the discharge to water of effluent coloured by dyestuffs. The issue also involves problems for the National Rivers Authority and the water companies in the meeting of their objectives, as the House will have gathered. As I have said, the matter is complicated and sensitive, and I do not wish to upset the delicate balance that has been reached in discussions among the parties so far; nor can I comment in any detail on issues that may affect individual cases, for fear of prejudicing any appeals to the Secretary of State by those who feel aggrieved.
I do, however, wish to outline the position, and the reasons why the NRA considers it necessary to control
the discharge of dye colour by textile companies. We are all familiar with the high quality of the knitwear goods produced in Leicester and surrounding areas, and with the attractive range of colours and patterns that are available nowadays. Of course, once dyes have been applied, any surplus must discharged from the premises in waste water.
In matters of this sort, there is a danger that the issues will be exaggerated. It would be wrong to characterise this issue in terms either of an over-zealous regulator making life difficult for British industry to no worthwhile purpose, or of a lurid picture of rivers flowing purple and red and devoid of life. Neither of those characterisations would be accurate.
Generally, dyestuffs are non-toxic pollutants. However, in this case it is not a question of interference for no good reason. Although dyestuffs are not toxic, the discolouration of rivers caused by uncontrolled discharge of dyestuffs is of legitimate aesthetic concern, and a source of pollution. There is understandable public concern about visibly coloured water, or rivers suddenly changing colour. That concern, and the need to control such pollution, is at the heart of the wide and diverse range of uses to which we put our rivers.
Rivers are major features of our landscape. When they are used for the discharge of waste, it must be on a sustainable basis. They are used not only as sources of water for a wide range of industrial purposes, but as sources of drinking water. They support valuable ecosystems, which must be protected. Just as important, they are an invaluable recreational asset, particularly for the angling community.
For those reasons, we must manage our rivers efficiently, and ensure that they are able to meet the needs of all who wish to use them. The NRA exists to carry out that management, and has a statutory duty to ensure that pollution is controlled. There is, of course, public concern about pollution, and the NRA is properly responsive to that concern.
Under the Water Resources Act 1991, it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit polluting matter to enter a water course; however, acting under and in accordance with a discharge consent provides a defence against such charges. Thus, both discharges made from a manufacturing plant and those made via a sewage treatment works require consents, and the NRA is able to impose requirements in respect of the discharge that protect the local aquatic environment and the key users of those waters.
As for dyestuffs, I understand that, for some time, the NRA has been keen to introduce conditions into consents to control the discharge of coloured waste that meet environmental needs, while ensuring that the consent conditions that they set are achievable. For a variety of reasons, progress has been slow.
Mr. Tredinnick:
I asked my hon. Friend to find out whether his Department has direct powers to intervene, and whether, if the Secretary of State has such powers, he would at least consider using them.
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend has issued a powerful plea. As he implied, he knows of the rights of appeal that exist, and is aware that some of the matters to which he referred are within the province of the regulators, and are involved in the relationship between regulators and
As I said, progress has been slow, but discussions have continued. This year, discussions between the Government, the NRA, water companies and industry representatives have made good progress on standards and their implementation from 1 January 1996. The objective is to ensure that discolouration caused by dyestuffs is not visible to the naked eye. I noted my hon. Friend's comments on that.
I believe that the NRA has worked to ensure that attention is paid to the needs of industry, as well as fulfilling its statutory duty to protect our rivers. At the same time, industry is aware that this source of pollution must be controlled, and that it will be necessary to contribute to the cost of reducing discolouration: it is a well-established principle, applying widely across the environmental field, that the polluter pays.
The sewerage undertakers have also been included in the dialogue. When discharges are being made to sewer, a consent is required from the sewerage undertaker, who must ensure that discharges are such as to enable effective treatment to take place to remove pollutants, and--when the effluent is finally treated and released into the river-- for NRA requirements to be met in respect of the discharge from the treatment works that they operate.
As I understand it, the National Rivers Authority has come up with proposals that have secured a good measure of agreement. Acceptable standards that will achieve the desired aesthetic effects, but that are not overly stringent, will be progressively introduced from 1 January, and compliance will be assessed on a basis established with some flexibility.
That provides the conditions for the textile industry to rise to the challenge and, to meet pollution reduction targets, to work on means of reducing discolouring emissions. One of the most promising may be to recycle waste water within the plant, which would have the benefit of allowing installation costs to be offset against other savings. The complex process of dyeing and treatment of residues might be re-examined with a view to minimising waste.
I congratulate the regulators and the industry on progress so far, but I do not underestimate the difficulties that must be resolved in an industry that, for historical reasons, is based on old infrastructure. The ability to invest and to modernise has been affected by global competition, and there have been job losses and poor profitability. The industry has gone through difficult times.
That combination of factors lies at the root of many of the environmental concerns that the industry faces. The National Rivers Authority is aware of those difficulties, and has aimed to recognise the problems and to reach a sensible agreement that will not jeopardise the industry's future.
Many of the factors that I have outlined affecting the manufacturers' economic position will concern manufacturers in my hon. Friend's constituency, especially in relation to the dischargers to the six peripheral treatment
plants to which he drew attention. I am sure that he will share my pleasure that good progress has been made on discharges to the treatment plants at Wanlip, which will help 30 to 40 dischargers. As he rightly says, however, issues remain at the six peripheral works.
My hon. Friend has made a strong case on those dischargers and those plants. In response to his plea for an undertaking, as I have said, there are some restrictions on my position on this matter. I must be aware of matters that properly lie within regulators' province and of any possible appeal rights, but he has rightly outlined the interests that my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry have taken in the matter so far, which will be maintained. We recognise the importance of securing an agreement, if possible, on this important subject, which affects, as he has said, so many of his constituents who are employed by these manufacturers.
It would be for the House's benefit if I briefly repeated the background of assistance that has been given by the Department of Trade and Industry and by the Department of the Environment, which my hon. Friend fairly and fully outlined. That assistance has been in the form of funding for a manual of best practice through a £10,000 grant, mediation between parties, recycling support--which is important and which, as my hon. Friend has said, has been valued by industry--and a continued role in meetings between the parties. In all those respects, the Government have been seeking to assist the industry, and will of course continue to do so in the same way.
It is worth emphasising that the benefits go further than just to the industry, important though that is. There are other benefits for the environment and for industry in environmentally friendly processes. They are a hallmark of an efficient and competitive industry. Consumers of the end product are increasingly seeking reassurance that the process of manufacture has not damaged the environment, and green technology can therefore help in the marketplace.
The textile industry is no exception; it cannot afford to fall behind. New technology and investment may be necessary to meet environmental standards, but development of that technology should be of long-term benefit to the industry that develops it. It is part of the process of change and adaptation, which also benefits the environment. I emphasise that.
There are signs that that is already happening. The NRA annual report for 1994-95, published earlier this year, showed that, overall, there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of our rivers and canals in the past few years. More specifically, there has been a net improvement of 26 per cent. in the length of rivers and canals, between 1990 and 1994, achieving good environmental standards.
Next year, the NRA will be publishing its quinquennial report on river quality in 1990-95. In part, that is a result of a joint approach by the NRA with industry in developing workable standards that meet the environment's needs and safeguard industrial output.
I think that that is an appropriate point on which to draw my remarks to a conclusion. Against that background, I reiterate the need for continuing, sensible dialogue to resolve the remaining difficulties. The NRA has a duty to protect our water environment from pollution, from whatever source. A timetable has been
drawn up for implementation of the NRA consent conditions, and, in turn, conditions laid down by water companies.
I therefore congratulate all concerned on the way in which they have, in recent times, approached this problem, with a genuine desire to cater for one another's particular needs. I am pleased to note the progress that
has been made so far. It is in all our interests to ensure that river pollution is minimised. The NRA has been working towards that, and I hope that the opportunity to move forward will produce the desired results.
Question put and agreed to.
20 Dec 1995 : Column 1593Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eight o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |