| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
That--
(a) Clauses Nos. 5 and 7, and
(b) any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order paper not later than Monday 1st April and relating to the circumstances in which a marriage may be taken to have broken down irretrievably or in which a divorce order or a separation order may be made by the Court, or to the period for reflection and consideration.
be committed to a Committee of the whole House;
That the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee;
That when the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill be proceeded with as if the Bill had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.--[Mr. Freeman.]
Committee tomorrow.
Ordered,
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
Question agreed to.
Madam Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
Question agreed to.
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Wells.]
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight):
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me the Adjournment debate. As the National Rivers Authority seems to have featured quite significantly in my parliamentary life lately, it is perhaps appropriate, first, to set the scene and to pay some tributes.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published his draft Environment Agency Bill, I welcomed the fact that it was the first draft Bill that Parliament had seen in many a long day. At that time, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, I undertook an inquiry into the Bill. I have always supported the principle of Select Committees' scrutiny of primary legislation. I believe that the work of the Select Committee on Deregulation, which I now chair, has proved the merits of the system. I hope that the Committee's short inquiry will ensure the successful launch of the new agency, which will take over from the NRA and other bodies on 1 April. I have to say that that is not an especially propitious date.
I thank the NRA staff for all that they have done. It is sad that the staff has laboured under the propaganda of the Liberal Democrat party, the master in British politics of the smear-and-sneer technique. It has continually denigrated the authority's work, principally on the ground that some of the staff used to work for Southern Water. Integrity and honour seem not to occur to the Liberal Democrat party.
As always, proof is in actions, not in words. The NRA has, without fear or favour, brought to account those who flouted the law and caused pollution. How many prosecutions were initiated when the Liberal Democrat council was responsible for such matters? The answer is that there were so few that no one can remember there ever having been one. So much for the party's environment credentials. I wanted to get that off my chest because even council officers have been parroting black propaganda about the NRA lately, no doubt to cover up their previous inertia.
We know from the BSE problem that issues can get out of control as a result of the media. At the same time, the Isle of Wight has had great successes with its tourism image. It was announced last week that eight of the island's beaches have been given the Tidy Britain group's seaside award. That means that the island has more beaches than any other county in that group's south-east region. The Yarmouth tourist information centre came second in a nationwide competition, winning the silver award.
Southern Water has spent an enormous sum in improving the island's sewage schemes in the past few years. The raw sewage from my home on the island was discharged straight into Cowes harbour--a reversal of the usual practice of Cowes on Field. Similar schemes round our island shores have connected old Victorian outfalls and improved the environment out of all recognition.
Why is there a need for tonight's debate? We know that the public's expectations and the requirements of the European Union are rising all the time, as, too, is
our knowledge. Given powerful computer programs, the ability to model the tidal effects of sewage outfalls is much greater now than ever before.
Southern Water proposes to link up the whole of the island's sewerage system, including all those that discharge into the Solent, with a question mark over the Norton outfall at Yarmouth, and to pipe the effluent out to sea via one point on the channel side at Sandown. That has given rise to the concerns that I wish to address tonight.
First, the Solent is the largest natural oyster bed in the whole of the United Kingdom, covering 93 sq km. In fact, it is much larger than that, as I know, having dived from the Needles bridge on a flood tide up through the Solent towards Black Rock. Many of the oysters are at depths that make them uneconomic to collect or are too near the main shipping channel to be harvested safely. To all intents and purposes, the Solent can be considered as one giant oyster bed. I am concerned that the NRA does not seem to have the power to monitor the length and effectiveness of outfalls. The one at Norton, for example, is several feet shorter than was originally designed, which has undoubtedly given rise to some of the problems.
At the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I visited, with an island deputation, the MAFF fish laboratory at Weymouth. We were told the e-coli count of oysters sampled from around the Solent and were shown the NRA's tidal model for sewer outfalls. As all that information is shared with the NRA, MAFF and vice versa, I was very concerned that my parliamentary questions to the Department of the Environment produced somewhat obscure answers. However, my hon. Friend the Minister has agreed to see a deputation from the island. Sadly, it is a worrying example of two separate Departments that are both responsible for different aspects of the same problem but with no one able to exercise full control over the food chain.
The Department of the Environment must explain why it has continually refused to support the complete treatment of sewage being discharged into the sea generally, and particularly into the Solent. Please do not tell me that the European Communities directive does not require it, because the health data held by MAFF is there for all to see, and the European Community will revise and improve the standards in years to come. I want to know, either tonight, or, as a result of the debate, in due course, what powers the Minister, the NRA or the new Environment Agency have to require Southern Water's scheme, known as Seaclean Wight, to be put on hold while the whole scheme is reappraised, not just for the island but for Portsmouth and Southampton. The data that I have been given cause me great concern. It needs a fresh look, if for no other reason than the fact that the very same Southern Water engineers categorically assured me that the existing schemes and outfalls into the Solent would meet future requirements. Operation Seaclean Wight will make every one of those outfalls redundant, just a few years, or, in one case, just a few months, after millions of pounds have been spent, to say nothing of the considerable disruption that we have already endured.
That disruption will be nothing compared with what is envisaged under the new scheme. The Sandown Hotel and Guesthouse Association has expressed through its chairman, Brian Byatt, and its secretary, Mrs. Sandy Ringer, considerable misgivings on three counts: first, the length of the outfall and the position of the discharge points, which, from my experience as a yachtsman, is not in deep enough water, and is placed where currents will not carry sewage out into mid-channel; secondly, apart from rudimentary screening, no treatment is envisaged; and, thirdly--it is the only organisation to have raised this with me--Sandown is the wrong place, because in hot weather, with still air, there is an inversion problem and any odour can linger over the town. We have experienced that already.
Although I understand that Southern Water already owns the site--it is probably a natural decision on its part to use the area for this expansion--I do not believe that, given the massive capital sum and the fact that in future more and more treatment will be required, the Minister, the NRA, the Environment Agency, or I as the Member of Parliament, should accept this scheme without another appraisal, particularly as it is clear to me that Southern Water will have to address the problems of its outfalls on the mainland side of the Solent sooner rather than later. I fear that the island may then be seen as the principal treatment centre for all the Solent's cities and population. Given that millions of pounds have been spent and that the right solution was not found the first time, surely it is not asking too much to request a delay of a few months so that a more suitable site can be sought in conjunction with the council.
Finally, may I ask what powers my hon. Friend the Minister has to ensure that the Norton outfall is also connected to a single treatment plant for the whole island, as well as requiring a reappraisal of the whole scheme? My hon. Friend may feel that I have overstated my case, or, perhaps, that I am one of those Back Benchers to whom a handful of constituents have only to say boo to put them into a bit of a panic. Let me tell him that when the Ventnor scheme was mooted by Southern Water--indeed, the very same engineers were involved--the hoteliers and the town's population, including Ventnor town council, asked for a scheme to pipe the sewage to another treatment works rather than discharge it into the sea.
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 2nd April, in Committee of the whole House on Clauses Nos. 5 and 7 of the Family Law Bill [Lords] and any new Clauses or new Schedules committed thereto--
(1) the Bill shall be considered in the following order, namely--
(a) Clause No. 5; new Clauses relating to the circumstances in which a marriage may be taken to have broken down irretrievably or in which a divorce order or a separation order may be made by the Court; new Schedules relating thereto;
(b) Clause No. 7; new Clauses relating to the period for reflection and consideration; new Schedules relating thereto;
(2) the Chairman shall--
(i) in respect of the Clause, new Clauses and new Schedules referred to in paragraph (1)(a) above, not later than Seven o'clock, and
(ii) in respect of the remaining proceedings in Committee, not later than three hours after their commencement,
put successively--
(a) the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question on any Amendment to such new Clause or Schedule which has been selected by him and which may then be moved and, thereafter, the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill); and
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, which shall include the Question on any Amendment or new Clause or Schedule or Amendment thereto which has been selected by him and which may then be moved.--[Mr. Wells.]
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Family Law Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--
(a) expenses incurred by the Lord Chancellor in connection with the provision of information or the arrangement of meetings;
(b) other administrative expenses incurred by the Lord Chancellor in consequence of the provisions of the Act;
(c) expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of provision about division of assets in respect of which rights have accrued under a pension scheme;
(d) any sums required by the Lord Chancellor for making grants in connection with--
(i) the provision of marriage support services; or
(ii) research into the causes of, or ways of preventing, marital breakdown; and
(e) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.--[Mr. Wells.]
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
That the draft Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
That the draft Registers of Scotland Executive Agency Trading Fund Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 5th March, be approved.--[Mr. Wells.]
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. COM (95) 541, on improving relations between the European Union and the countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council; and supports the Government's view that this is a useful basis for the development of relations between the European Union and the Gulf Co-operation Council.--[Mr. Wells.]
That Bridget Prentice and Dr Tony Wright be discharged from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Mr. Paddy Tipping and Mr. Bill Etherington be added to the Committee.--[Mr. Wells.]
10.15 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |