| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). As he has told the House, he takes a close interest in all environmental issues, especially those affecting the precious environment of the Isle of Wight.
Let me take as my starting point what my hon. Friend rightly said about the investment programme being carried out by Southern Water. By the end of the century, Southern Water will have invested £1.2 billion in projects since privatisation: that represents an average spend of approximately £1,200 per household throughout the region. On the Isle of Wight, the investment figures equate to approximately £3,700 for each household--more than three times the regional average.
It is important to give some of the background to the schemes to which my hon. Friend has referred. As part of the scheme that is currently due to be completed by the year 2000, Southern Water is evaluating two options for the continuous sewage discharges to the Solent that are affecting water and hence shellfish quality. My hon. Friend drew attention to those. The first is to transfer all flows for primary treatment and discharge through the new Sandown outfall. The alternative is to transfer all flows except the Norton discharge, which would be given secondary treatment. Southern Water is now undertaking a feasibility study, and expects to announce its chosen option later this year. Whichever option is chosen, it should have a major positive effect on the quality of shellfisheries in the Solent. The timetable for the completion of the scheme is the year 2000, but Southern Water has confirmed that once a decision has been made it will look at accelerating the necessary works.
The problems facing local shellfisheries form part of a wider pattern of water quality issues. Southern Water is committed to improving the waste water treatment facilities on the Isle of Wight. The company has invested more than £50 million over the past decade in improving waste water discharges to coastal and esturial waters on the island and the benefits can be seen in the number of beaches where water quality now meets European Union standards. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to that as he mentioned that eight "Tidy Britain" awards were received this year on the Isle of Wight.
In 1986, six of the 13 EU bathing beaches failed the defined standards, whereas last year only two failed and remedial works are planned for both of those. That is good news for the Isle of Wight and for those who enjoy its beaches.
The recent downgrading of the Yarmouth shellfish harvesting area has been associated with an increase in flow through the Norton outfall. It is not yet clear what has caused the deterioration in the Yarmouth shellfishery and the Norton discharge may not be the
only explanation. There may be a number of sources of contaminants and these need to be investigated. What can be said is that the improvements that are required under the urban waste water treatment directive by the year 2000 will contribute significantly to improvements in water quality at nearby shellfish beds.
As for the concerns about the shellfishery classification, it is far from clear that any deterioration is the result of the transfer of flow to Norton. The issues to be addressed are, first, is the deterioration only apparent? The classification system is complex and inaccuracies are always possible in what is an imprecise science. Secondly, if there is a deterioration, what is causing it?
I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend and of his constituents. It is clear that further work needs to be done to determine what is causing the problem. I am therefore asking my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture to ask his officials to meet the National Rivers Authority again to pool their information and to see exactly what lies behind the deterioration. In this way the most appropriate and cost-effective response can be found. The NRA has also offered to meet concerned hon. Members and their constituents to provide information and advice.
I shall now deal with Southern Water's plans for sewerage on the Isle of Wight. The company's long-term proposal for Ventnor and Bembridge is to intercept the sewage flows and direct them to Sandown for primary treatment. The proposal includes the construction of a new 3.25 km long sea outfall into Sandown bay, with the whole scheme to be delivered by the end of 1998.
This new outfall has been designed to accommodate the potential transfer of flows from the continuous sewerage discharges now entering the Solent area, as well as those for Sandown, Bembridge and Ventnor. The discharges include Norton, Gurnard, East Cowes, Ryde and Fairlee.
Mr. Barry Field:
My hon. Friend mentions Norton, but Southern Water says that it has not decided whether it will connect Norton and the National Rivers Authority, in correspondence with me, says that it has no powers to require it to do so, although it would like Southern Water to do so.
Mr. Clappison:
My hon. Friend is right to mention that. I said earlier that it was one of the two options for Norton, and it is important to see it in those terms. As my hon. Friend knows, Southern Water is now consulting on the waste water treatment strategy for the Isle of Wight.
The receiving waters for the discharge at Sandown have been identified as a high natural dispersion area under the urban waste water treatment directive. This would require the combined discharge to be given a minimum of primary treatment, which the NRA agrees is adequate for many coastal discharges. It is the NRA which recommended a number of candidate coastal and estuarine areas for identification as high natural dispersion areas. In so doing it advised the Department that no further environmental benefit would accrue from the provision of secondary or tertiary treatment.
Primary treatment will produce a very significant improvement where existing discharges are untreated, as at Sandown. However, under the terms of the directive,
a comprehensive study is first required to demonstrate whether there would be any adverse environmental effect from a primary treated discharge into an identified HNDA, rather than secondary treatment. Southern Water is undertaking the comprehensive study required at Sandown. If it should show that a primary treated discharge would result in an adverse effect on the environment, the National Rivers Authority will not give consent for a primary treated discharge and secondary treatment will have to be provided. That work is being undertaken to the timetable set out in the urban waste water treatment directive, which requires the necessary treatment to be provided by the end of 2000.
As my hon. Friend said, he is bringing a delegation to see me. I have listened carefully to his concerns about the overall sewage treatment plan for the Isle of Wight and, especially, to his three points on behalf of the Sandown Hotel and Guesthouse Association about the length and the position of the outfall, the extent of treatment and the choice of Sandown as a location. I also listened carefully to his comments about Norton being one of the options for treatment. I have listened carefully to all those points and I look forward to exploring them further with my hon. Friend when I meet him with his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |