HC Deb 11 March 1965 vol 708 cc804-14

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

11.58 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish (Lewes)

Many local authorities in coastal areas are faced with the problem of sewage disposal. Untreated sewage is discharged into the sea through outfalls that are not long enough, that are wrongly sited, or for other reasons do not meet the needs of a growing population.

For many years there has been strong pressure from the public to clean up these polluted beaches. In my own constituency in Sussex we have an added difficulty. The sewage that pollutes a stretch of the coast comes almost entirely from a neighbouring area under the control of another local authority.

The Portobello outfall was constructed in 1875 and I can find no record of any extensive modernisation since then. About 97 per cent. of the sewage that passes through it comes from Brighton and Hove, and the remaining 3 per cent. from the parishes of Peacehaven and Telscombe which are not part of the Borough of Brighton but of Chailey Rural District. The outfall is administered by the Brighton Intercepting and Outfall Sewers Board which reports to Brighton Council.

The point of discharge of the outfall is at Telscombe Cliffs and the length of the outfall is some 1,300 feet. This means that at the seaward end it is just covered by the sea at low water spring tides. The prevailing wind is south-west, and, especially when winds are light, crude sewage is carried with the tide to the beaches at Peacehaven and East Salt-dean as well as fouling Telscombe itself.

There has been a growing storm of protest over the years as the outfall proved less and less adequate to cope with the increased amount of sewage. The Brighton population of residents and visitors has grown steadily since the turn of the century. It is, indeed, one of the finest coastal resorts in the country which takes a growing number of visitors and always will attract very many people. But while other facilities have been increased to meet the greater demand of this larger number of visitors, the sewage system has remained more or less unchanged.

I make it clear that the beaches of Brighton and Hove remain uncontaminated and it is, to some extent, therefore, perhaps understandable that Brighton Council has put the needs of its ratepayers above the appeals of its sorely tried neighbours. Before the war, when my father represented Lewes in this House, he received a great many complaints, and I still have some of his files of letters from people living in these neighbourhoods where the beaches are polluted, either writing direct or through parish councils. In 1937, as a result of these protests, the Sewers Board agreed that the position was unsatisfactory and decided to keep the pumps working continuously instead of intermittently. In 1950, Brighton Council agreed that further steps were needed to improve matters and promised some action when capital expenditure could be authorised.

I believe that, in 1958, the Board recommended that the outfall should be extended. But nothing was done. At the end of 1959, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) distributed the Report by the Medical Research Council on sewage contamination of bathing beaches in England and Wales. The Report made it clear that in medical opinion—and I see no reason not to accept this view—the risk to health from untreated sewage discharged into the sea was practically negligible. It gave the reasons for this view and these seemed to be sound. The Minister must have given many coastal local authorities considerable food for thought in the memorandum he circulated with the Report, in which he said: At the same time, the report makes it clear that there are beaches which are grossly polkaed and where, even though the risk to health is remote, active steps should be taken to remedy the pollution. The Minister looks to your council to study the report and to consider what action, if any, is needed in their area. The appropriate action will, of course, vary with local circumstances, but the Minister believes that a great deal of the pollution which occurs at present is attributable to outfalls constructed many years ago, some of which discharge sewage too close to the shore or have become overloaded in the course of time. It would be difficult to find a more accurate description of the Portobello outfall, nor a clearer request to the Brighton Council to alleviate the problem.

After receiving this memorandum, Brighton Council and Chailey R.D.C. in my constituency decided to set up joint patrols to inspect the beaches neighbouring the Portobello outfall over a period of 12 months. This investigation, and inspections carried out by Brighton Council alone at later periods, provided little evidence to support the growing flood of complaints to me. But, having read the reports of the Water Pollution Research Board, which has been carrying out a programme of work on coastal pollution, I question whether the reports of these beach patrols are of much value. I prefer the evidence of my own eyes, the evidence of my constituents and the expert opinions of the scientists. I do not think that anyone seriously questions that there is a pollution problem on these beaches of quite a serious character.

In a letter dated 19th February last the present Minister told the Sewers Board: From the evidence, he is forced to the conclusion that there is a degree of contamination of the beach in the vicinity of the Portobello outfall which calls for such remedial measures as can be carried out at a cost which is not unreasonable in the circumstances. The Brighton local newspaper, the Evening Argus, of which I am a regular reader, recently published an article in which it stated that only a protracted campaign of protests and complaints had forced the authorities to recognise that the disposal of the town's sewage in the sea is a disgusting nuisance to residents along the Saltdean—Peacehaven strip of coast, not to mention any visitors using the beaches.

The same newspaper recently sent a photographer to inspect these beaches, and two days ago printed one of his pictures showing that the verges of the undercliff walk were littered with offensive matter.

Now I come to the part which the Brighton Council, and the Brighton Intercepting and Outfall Sewers Board has played in this sorry story. I want to make it plain that my only aim in raising this question in the House, and in my correspondence with Brighton's Town Clerk, is to get some action. I have been rather like the picador enraging the bull, and it is not surprising that that has made me unpopular in some quarters; but, I want results, not popularity.

For far too long there has been a policy of masterly inactivity on the part of Brighton. There has been followed that well-known line of "referring back". The Council has referred the matter to the Works Committee, and the Works Committee has referred it to the Intercepting and Outfall Sewers Board, which has referred it back to the Works Committee, which has referred it to the Council. Then the Council has started the whole procedure all over again. It is perpetuum mobile, like the tides that daily ebb and flow with their disgusting cargo.

At the end of last year it became clear that we were no nearer getting anything done and I was not greatly comforted when I asked the Minister on 10th November last what progress was being made. I was told that the local authorities concerned were reviewing the situation. To my personal knowledge, they had been doing so for years; perhaps for 90 years since the outfall was constructed.

A request was then made to the Minister for an independent inquiry and, at this point, I should like to pay tribute to the hard work and thought which have been given to this problem by Mr. David James, the former Member for Brighton, Kemptown, and his successor, who is a member of Brighton Council and who I am glad to see here tonight and who is working with real determination to get the matter solved. I hope that we may have an opportunity of hearing the hon. Member shortly, and I will be happy to co-operate with him in matters of joint concern while he represents Kemptown.

After this demand, the Minister refused, very sensibly in my view, to set up an inquiry and, in replying to the hon. Member, the Parliamentary Secretary stated: The condition of the beach has been extensively investigated already over a long period. The Department's officers have recently discussed the matter with representatives of the Board, and as a result he is urging the Board to consider screening and similar treatment of the sewage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1965; Vol. 705, col. 152.] If we accept that there is no appreciable risk to health, then what we have is a simple aesthetic problem. We are concerned with appearances only, and although some people may disagree, I believe that there is nothing basically wrong with the present system of disposing of Brighton's sewage. I have been at some pains to get expert advice on this question, and I accept the view that the sea is a sensible and natural outlet for sewage in coastal areas. What is wrong here is that the system is overloaded and out of date.

In 1962 the Sewers Board outlined various schemes of modernisation that might be adopted, and I would refer briefly to them. First, there was the building of a purification works. We have read of various methods used in other areas, some of them long-established, as in West Middlesex. So far as Brighton is concerned, I find the idea superficially attractive, but quite unrealistic and far too costly. I do not think that the expenditure would be justified. The cost would be enormous, amounting perhaps to £3 million, and it would mean acquiring a large area of land and diverting it from its present use, while the clamour of local residents might far exceed the present cry against the polluted beaches; for such works are both unsightly and sometimes smell unpleasantly.

Secondly, there was a suggestion to install comminutors which, to put it simply, are giant mincing machines which ensure that all the solid excreta disintegrates before it reaches the outfall. But it is not only excreta that causes the trouble. A large number of sanitary towels are washed up on the beaches. Worst of all are the rubber contraceptives which are ejected from the outfall in large numbers. They are virtually indestructable and even the comminutors would not render them aesthetically tolerable.

An alternative would be, as the Minister himself has suggested, a screening plant. This is a device which would extract almost all solid matter, which is what causes the nuisance, but it would raise the problem of disposal. Whatever is done, it is essential that the Board should carry out its earlier intention of extending the outfall by some 2,000 feet, making it 3,300 feet in all. Then, whatever the strength of the tide or wind, effluent and sludge would be carried out to deeper water and the sea could do its work efficiently.

These are some of the suggestions which must surely be considered—partial treatment, full treatment, untreated discharge combined with a screening plant. I do not begin to understand why the Sewers Board does not at once call in the expert advice available to it. Only yesterday I received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology which said that the Water Pollution Research Laboratory would be glad to give advice or information if the local authority wished to consult it. I hope that it does, and the sooner the better. Why the Sewers Board did not ask for such advice long since I do not know. I hope that the Minister will make it quite clear that he has no doubt about the extent of the problem and that he expects to see quick action.

I do not want for one moment to diminish this problem or pretend that the costs will not be considerable. However, I should like to explain that the cost need not be so great as some people suggest. There need be no real difficulty about the cost. In 1962, the Sewers Board suggested that the cost of extending the out-fall would be between £70 and £100 per ft., or £200,000 to extend the outfall for 2,000 ft. The cost of the screening and washing plant was estimated at £125,000. On the assumption that these figures are too low now, as prices have gone up, I have worked on a capital figure of £400,000 financed by a 20-year loan which would put a ½d. on the rates for Brighton and Hove over the period of repayment. The running costs of the screening plant might result in an extra one-eighth of a penny on the rate of Brighton and the rural district. This cost would be justified and many people would think that it was cheap at the price.

I have tried to give a brief but I hope accurate summary of a rather complicated subject which has caused grave concern in my constituency. It is in no sense a party or a political question. Brighton is justly proud of its high reputation, for it is a town which gives great delight to tens of thousands of visitors every year, many from overseas. No one can be proud of the neighbouring beaches. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and I feel confident that he can give a lead, and that, if there is good will on all sides, this problem can be quickly settled at last.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Dennis Hobden (Brighton, Kemptown)

I should like to thank the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir. T. Beamish) for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate on a matter which affects both our constituencies, which adjoin at the point where this problem is at its greatest. I should like to compliment the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the lucid way in which he has put the facts without exaggerating in any way, and I am glad that he has made it clear that we are not referring to the main beaches of Brighton and Hove, but to the eastern end of the town, where, as I have said, our constituencies adjoin.

This sewage problem has been serious for many years. The Sewers Board has shown a degree of complacency which is unforgiveable in these modern times. The existing sewerage scheme, which is the responsibility of the Brighton Intercepting and Outfall Sewers Board, is 90 years old and clearly not fitted to the vast increases in population which have occurred in that time. The population is likely to grow in the next few years if we are to have regard to the South-East Study, of which hon. Members are aware.

It has been said that there have been only three complaints about this matter and yet over the years the Telscombe Parish Council and the Chailey Rural District Council have been increasingly concerned with the sewage disposal problem, and the Telscombe Parish Council has been pressing for a solution for more than 30 years. It believes that action should be taken to purify crude sewage before discharge and that crude sewage should not in any case be discharged into the sea. The same parish council has reported that the chief public health inspector reported that shell fish gathered in the vicinity of the Portobello outfall were found to be polluted.

As far back as 1950, Brighton Corporation wrote that the Board realised that the question of the pollution of the out-fall was serious and promised that something would be done as soon as there was a chance of obtaining the necessary capital expenditure. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, this is going round in circles and as yet nothing has been done to solve this serious problem. As the population has grown in the eastern part of the town, so the local organisations have joined in the protests, and noteworthy among them has been the strong protest of the Saltdean Townswomen's Guild, which covers my constituency and that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It must be recognised that this is a serious problem, and we should like everything possible to be done about it.

Following a resolution moved by myself in the Council last year, the matter was further considered by the Works Committee and on 5th November last, the Works Committee in turn remitted it to the Sewers Board. These organisations still do not accept the health risk but reluctantly concede an aesthetic problem. I recently asked my right hon. Friend to hold an inquiry, but he turned it down. The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not favour an inquiry, but I do not think that there need be any disagreement between us about this, because it is only a matter of finding the best way in which to solve this problem.

I endorse everything that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said and I ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to do everything he can to solve this problem once and for all to the satisfaction of the people in the two constituencies.

12.19 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl)

The House will be grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) for having deployed this complicated problem so lucidly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Hobden) said, it was a very clear, precise and an exact account, which may mean that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had some very good technical advice, because he showed a great grasp of the complexities of this matter and I have no quarrel with him about the facts as he stated them. What he said agreed with my advice, and the only problem is what is to be done.

I should not like it to be thought that my right hon. Friend has been indifferent to the problem. As the hon. and gallant Member showed in the quotations he gave, the Ministry was writing to Brighton after the hon. and gallant Member put down his Question and after my hon. Friend's Question was put down and before it was answered. That shows that we have been alive to the importance of the question and that we have been anxious to do everything we can to advise and encourage the Brighton Corporation board to do something about the problem.

It is probably correct to say that none of the methods which have been suggested is perfect, except, of course, to take sewage completely away from the sea. As the hon. and gallant Member said, however, that is expensive and something which nobody has pressed strongly. Inland towns have to face this problem and they do not have a convenient sea in which to dump their sewage. They have to face the heavy capital expenditure in providing sewage disposal plant. Therefore, coastal towns which feel that the problem is beyond their means should reflect upon the fact that Nature has given them certain great advantages, and they would want to make certain that there was no unpleasantness. As the hon. and gallant Member said, this is a question of unpleasantness and not a danger to health.

It is not wise to exaggerate the importance of the problem, because it would not be a good thing for people to think that there was any danger in the sea around Brighton when bathing. There is not. All the technical evidence is that this is just an aesthetic problem. One would think that in these days any town which wanted to be in the front rank of towns would not want to be affected by an aesthetic problem of this sort and, therefore, would want to do something about it.

I do not want at this stage to give any firm directions about which method of meeting the problem is the most appropriate. The position is not complicated in the sense that it is not new. Coastal towns have had to tackle the problem and there are a number of them which have done so. The Ministry can give to Brighton examples of the different methods which have been used, where it can see them in operation and discuss them with the people who have practical experience of the work. As I say, this is not something which is being tried as a pioneer experiment for the first time. It has been tackled with tolerable success.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown reasonably asked what we will do about the problem. I can only say that all our technical experience and the advice of our experts and officials it; available for Brighton if it wants to use it. We can give Brighton what know-how we have and put its representatives in touch with people who are dealing practically with these problems. That we can do and that is our job to do.

When it comes to the question of whether we should give more vigorous direction, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will study this debate with great interest and care. He will want to know what is happening and he will be asking for a report about it. Beyond that, if this was a serious danger to health, there might be something to be said for a Minister acting peremptorily to deal with it; but it is not a danger to health. It is a matter of judgment and taste of the kind of amenities which people wish to have in their town. It is essentially a local matter. It is a matter about which people, such as my hon. Friend, who are progressive and leading members of their council, will want to persuade the council that something should be done. It is a matter in which democracy can work, and therefore the balance between the central Government and the local authority is clear.

In a case like this, the duty of the central Government is to provide the information and all the technical advice they can. It is their duty to provide help of that sort. The duty of the local authority and of the people of the town is to decide how much they are prepared to pay for a diminution of the unpleasantness, and what price they place on the pride of the town. Thus, the final decision on the matter must rest with the Board and with the Council.

From what has been said tonight, from the Circular of 1959, from the letter which the Ministry wrote in February of this year, and from what I have said this evening, it is quite clear that Ministry's view has been that something should be done in a case of this sort. Although these are not matters of life and death, they are matters of unpleasantness and amenity. We think that something ought to be done about it. We hope that something will be done about it, and we would be very glad to provide any facilities necessary to make it easier to do something about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.