CONTROL OF SANITARY APPLIANCES ON TRAINS (Hansard, 19 July 1974)

§ Mr. Rossi
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is not a new clause in the sense that it has already been considered in identical terms in another place, and indeed, in Committee. It deals with the unsatisfactory situation on the railways in that sanitary appliances in British Rail passenger trains discharge what is essentially untreated raw waste directly on to the tracks. In theory, this happens only when the train is in motion, but as we know it happens from time to time when the train is stationary, despite notices requesting passengers not to use the facility when the train is in the station.
We are seeking to introduce something which the Bill already does in respect of vessels on rivers. The Bill already gives water authorities wide-ranging powers to regulate by byelaws the use of sanitary appliances on inland waterways. We recognise that it would be unreasonable to require British Rail immediately to carry out extensive and extremely expensive conversion work to all passenger trains. Therefore, the new clause is so phrased that the Secretary of State may make orders specifying the standard to which British Rail should work and the date by which the work should be completed.
Hon. Members will know that if the Channel Tunnel comes into being it will be necessary for British Rail to produce rolling stock with sanitary appliances which do not discharge into the tunnel. That work will have to be put in hand, and eventually there will have to be a degree of harmonisation with the whole of our rail system linking to the Continent through the Channel Tunnel. When the matter was discussed in Committee the Minister indicated that there were items of cost that he felt made the question prohibitive. He mentioned a figure of about £25 million simply for providing the means whereby the discharges would not take place when the train was still but would be discharged later. Even that would not be regarded as a very satisfactory system.
In Committee there was discussion about it being possible to build jumbo-jet airliners carrying several hundred passengers for flights of seven hours or more and yet be able to containerise the 925 sewage produced during the flight. One would have thought it possible for British Rail engineers to start planning a system whereby that may be done with our trains. This is essentially a long-term operation. If the Government are as anxious as they say they are to control pollution, I hope that this is a matter that they will treat in a more forthcoming manner than they have so far. It is a matter of concern for very many people. There has been a great deal of correspondence on this matter and I ask the Minister to give it sympathetic consideration.
We wait to hear whether there has been between Committee and Report any further thoughts on the matter so that the Minister can give us more welcome news than on the last occasion.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
I cannot accept the new Clause but I can assure the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that a great deal of additional thought and activity has occurred since we debated the matter in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), said in Committee, we have talked to British Rail about the principles that are involved. Indeed, a conference met on 11th July, which was attended by representatives of British Rail and my Department to go over the whole matter in the light of the proceedings which took place in Committee.
We are here dealing with the dirty business of society and the question of how British Rail should dispose of sewage. It is clear from investigations we have made that the adoption of either of the systems suggested by the hon. Gentleman would add considerably to the costs of British Rail. I was concerned about the public health aspects of this matter rather than the question of cost, but I have discovered, much to my amazement, that the present system does not give rise to any public health hazards, and I am informed that it is almost universally in practice throughout the world. Few authorities, if any, adopt a system different from that which we adopt.
There is a problem about the Channel Tunnel and sleeping cars. Here I can bring some joy to the House, because it is the intention of British Rail to have a 926 retention system for train waste on sleeping cars and in respect of the Channel Tunnel. Offence can arise when sleeping cars are pushed into stations. The cost here is £500,000, and British Rail has agreed to get on with it, so we do not have to worry about that.
We are, therefore, left with the matter of ordinary trains. It would cost £25 million to re-equip British Rail trains with a retention system which kept waste and sewage while the train was stationary and discharged it when the train was on the move. In other words, we would not get much for our £25 million, except, so to speak, a holding operation. I am sure that the House would not suggest that British Rail should accept that.
The remaining possible way of dealing with the problem would be to adopt a retention system which used chemicals and containers so that the sewage and waste was dealt with in that way and was discharged into the normal sewage disposal system when the train went into a siding. I am advised that this would raise serious public health problems. The recirculation of chemically treated fluids is not ideal from an amenity point of view, and the public health advisers of British Rail would be opposed to such a system on public health grounds. I think that the House would hesitate to go against that advice until a much closer investigation was carried out.

§ Mr. Spriggs
A system of containerisation is proposed in the new clause. Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Railways research centre at Derby is doing quite a lot of research work into this subject? I am sure that something will be done about it without any pressure being brought to bear.

§ Mr. Howell
I am glad to have my hon. Friend's assurance. His knowledge of railway matters exceeds mine. I think that all the work being done is in respect of sleeping cars and the Channel Tunnel, but if it is more extensive I welcome it.
It would cost British Rail £30 million to install a retention system, but, in addition, there would be many other local authority costs in connection with maintenance and handling. British Rail doubts whether it would be able to get the labour force needed to deal with these filthy jobs.
927 There are considerable difficulties about the two main alternative systems proposed to the present system, but I hope that the House will accept that what I have said about sleeping cars and the Channel Tunnel represents a satisfactory step forward. I regret that I am not able to accept the clause.

§ Mr. Rossi
With leave, may I say that I am grateful to the Minister for the further information which he has given. I was interested to learn that there is a difference of only £5 million between the two systems. That is surprising information, because in Committee we were given the impression that the retention system would be more costly. Although £30 million is a considerable sum and one would not wish to embark unnecessarily on public expenditure, this is a matter which should be considered on a long-term basis.
I am glad to hear that British Rail is pressing ahead with studies into how this problem can be tackled. I am therefore content to leave the matter there and beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.