Pollution (Hansard, 4 November 1987)

§ 1. Mr. Kirkwood
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures are proposed by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that industrial and toxic pollution of the North sea is ended.

§ The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)
The Government are determined to ensure that pollution of the North sea is as low as practicable. I therefore look forward to chairing the second international conference on the protection of the North sea later this month and to discussing with ministerial colleagues from the other North sea states further measures to protect the North sea. The United Kingdom is committed to ensuring a successful outcome to the conference, but this will depend on all the North sea countries being prepared to take the necessary action.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Does the Secretary of State accept that, against the background of the operations of ships such as Vulcanus II in the North sea, more control is required of the pollution in the North sea? I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to the North sea conference, because that presents him with an opportunity of achieving some progress in the matter. Will he consider setting up a United Nations regional sea programme, the like of which obtains in the Caribbean and the Mediterranean, to prevent this mindless, nautical vandalism from continuing in the future?

§ Mr. Ridley
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the incineration of toxic waste. He might be interested to know that the United Kingdom produces 2 per cent. of the total incinerated in the North sea, whereas more than half of it originates from Germany. Perhaps he is pointing the finger at the wrong country.
Secondly, in relation to conferences about population of the seas, I would welcome being able to take part in a conference on the pollutants in the Baltic, the Mediterranean or many other seas that are far worse than the North sea.

§ Mr. Forman
Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome the initiatives that his Department is taking in this matter? Will he tell us a little more about the progress that has been made in clearing up estuarine pollution, particularly in the Humber and other such estuaries?

§ Mr. Ridley
Certainly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He might be interested to know that about £200 million 916 has been spent on cleaning up the Thames, about £130 million on cleaning up the Tyne, among the east coast estuaries, and similarly on other rivers. The result is that 43 per cent. of the inputs of heavy metals from rivers now comes from the Rhine, 28 per cent. from West Germany, and a smaller proportion than from those two areas from the United Kingdom.

§ Ms. Quin
What specific proposals will the Secretary of State present to the Council of Europe Environment Ministers at the end of this month? Does he accept that if he does not take an initiative in this matter the United Kingdom will continue to be seen as an arch polluter of the North sea and not seriously interested in the problem?

§ Mr. Ridley
The hon. Lady clearly has not been listening to my answers. She might like to know, further, that only 1 to 3 per cent. of heavy metal inputs from sewage dumping comes from the United Kingdom, so she has grossly misrepresented the position of the United Kingdom, which is one of the cleaner countries in relation to the North sea. I have a full programme of trying to get the other countries to come into line with us on cleaning up the North sea. I shall not, of course, reveal full details of our position for the conference, but I hope that it will be successful.

§ Sir John Farr
My right hon. Friend, in his Green Paper, said that the National Rivers Authority would be responsible for cleaning up coastal waters. When does he expect to set up the NRA, and will he confirm that he will give it real powers, so that the condition of some of our coastal waters, and the whole of the North sea, will be transformed for the better?

§ Mr. Ridley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the NRA, which has been generally welcomed. I believe that it will make an additional contribution to cleaning up the rivers, which are a major source of pollution to the seas around our coasts. We shall not have authority to set up the NRA until Parliament has passed the necessary legislation, but I shall see what I can do to begin to assemble those parts of it that it would be proper to do in advance.

§ Mr. Allan Roberts
The Minister is being a little disingenuous and is misleading the House. Is it not a fact that on 24 November, at the North sea conference, the Conservative Government will be in the dock again as one of the worst polluters of the North sea; that, as well as putting liquid industrial waste into the North sea, we dumped 2.2 million tonnes of solid industrial waste last year; that we are the only country still dumping sewage sludge into the North sea—25 per cent. of our sewage sludge is so dumped — and that the Government's refusal to act in any significant way on sulphur emissions is also polluting the North sea? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Government show a reckless disregard for the environment, and that nitrates in rivers are also getting into the North sea and polluting it?

§ Mr. Ridley
I know that it is acutely disappointing for the Labour party to have to admit that it cannot knock the United Kingdom with impunity, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the solid waste that we put into the North sea is put in by the collieries on the Durham coast. It is not toxic, nor is it polluting. If those solid wastes were not to 917 be allowed to be put into the sea off Durham, there would be several colliery closures, which would not be exactly what the Labour party seeks.
The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that there is no harm in dumping sewage sludge into the sea. Many countries do it. The harm is done when there is heavy metal content in that sludge. Our contribution has decreased to only 1 to 3 per cent. of heavy metal being deposited in the North sea. Therefore, on that ground, the hon. Gentleman is wrong, too. He may not have realised that a large programme has been instituted — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. Why should I not answer them? I know that he does not like the answers.
The hon. Gentleman might have forgotten that a major programme of desulphurisation of power stations, both existing and future, has been instituted, which is a bigger contribution than many have made towards desulphurisation.