HC Deb 14 November 1988 vol 140 cc855-68

11.7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley)

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6387/83 and 7733/84 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department of the Environment on 14th June and 22nd July 1988 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry; and supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that the provisions of any new directive should take full account both of the need to protect the environment and of the need to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom's titanium dioxide producers are safeguarded. I welcome the opportunity to discuss tonight an important proposal for European Community legislation. The proposal is significant both in terms of securing a considerable degree of environmental improvement, albeit localised, in several areas of the European Community, and in terms of its potential impact on an important industry.

The debate concerns the titanium dioxide industry and the industrial pollutants that it produces. It is about the way in which the Government are dealing with the issue in relation both to the directives in place and proposed by the European Commission, and within the context of our own policies for strengthening the environmental protection of our rivers and estuaries.

Titanium dioxide is the main source of pigments used in paints and in a number of other products, such as ceramics. We have just three titanium dioxide factories in the United Kingdom, one of which is modern and gives rise to no significant pollution. That is the Tioxide UK Ltd. plant on Teesside, which uses the chloride process. Of more concern, because they are older, are the Tioxide UK Ltd. plant on Humberside, and the SCM Chemicals Ltd. plant, also on Humberside. I welcome Humberside Members to the debate. They have been active in advancing their constituents' views on this important matter.

There are two main production processes. The older and more polluting process is the sulphate method, which produces large amounts of iron sulphate and sulphuric acid. This is the process which is used by Tioxide on Humberside and one of the two processes used by SCM. The newer, less polluting process—the chloride method—is also used by SCM and by Tioxide at its Teesside factory. It results in the production of waste metal chlorides which can either be discharged to water or dumped on land.

Concern about the polluting impact of the discharges from the industry derives not so much from the nature of the substances—they are not on our "red list" or the Community's list I or list II of dangerous substances, the black or grey lists—as from the sheer volume of waste produced. Indeed, it was originally the impact of the wastes discharged by the Italian industry—notably, the so-called red mud—which led to proprosals for a Community directive for this industry in the 1970s.

The background to the proposal from the Commisssion of the European Communities for a directive on procedures for harmonising the pollution reduction programmes caused by waste from the titanium dioxide industry lies in an earlier directive. The existing directive on waste from the titanium dioxide industry was adopted in 1978. This has as its stated aim the prevention and progressive reduction of pollution caused by waste from the industry. It lays down general rules for the disposal of the different kinds of waste.

Articcle 9 of that directive requires member states to draw up programmes for the progressive reduction and eventual elimination of pollution caused by waste from existing industrial establishments. The article also provides for the Commission to submit proposals to the Council for the harmonisation of member states' programmes. The proposal for such a harmonisation directive is what we are debating today.

Traditionally, our approach to controlling discharges to the aquatic environment has been through environmental quality objectives and standards, having regard to the ability of receiving waters to accept discharges without detriment to the specified uses for those waters. This approach has served us well. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment described in the House recently, we have achieved major clean-ups of our estuaries over the past 20 years through this approach, and it is now the Rhine—certainly not the Thames—which is the dirty river of Europe. Indeed, the quality of both our rivers and estuaries compares very favourably with the quality of those in the rest of the European Community. Over 90 per cent. of our rivers are of good or fair quality, which means that they are suitable for drinking water extraction, support at least good coarse fisheries and have some amenity value.

Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

The Minister is saying that the way to deal with the pollution is to put the waste out to sea rather than into estuaries. In the light of the recent evidence, do the Government accept that pollution that stems from the chemical industry and paint manufacture is poisoning and killing seals, other aquatic animals and fish? I speak of the evidence that has been produced in the past 24 hours.

Mrs. Bottomley

I knew that it was unwise to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that the virus that is affecting seals is a natural one. He referred to waste from industry, and he knows that pollution can take place in the water, in the air and on the land. If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, he will come to understand that that is the precise justification for the integrated pollution inspectorate, which we established recently. The inspectorate will be able to examine pollution that is caused by any discharge. That is extremely important.

The Humber has benefited from clean-up programmes, especially of the Trent, and further improvements will come about through schemes to tackle some of the badly polluted Yorkshire rivers that feed into the Humber.

How does all this relate to the titanium dioxide industry? It is because through the use of environmental quality objectives that we have been implementing the article 9 reduction programme drawn up with the industry following the 1978 directive. We have laid down environmental quality standards—these set maximum concentration levels for acid and iron—and the companies have invested in new longer outfalls to achieve better dilution and dispersion of the discharges. For example, as a result of the new outfalls, the area of the Humber affected by pollution from acid will be reduced by 90 per cent. This is a considerable achievement.

The Government have long recognised the concern about wastes from the industry in environmental terms.

That is why, when applications from the two Humberside factories were made to Anglian water authority in 1986 for new discharge consents, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State called them in for determination. It was the first occasion on which these powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 had been used. Subsequently, the applications were considered at public inquiries in October 1987. Although the applications for discharge consent were substantially approved, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in his decision letters earlier this year that he would be looking to review the consents after two years with the view to seeking reductions in the total amount of waste discharged. That will necessarily involve changes to the production processes and the use of less-polluting technology.

That decision has to be seen in the light of the North sea conference declaration last year and the actions agreed by member states substantially to reduce inputs of contaminants reaching the North sea via rivers and estuaries by 1995. Although the main wastes produced by the industry are not persistent or liable to bio-accumulate, they are significantly polluting, and wastes from the industry are specifically indentified in the declaration on the North sea as one of the areas for possible future action.

I should mention two other developments in the environmental context that are now relevant to consideration of the Commission's proposals. First, the Government—as part of a more precautionary approach to the environment—published proposals in the summer for a new unified approach to the control of the most dangerous substances to water, which were identified as the red list.

For industrial processes discharging those substances, we will apply technology-based emissions standards for the first time, incorporating the concept of best available technology not entailing excessive costs, in combination with our more traditional style of strict environmental quality standards. The aim is to minimise the amounts of those substances reaching the aquatic environment and that will require, among other things, investment by industry in better effluent control technology. Industry has generally welcomed those proposals, although we are still considering the detailed responses to our consultation.

Secondly at the same time, we published consultative proposals for a new system of integrated pollution control for major industrial processes—to which I was referring when the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) intervened a moment ago—designed to minimise the overall impact of discharges to land, air and water. That follows the recommendations of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution for wastes to be disposed of according to the concept of best practicable environmental option and the setting up last year of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution as a cross-media pollution control agency responsible for the development of a more integrated approach to pollution control. That seeks to minimise so far as is practicable the amount and harmful affects of waste arising from such processes. The titanium dioxide industry, which discharges waste to water, to air and to land is an obvious candidate for just that sort of approach.

We have to consider the Commission's proposals against that background. The proposal for a new directive to harmonise member states' pollution reduction programmes was first put forward by the Commission in 1983. The proposal at that time gave us some difficulty. We considered that the appropriate way to control discharges of waste from the industry was according to the system of environmental quality objectives. Such an approach is consistent with the method of control laid down for list II substances in the dangerous substances directive. This specifies that the emission standards for such substances should be based on quality objectives.

In contrast, the Commission's proposal was based upon the use of Communitywide limit values. Those are essentially uniform emission standards set for all plants irrespective of location and the nature of the receiving waters for their discharge. We have always preferred to control discharges with reference to environmental quality objectives and standards which allow for the ability of receiving waters to assimilate discharges without harm to the aquatic environment. As our factories are located on large fast-flowing estuaries which offer good dilution, we have always believed that they should be allowed to benefit from those locational advantages.

The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities shared our concern about the Commission's proposal. The Committee, in its February 1984 report, expressed itself greatly concerned that the draft Directive, contrary to the provisions of the parent Directive and other Directives concerned with water pollution, imposes a system of fixed emission standards without any option of a parallel approach of environmental quality objectives". That advice which strongly reaffirmed existing policy for water pollution control, provided the basis for our further negotiations on the proposed directive. Because of the nature of the substances discharged by the industry, we could see a persuasive case for arguing that only the environmental quality objective approach need be used. Consequently, we were not then prepared to support that proposal.

Our position has changed since 1983. First, I have already described the main developments in pollution control policy as a result of both domestic and international developments. In particular, we now accept the need for a more precautionary approach to the aquatic environment based on the complementary use environmental quality standards and technology-based emission standards for the most dangerous red list substances.

We are actively implementing those parts of the North sea conference declaration calling for substantial reductions in inputs of contaminants via rivers and estuaries. We are actively developing a more integrated approach to pollution control in this country, taking account of the effects of an industrial process on the environment as a whole.

Secondly, there is now wider public acceptance of the need for higher environmental standards, and industry, is responding to that. Consequently, it is right that we should now consider the next stage of the article 9 reduction programmes for the titanium dioxide industry with a view to achieving substantial reductions in the amounts discharged when the new consents are reviewed in 1990. Such reductions will call for specific measures by the companies concerned.

Thirdly, there is little doubt that recent discussion of the proposal has been influenced by the outcome of the important North sea conference hosted by my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Equally, the proposal has been strongly supported by a number of other member states, especially Germany and the Netherlands, which are encouraging their industries to invest heavily in cleaner technology. To a large extent, that involves replacing old sulphate capacity with new chloride capacity. I should point out that United Kingdom industry has been doing that over the past decade and currently has most of the installed chloride capacity in the Community.

After a period of some years in which this proposal was given little precedence in discussions of the European Council, negotiations began again in earnest in late 1987. Initially, our participation in the detailed negotiations was constrained by the public inquiries into the proposed discharge consents on Humberside, which were then taking place under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Until their outcome was known and the Secretary of State had made his decisions public, we had to avoid saying anything which might be prejudicial to those cases.

As a result of a short intensive period of negotiations at the June 1988 Environment Council, the German presidency put forward a package of principles for agreement designed to reflect so far as possible the concerns of all member states, and intended as the basis for future agreement.

The compromise package was made up of the following elements. First was the prohibition of the discharge of strong acid wastes and solid wastes from both processes and treatment wastes from the sulphate process to all waters from 31 December 1989, although where individual member states face particular difficulties the date might be put back to 1 July 1993.

Secondly, the discharge of other wastes to all waters would be regulated either by reference to limit values or by reference to enviromental quality objectives. Thirdly, there would be rules, to be agreed, on discharges to the atmosphere. That package proved to be a helpful way forward. The Commission's proposal was first presented in 1983. The continued failure to adopt a directive had left our titanium dioxide industry uncertain as to future pollution control measures. The industry found it difficult to plan future investment. Adoption of the proposed directive would provide the industry with the certainty and stability it needs to conduct and expand its business.

The measures proposed were stringent but feasible, even though the proposed time limits allowed barely sufficient time for all the necessary work to be completed. The compromise also protected our policy on environmental quality objectives and was consistent with the precautionary approach. There was a clear advantage in exploring it further and at the Environment Council my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) agreed, together with the other Ministers, that the compromise should provide the basis for further consideration of the proposal.

In further detailed discussions since then, over the last few months, good progress has been made in a number of areas. Numerical values have been set for the limit values applicable to the weaker wastes. Rather than lay down numerical environmental quality objectives, the working party has chosen to place upon member states using that approach the burden of satisfying the Commission that its approach is being used correctly. Agreement has been reached on the numerical values for the controls on discharges to the atmosphere and for the dates of their applications.

We remain concerned that the Commission has changed the legal base of this proposal from articles 100 and 235 of the treaty to the new article 100A. Although we can understand that the Commission wishes to concentrate on the single market aspects of this proposal and the importance of avoiding distortions of competition, we are unhappy that the Commission should choose to disregard the new environmental article 130S. We believe that it would be an unfortunate precedent for article 100A to be used for what seems to us fundamentally misguided reasons, particularly when so much progress has been made to reach a sensible environmental consensus.

We hope that reason will prevail and that my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness will be able to negotiate a satisfactory resolution of this issue. The alternative would be further damaging uncertainty for the industry. We believe that adoption of the proposal will safeguard the interests of our industry by giving it a secure framework for planning its future operations and will lead to important environmental gains.

11.25 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts (Bootle)

The draft directive is welcome, to the extent that it makes improvements, but it does not go far enough. We have heard from the Minister the history of the negotiations—once again a history in which Britain, within the EEC, has been trying to hold up and limit the controls on the grounds that the Government are protecting British interests, environmental controls and industry.

The main aim of the directive is the prevention and progressive reduction of pollution caused by wastes from the titanium dioxide industry. Eventually, we hope, all pollution will be eliminated. Titanium dioxide is a white pigment used in paints and for other purposes. Its manufacture may result in a much larger quantity of waste than product, and this has frequently been dumped at sea or discharged into estuaries. Much of it is still disposed of in that way.

The directive would provide for the dumping of wastes at sea to be banned by 31 December 1989. Discharges of solid wastes, strong acid and treatment wastes from the sulphide process and discharges of solid waste and strong acid wastes from the chloride process into all waters would be banned by 1 December 1989. The Opposition welcome both proposals. In certain circumstances, that date could be put back to 1 July 1993. What are those circumstances? We would guess that the British Government got that written into the directive.

Discharges of weak acid waste and treatment waste from the chloride process to all waters would be substantially reduced by 31 December 1989 by limit values to be fixed, although in certain circumstances that date could also be put back. The emissions into the air would be limited, as the Minister said, and, as an alternative to using the limit values referred to in the two previous examples, discharges might be controlled by reference to environmental quality objectives, to be fixed by the Community. We welcome that. Labour Members do not believe in the gospel according to limit values. We want stricter controls than the Government's reliance on limit values provides. The legal base for the directive is to be decided later. The Government might, to coin a phrase, be treading water in the future if industry has not had the necessary expenditure made available to it to control its emissions.

We are concerned that the control of discharges of wastes from the industry in the United Kingdom is, in the view of the Department of the Environment, on the basis that stated environmental quality standards—EQSs, as the Government call them—are complied with in respect of discharges to water. The standards are set on the basis of scientific evidence and the controls on discharges are set so as to protect the receiving environment. We do not think that they are set in a way that protects the receiving environment, as evidence shows. They allow the United Kingdom to use and benefit from the absorptive capacity of our estuaries—the dispersal concept, to which the Government cling, even though dispersal in estuaries and in our seas has been proved to be misguided and to lead to a cumulative build-up of pollutants.

If adopted, the proposal would require, according to the Department of the Environment and the Minister, the banning of the more polluting types of waste from discharges and would require other discharges to be controlled according to Communitywide limit values, which we welcome. However, the Government claim—as, I am sure, will hon. Members who represent constituencies in which the titanium dioxide industry is based that it will lead to additional costs for the industry. It is claimed that the provisions could add about 10 per cent. to production costs. That would clearly have implications for the profitability of the United Kingdom's titanium dioxide industry, although in general those costs could be absorbed.

I, too, am concerned about jobs in the industry, but if the directive applies to our competitors as well as to the United Kingdom, the expenditure that will be incurred to implement the controls will have to be borne by them as well as by the British industry. It is said that the directive represents a serious threat to employment in the industry, but if we consider what other countries have done to control the discharge of titanium dioxide because of its environmental consequences, we see that the United Kingdom has no excuse for continuing to discharge such powerful pollutants into the rivers or the sea.

The acid waste that is discharged by the titanium dioxide industry has four components: dilute sulphuric acid, differing concentrations of many heavy metals, very high concentrations of iron and residual ore. Those are very powerful pollutants that are being discharged into our rivers and seas. The immediate effect of these pollutants on biological systems results from the acidification of the water. The acid causes direct death of the single-celled organisms called plankton. They are the plants that are important for generating oxygen in the water that is used by other organisms. Plankton also provide the basic foodstuff for other life forms in the water, but the plankton are destroyed.

There are also differing concentrations of many heavy metals that are discharged into the rivers and seas by means of titanium dioxide pollution. They are found in titanium, zinc, chromium, nickel, copper, lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. The effects of heavy metals, even in trace concentrations, are wll documented. They have remarkable powers of accumulating into higher organisms through food chains. It is the "Ilkley Moor baht 'at" syndrome:

Then ducks will come and eat up worms And then we'll come and eat up ducks. The fish absorb the nickel, copper, lead, arsenic and mercury, and we eat the fish. Heavy metals have been shown to affect a wide variety of marine organisms, causing fin-rot erosion, disease in fish and shell diseases in crabs and lobsters. They can also affect humans. Minamata disease is poisoning by mercury.

The high concentration of ferrous sulphate in the waste has severe effects on aquatic organisms and may be considered to be the most important damaging factor in acid waste. Cockles and mussels in the Humber, into which a great deal of the titanium dioxide is discharged, have been affected, and human beings cannot eat them. However, birds and fish eat them. The birds are then eaten by other forms of wildlife, and we eat that wildlife. It can be very dangerous.

It has been shown in laboratory experiments that flounders subjected to dilutions of titanium dioxide acid waste collect a brown precipitate, consisting of iron titanium, on their gills. The precipitate in turn affects the fish, altering their conditions to such an extent that they are unable to swim properly. In this way metals can be readily concentrated into living organisms. Flounders caught in the areas where titanium dioxide waste is dumped contain 12 times more lead, eight times more copper, three times more cadmium and twice as much zinc as fish caught in unpolluted waters. The pollution consequences are enormous.

Tests have been carried out recently on dead seals in Liverpool bay, pointing to the illegal dumping of paints or resins, titanium dioxide and other substances. High levels of mercury contamination have been found in the dead seals. The analysis of blubber and liver samples from four grey seals and a pilot whale showed high readings of a form of polychlorinated byphenyls—PCBs—used only in the production of paints and resins. Levels similar to those found in the Dutch Waddenzee could be expected to interfere with reproductive processes.

Those are the findings of tests done this week, yet the Government—the Minister repeated it today—still say that this pollution does not kill the seals. They say that the seals have a natural virus and that pollution has nothing to do with it. That is absolute nonsense. The Government are hiding their head in the sand. If pollution does not cause the virus, it lowers the resistance of seals and other sea animals to the virus. It creates the problem. If the Government had really adopted a precautionary approach, they would be ending the pollution of our seas and estuaries to save the seals. In reality, their policy assists with the seals' deaths.

The Green party would solve the problem by closing the factories. The Conservative party wants, reluctantly, to interfere with the free market, but it allows the pollution to continue when it should not. The Labour party believes that we can have jobs and an industry which is run in an environmentally sound way. We believe that it is not necessary to pollute and destroy our environment to keep industry going.

In 1978, the Council adopted a directive which required member states to take certain actions in respect of wastes produced by the titanium dioxide industry and to establish national reduction programmes for the prevention and eventual elimination of pollution caused by such waste. The Commission published proposals. Now, 10 years after the first directive, white pigment makers are still split about how to deal with acid and metal waste.

Germany is building acid recycling plants, and the Netherlands is switching to another manufacturing process. The United Kingdom's answer? Lengthening outfalls from the Humber and elsewhere to dump the pollutants into the sea rather than into the estuaries. A recycling plant is now under construction at Duisburg in West Germany. When it comes on stream at the end of this year it will reclaim 99 per cent. of the factory's waste sulphuric acid. Sachtleben's plant will also handle the waste from another German manufacturer—Kronos Titan. The chemical giant Bayer already has an acid recovery facility of a different design, the output of which is used on other processes. The spur of the plants is environmental legislation. Five years ago, West German firms were given a deadline of 1990 to stop dumping in the North sea. Belgium and the Netherlands have enacted similar laws. Once again, the United Kingdom is lagging way behind.

The titanium dioxide industry in the United Kingdom seems intent on exaggerating costs and availability of alternative technology to delay acceptance and implementation of the directive. Such corporate exaggeration, supported to some extent by the Government, is typical of companies, the operations of which take no account of social and environmental costs. They have successfully manufactured a scenario in which there appears to be only one option open to industry on implementation of the directive—cessation of operations. We do not believe that that is the only option.

A wide array of methods for waste treatment is available to the titanium industry. Some merely neutralise the acidic component of the waste; others produce useful by-products. Several techniques that completely recycle the waste are available. They include neutralisation. I shall not go into detail, because we do not have the time, but some companies have neutralised waste to gain profitable by-products which offset the cost of the processes. It is quite possible for the British industry, with the Government's assistance, to deal with the directive in such a way as to benefit the industry. There are jobs in the production of environmentally sound technologies and in recycling much of the waste which is at the moment put into estuaries and seas.

I welcome the directive to the extent that it moves us forward. I welcome some of what the Minister said. We are suspicious that, under pressure from the industry, the Government will not assist by making available the resources that are needed for recycling to prevent dumping and for the removal of longer outfalls—for which they have just given planning permission—which dump the titanium oxide in our seas.

11.39 pm
Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)

My hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased to know that I do not seek to divide the House on the draft directive. I welcome the specific wording employed by my hon. Friend and her colleagues. I draw the attention of the House specifically to the words: That this House … supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that the provisions of any new directive should take full account both of the need to protect the environment and the need to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom's titanium dioxide producers are safeguarded. I am particularly concerned with those interests.

In her opening remarks, my hon. Friend referred to Humberside Members of Parliament. I am privileged to represent one of the country's titanium dioxide factories which is operated by SCM Chemicals, a subsidiary of the Hanson Trust group of companies. That organisation employs 700 people, many of whom are my constituents, although some may be constituents of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) or of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Until 1982, that company which was then known as Laporte, employed about 1,600 people. The work force has been halved, yet the yearly output, which was about 85,000 tonnes at the end of the 1970s, is now about 115,000 tonnes. That shows how the industry has been able to cope with the problems of the world recession earlier in the decade, and it is still a massive provider of jobs in my constituency.

The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has been somewhat unfair. I do not often disagree with him on environmental issues, but on this occasion he is wrong. The industry is aware of pressures from Europe, from the European Commission and from the Government, that require it to recognise that there is a sea change—a political change and a change in public perception. Those in the industry do not want to be bad neighbours and create environmental pollution. However, we are not talking about chickenfeed. The hon. Member for Bootle felt that it would be easy for companies to comply with the directive, but it has been estimated that for SCM Chemicals, the capital expenditure involved would amount to £24 million—depending on the final details of the directive—and that £1.25 million would be spent on additional gas cleaning equipment to reduce air emissions. That is not chickenfeed; that is a major financial outlay that has to be argued for when the company seeks approval for capital expenditure from its senior board.

I was glad to hear my hon. Friend express the Government's concern at the use of article 100A, which allows the proposal to be adopted by majority voting, when previously, under articles 100 and 235, unanimity would he needed. I was also very glad to hear my hon. Friend's assurance that the Government would be pressing hard for that.

The draft directive and tonight's debate are timely because I understand that the draft directive is to be considered by the Council of Ministers on 24 November. I am glad that my hon. Friend put on record a number of proposals which my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be presenting on behalf of the Government at that Council meeting.

I want to put one or two points to the Minister, to which I hope she will respond if she is able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. My comments challenge what was said by the hon. Member for Bootle. He said that there would be no unfair competition for this country. He implied that there would be a level playing field and that the directive would apply equally across the Community. I do not think that that is the case. I can give two examples.

One unsatisfactory feature of the directive with regard to the chloride process is that a German chloride process of 80,000-tonne annual capacity, discharging its waste into the Rhine, will be allowed to discharge up to 150 tonnes of calcium chloride or sodium chloride into fresh water each day. A proposed 40,000-tonne plant on the Ghent-Terneuzen canal in Belgium will be allowed to discharge 78 tonnes a day into fresh water. That is not fair.

Another unsavoury aspect of the directive is the introduction of the concept of equality of competition. It should not be the responsibility of a directive such as this to introduce equality of competition. I understand that, in the interest of equality of competition, the same limits are imposed on the two United Kingdom plants, both of which discharge a sodium-calcium chloride brine into the marine environment. Such legislation, masquerading as environmental protection, does nothing to encourage the sensible siting of plants so as to have minimum environmental effects. In the German and Belgian cases the plants could have been sited on the coast had they addressed environmental requirements rather than proximity to markets.

Mr. Allan Roberts

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the difficulties faced by British industry is that the Government have not put pressure on the industry in the same way as other Governments, so we are behind in introducing alternative methods of dealing with the waste? In Japan, one of our competitors, the marine disposal of titanium dioxide was forbidden in 1978, and 60 per cent. of the waste is treated with ammonia. The resultant ammonia sulphate is used as a fertiliser. An annual production of 100,000 tonnes is sold. It is the same in Germany and Holland. They have the plants and are producing side-products that can be sold to make a profit for the industry. We could do the same.

Mr. Brown

I do not agree. Many years ago, successive Governments co-operated to ensure that the titanium dioxide industry in Britain was sensibly located. It is an unpleasant process. However, it is a fact of life. We all use white paint and white paper. Everything that is white has titanium dioxide in it. Over the years Britain has been ahead of its rivals. Our rivals have sited their plants near their markets but we have ensured that the plants have been sited sensibly on the coast. That is not to say that we should simply discharge waste into the estuaries.

I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bootle that the Government have done nothing. I spend a lot of time with the senior management of SCM Chemicals in my constituency. I am told of the pressures brought to bear on them by my hon. Friend the Minister and her predecessors. The industry would argue that the Government have been tough and strong in the way in which they have asked the industry to clean up its act. The industry recognises that there is a political dimension and that it has to address public opinion, as do the Government and Europe.

I have reservations about the directive, but I recognise that we are too far down the road to be able to start from scratch. My hon. Friend the Minister said that a public inquiry was under way in 1987, when we might have been negotiating hard on the detail of the directive. The Government were precluded from playing their part in the early stages of those negotiations. They have had to work hard and fast to secure the best interests of the titanium dioxide industry. If there is a lesson for the future, it is essential that, once it is obvious that a European draft directive will involve some control of the industry, the Government should use their expertise in Europe to protect the interests of the environment and of those who work in the industry. We have lost out a little, for the reasons that I have outlined and that I fully understand.

It appears that the final directive will be approved on 24 November. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate she will be able to assuage my worry about the lack of a level playing field and confirm that the Government will be pressing hard at the meeting of the Council of Ministers next week.

11.50 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)

I welcome the draft directive. It is a useful step in harmonising European pollution levels.

I represent part of the Humberside area and my constituency abuts the River Humber. There is no point in denying that for a long time there have been considerable problems with industrial waste from many outlets on the estuary. They have had demonstrable effects on the decline of Humber fisheries. At one time, there was a thriving inshore fishery, but it has declined dramatically in recent years.

There is a new fishery on the Humber that abuts my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I should not claim that such a fishery employs as many people as a titanium dioxide factory, but nevertheless it is important to employment in the area. The fishery relies almost exclusively on exports, and the directive will do much to assist it by making it clear that the Government are adamant about them taking steps to clean the estuary.

I do not wish to hold the titanium oxide industry responsible for all the pollution of the River Humber—it is no better or worse than other industries. It is better, however, than the Government's record regarding the amount of raw sewage that is dumped into the estuary.

I know well the arguments that have been advanced about the importance of the titanium oxide industry receiving the same treatment as its European rivals so that it can be competitive and can protect jobs in the area. That is a fair and valid argument, but it underlines one of the strengths of the directive. It would not be fair if one of our industries was at a disadvantage by having to implement stronger pollution controls than its rivals on the continent.

It could be argued that, if there is equal treatment in the Community, the industry may be at a disadvantage with its competitors outside the Community, which may not apply the same rigorous standards. When the Council of Ministers meets, it should discuss a form of environmental tax on products entering the Community from competitors that do not apply the same rigorous standards of pollution control and are therefore an unfair form of competition. That would answer the arguments advanced by some industries in the EEC—that these measures cost jobs and put them at a disadvantage.

Mr. Michael Brown

The problem with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that about 60 per cent. of this country's production of titanium dioxide is exported. The industry has to compete in the world market; it faces competition from Australia, non-EEC and Third-world countries.

Mr. Morley

That is a valid point. The answer is to campaign throughout the developed nations to get them to apply similar controls, and to use the EEC's considerable influence in world markets to suggest to countries involved in unfair competition that the EEC will not regard them favourably in future dealings. As an advanced industrialised country, we must set an example to other countries which may not share our scruples.

I am concerned, too, about the Government's response to the directive. The explanatory memorandum reads: It is better to dispose of most wastes to waters where they are rapidly diluted and dispersed. I disagree strongly. We do not know the long-term consequences of marine pollution in the North sea. About 20 million cu m of sewage are dumped every day—on top of 15 million cu m of chemical waste.

The Minister referred to the recent seal virus as a natural virus. That is only partly true. Scientific evidence points to a link between pollution and the suppression of the seals' immune system, which reduces their resistance to infection. I am sure that the Minister does not underestimate the public concern about the pollution of the sea that was highlighted by the seal problem. It was well expressed in a petition organised by the children of Rochdale road school in Scunthorpe, who have called for action to help the seals.

The directive goes a long way towards dealing with marine pollution. It would not be fair to single out any one industry. I do not want to make the titanium dioxide industry the scapegoat for all the problems of the North sea. The algae bloom last May, which was triggered off by a high concentration of nitrates and phosphates, and which reduced 100,000 sq km of the seabed to a biologically dead wilderness, showed the scale of the problem.

I deeply regret the Government's weak-kneed qualifications of the directive. I do not want any industry in this country to be disadvantaged: these controls must be applied fairly and vigorously across the EEC to ensure that the seas are safe for future generations.

11.58 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley

With the leave of the House, I wish to answer the debate.

In response to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), I make it clear that the reason for the possibility of extending the time limit to 1993 from December 1989 is that, if there are cases of major techno-economic difficulty, this is a way of protecting the industries concerned. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who have spoken forcefully for their constituents and local industries, will appreciate that.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes that the standards applicable to plants discharging into inland waters should be stricter than those applicable to plants discharging into salt water. We have pressed hard for that in the Council, but have so fair received no support from other member states. But I am sure that my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness will make the point again at next week's Environment Council.

I hope that we are all agreed on the need to end the uncertainty and inaction which the protracted negotiations on this proposal have caused. We have the clear prospect of agreement on a measure that would produce significant benefits for the water environment and that would provide industry with a clear and practical basis on which to plan its future investment.

I have listened carefully to hon. Members' comments, and I shall bring them to the attention of my noble Friend before he attends the Council meeting on 25 November.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos 6387/83 and 7733/84 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department of the Environment on 14th June and 22nd July 1988 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry; and supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that the provisions of any new directive should take full account both of the need to protect the environment and of the need to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom's titanium dioxide producers are safeguarded.