Sewage (Hansard, 22 March 1989)

§ 11. Mr. Kennedy
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much untreated raw sewage is poured into the sea each year.

§ Mr. Ridley
About 14 per cent. of the sewage from England and Wales is discharged to the sea where it is treated through the disinfecting actions of salt water, sunlight and waves which together break down the bacteria as effectively as inland treatment. That is why the Royal Commission on environmental pollution concluded in its 10th report that with well-designed sewage outfalls, discharge of sewage to the sea was not only acceptable but environmentally preferable in many cases to alternative means of disposal.

§ Mr. Kennedy
I thank the Secretary of State for that detailed reply. I realise that this matter falls within the ambit of the Scottish Office, but it also has general environmental interest, given the outfall area. Will he note that Highland regional council is currently backing a limited water sewage water treatment scheme locally, which is opposed by Ross and Cromarty and Inverness district councils and which has not so far been the subject of an environmental impact assessment? The Secretary of State for Scotland has refused to call it in. As the Prime Minister now poses as the green goddess, will the Secretary of State for the Environment invoke her name to encourage the Scottish Office to take a more responsible line, given the possible pollutant effects of the scheme?

§ Mr. Ridley
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I would like to make the general point, however, that the best environmental option might well be to put the sewage out through a long sea outfall. That is what the experts recommend in many cases.

§ Sir Anthony Meyer
I am sorry to tell my right hon. Friend that I see no chance whatever of persuading my electors in north Wales to accept that answer. The plain fact is that sewage is being washed back on to our beaches, and we want to know how the new Water Bill will improve matters.

§ Mr. Ridley
I agree that there are many completely inadequate short sea outfalls, many of them dating from the Victorian era. That is why we have a major programme to extend outfalls to between 2 and 3 km out to sea so that the disinfecting action of the sea has time to act on the effluent before it can float back to the beach.

§ Mr. Pike
Does the Secretary of State realise that if he gives answers like that, people will not believe for one moment that the Government have any commitment to green solutions or to dealing with problems of pollution? Will he note, in particular, the opposition in Lancashire to the proposed extension of the Rossall sewage outfall near Fleetwood, to which there is overwhelming opposition and will he say that he is not prepared to let the North West water authority's proposal go ahead?

§ Mr. Ridley
Without reference to that particular application, which is before me at the moment, let me say 1082 something serious to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Let me tell him that the alternative is inland sewage treatment works, which produce sludge which must be disposed of either in fertilisers, or by dumping on land or at sea or by incineration. This involves the discharge of high concentrations of bacteria in the area of the seaside resort although such works are difficult to site at seaside resorts. Disinfection is a possibility, but so far there is little experience of its use and there is concern about its possible effect on the marine biota. If the hon. Gentleman does not want a long sea outfall in any particular case, will he say which alternative he wants, where he would site that alternative sewage works and how strongly he would defend the destruction of molluscs, animals and fish in the sea due to the disinfection? He must be a little more scientific and a little less shambolic.

§ Mr. Oppenheim
Is it not a little inconsistent—but also rather typical of certain people—to complain on the one hand about poor water quality and sewage on beaches and in the next breath to complain about the higher water charges that are necessary to clean up the mess left by years of under-investment by the public sector water authorities?

§ Mr. Ridley
With regard to that sort of doublespeak, I have a leaked letter from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I shall quote a sentence from it. It says: Major increases, many in excess of 30 per cent., are being imposed on 12 million consumers who are being obliged to pay substantial additional costs as a direct consequence of privatisation. That is not the case. The major environmental improvements requested by the Opposition are the cause of the increases in water charges. The hon. Member for Copeland knows that, and he should withdraw his offensive remark.

§ Dr. Cunningham
As the Secretary of state has now admitted that large amounts of untreated domestic sewage flow into the seas around Britian, will he tell us whether the Prime Minister was confused in her interview on the BBC "Nature" programme, when she said that no untreated sewage went into the sea around Britian? If she was not, had she again been wrongly briefed?

§ Mr. Ridley
Was the hon. Gentleman confused when he wrote to the Prime Minister and said that the cost of environmental pollution could be put down to privatisation? When he withdraws that comment, I shall answer his question.