§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
6.49 pm§ Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth)I am grateful to have secured the debate. It will be the last debate today and, therefore, of the pre-Christmas part of the Session.
I wish to highlight a serious threat to the dye-works in Hinckley in my constituency, the threat to Brookside Dyers, Atkins, Fludes, Halls and Sketchley. It is a threat to 500 jobs in the industry in Hinckley and a threat to thousands of other jobs in the related hosiery, knitwear and textile industries. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight that threat there and at other towns in the county and in the region.
In February 1990, at a meeting called at the request of Severn Trent Water Ltd., the dyeing and finishing sector committee of the Knitting Industries Federation Ltd., KIF, was told for the first time that the then newly formed National Rivers Authority intended to introduce consents on the discharge of dye colour in textile effluent received at certain sewage treatment works. The treatment works at Hinckley, Loughborough, Wigston, Wanlip and Pinxton were all identified as problem areas.
It was explained by Severn Trent Water that the procedures in place at the works to which I have referred were ineffective in removing dye colour, which was passing through the treatment process into rivers. Surprisingly, STW stated that it was not prepared to offer any solution but laid the responsibility for the removal of the colour firmly on the shoulders of individual dischargers.
It was not until June 1992 that the NRA's proposed colour consents were revealed, with the declaration that these would be introduced by 1 January 1994 at the latest. The consents amounted to a gin-clear discharge for 100 per cent. of the time. I always thought that gin had a blue tinge and was not exactly clear, but we had better not pursue that line this evening.
The proposal to implement gin-clear discharge—that is discharge without any coloration—would have had a catastrophic impact on the industry then, and would have one now unless STW took the necessary action. Fortunately, at the time, the KIF sprung into action. I congratulate it on what it has done. It appointed an environment committee. It rapidly established, following a worldwide trawl, that there were no known solutions at end of pipe that would be viable for those compelled to discharge into sewers. The committee stressed the non-toxic nature of the effluent at the levels of dilution involved, together with the major threat to jobs in the east midlands.
There was clearly a need for a formal tripartite action group—it is known as the TAG—between the KIF, STW and the NRA. That group was set up in January 1993. General meetings of dyers were held at Leicester and Mansfield, at which the NRA and STW gave audio-visual presentations. These did nothing to allay the sector's fears.
By the end of March 1993 it became clear that the TAG had become deadlocked. That was principally because of the NRA's insistence on maintaining its so-called gin-clear consents for 100 per cent. of the time. That gave 1584 STW an excuse for not accepting the responsibility for removing dye colour at its treatment works, although it was much better placed to carry out the job more economically, efficiently and effectively than any of the dye-works.
The KIF took the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The meeting took place in July 1993, with support from the union, the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades and the all-party knitting industry lobby at Westminster. Meanwhile, the support of the influential Chemical Industries Association Ltd. dye users group was enlisted along with the Textile Finishers Association in Manchester. It was agreed with the then Minister that the TAG should have high-level talks with senior officials at the Department of Trade and Industry to arrive at a workable solution through mediation.
Trials were agreed. It was not until October 1993 that the long-awaited but elusive dividend which had been sought was achieved. Severn Trent finally agreed to undertake, on a trial basis, to remove the colour at selected sewage treatment works. A joint action plan was submitted to the NRA with the following central aims: the pursuit of practical colour removal at selected treatment works, the examination of dye house discharge management procedures, the formulation of best practice for dye house operations and the establishment of further research development programmes. But the breakthrough became shortlived.
The NRA's response to the JAP of continuing insistence on the gin-clear consent for 100 per cent. of the time, compounded by the introduction of the unacceptable peg-in-the-ground concept—you are probably as confused as I was, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I first came across the concept, but broadly speaking it means no increase in capacity for existing dye-works—caused STW to revert to its original and, I suggest, unacceptable policy of passing the problem back along the pipe to the dischargers.
Simultaneously, the KIF, as part of its responsibilities under the JAP, initiated—this was with the assistance of an expert, Dr. Skelly—the publication of a water and effluent management manual. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department for a contribution of £10,000. The total cost was £30,000. The manual, which included individual case studies by the products sector, set out best practice for dye house operations. Copies were distributed to the member dye houses in May 1994.
What is the NRA's response to the JAP? By the end of March 1994 it had become clear that although the NRA would not become a party to the JAP, it was prepared, provided all parties proceeded with their respective commitments, to postpone the introduction of its colour consents until 1 January 1996. More time had been bought for the industry, and that was important.
During this period, or breathing space, a significant number of dischargers, such as those in my constituency, continued their search for suitable technologies to remove the colour in association with a variety of water equipment suppliers. They were not idly standing by but taking action. Many of the pilot rigs installed proved effective in removing the colour. However, the associated costs of bulk applications, in terms either of capital or of revenue, proved prohibitively expensive in the absence of 1585 an ability to recycle a significant volume of the effluent. Only through recycling could meaningful payback be achieved.
The KIF therefore decided, with the co-operation of four member dye houses, to make an application to the Department, under the Government's Link programme, for a 50 per cent. grant towards a £2.5 million project. The very size of that figure indicates the enormous costs that dye houses face in responding to the problem. Unfortunately, the Department rejected the application in June 1995 on the ground that it was oriented towards near-market applied research rather than pure research. However, I have to thank the Minister because I understand that, in the past few days, £8,000 has been made available, and several companies will be able to install new equipment and work on recycling as a result.
What about this year? Severn Trent commenced bulk trials on part of the effluent flow at the Wanlip sewage treatment works in Leicester. The Wanlip works is the biggest of the works that I am talking about this evening and, depending on how one classifies dischargers, there are 30 to 40 whose discharge is sent there. It is therefore a very important works. I understand that the trials have proved successful although the seasonality and long-term prospects have still to be tested. Further trials at Pinxton, where there is a sole discharger with a dedicated sewer, have so far failed to produce satisfactory results.
Severn Trent claims, however, that it has not been possible to carry out trials at the other peripheral treatment works at Hinckley—which is the principal subject of my debate—or Loughborough because of the intermittent absence of perceptible colour in the effluent. That was no doubt influenced by the fashion colours for the spring-summer 1995 season. My hon. Friend the Minister may not study such matters in great detail, but the colours were neutral and pastel shades, which meant that it was difficult to test for dye. Severn Trent's declared intention to pursue trials at Wigston have apparently been similarly frustrated.
In January this year, the halfway point in the NRA's two-year postponement of the introduction of colour consents—a postponement for which, as I have already said, the industry is grateful—the Knitting Industries Federation called for a mid-term review to be carried out by itself, Severn Trent and the NRA, again under the chairmanship of the DTI. That chairmanship was provided by the Department's textiles and retailing division. The mood of the industry is very much one of gratitude to the Department for taking that interest and for chairing the review so effectively. I thank the Minister on behalf of the Knitting Industries Federation and other parties.
Four meetings took place throughout the year, the last of which was held on 1 December in Nottingham. During that process, the KIF successfully demonstrated, among other things, that the NRA's proposed colour consents were flawed, firstly because the gin-clear approach was unnecessarily excessive, having regard to the inherent background colour in the affected rivers. In other words, there is a great deal of coloration in the rivers anyway. Secondly, the so-called "100 per cent. of the time" requirement was prohibitive, given the untested nature of the colour-removal treatment at sewage treatment works over an extended period.
Fortunately, modified and less stringent wavelength criteria were finally accepted by the NRA which, at the same time, agreed to adopt a phased percentile approach 1586 with associated look-up tables starting with 90 per cent. compliance—rather than 100 per cent. compliance—from 1 January next year; 95 per cent. compliance with effect from 1 January 1997; and, with effect from 1 January 1998, 95 per cent. compliance but including an upper-tier absorbency limit for each wavelength. At that point, the upper tiers will be absolute and must not be exceeded.
The NRA then served the modified consents on Severn Trent on 1 October, covering the treatment works at Hinckley in my constituency, and the ones at Loughborough, Pinxton, Wanlip and Wigston, by giving the statutory three months' notice in advance of their introduction on 1 January next year. In turn, Severn Trent—in compliance with statutory requirements—served consents on all the dischargers in each of the consented catchment areas on 1 November.
Severn Trent claims that it is not possible to pass the percentile approach to dischargers end of pipe, except perhaps to a single discharger into a dedicated sewer. In the process, Severn Trent declared to dischargers in the Wanlip catchment area its preparedness to remove the colour at the sewage treatment works at a cost of between 20p and 30p per cubic metre, always provided that there was a sufficient level of take-up by the dischargers; I can tell my hon. Friend that there almost certainly will be.
However, Severn Trent has not offered the dischargers into the peripheral sewage treatment works, such as that at Hinckley, the facility of removing the colour from their effluent. That is grossly unfair and wholly unreasonable. Bearing in mind where the colour saga began in 1990, and taking into account the KIF's prolonged and determined campaign in the subsequent 70 months, the outcome at the large Wanlip catchment area in Leicester might be considered satisfactory. In contrast, as no facilities are being offered by Severn Trent to remove the colour at the designated peripheral sewage treatment works such as that in Hinckley, the position of the dyers that I cited earlier is as grave as ever.
The absence of an even-handed approach by Severn Trent across the affected area is regrettably divisive and threatens the future of those who discharge into the designated peripheral treatment works, not only at Hinckley but at Loughborough, Pinxton and Wigston. The unavoidable next step is for those dischargers in question to enter an appeal to Ofwat.
The KIF's five years of campaigning and lobbying has achieved significant and meaningful progress. At the outset, Severn Trent refused to accept responsibility for removing colour at the affected sewage treatment works. Meanwhile, the NRA stuck rigidly to its excessive and, I would suggest, ridiculous gin-clear standards for 100 per cent. of the time. The KIF campaign initially persuaded the NRA to postpone the introduction of colour consents for two years until 1 January 1996. Thereafter, the NRA was further persuaded to modify the severity of its original consent proposals and at the same time to adopt a phased percentile approach. That is jargon which means that it allowed some failures, thus making it much easier for dischargers to meet the requirements.
Following succesful trials at Wanlip, Severn Trent has in turn been persuaded to accept the responsibility for removing colour at that works but at a cost of 20p to 30p per cubic metre, assuming that there is sufficient take-up. As I said, I am fairly sure that there will be. 1587 Meanwhile, the collective research efforts of many members for end-of-pipe solutions at an estimated cost of £1 million have resulted in considerable progress being made in identifying suitable combination technologies for colour removal, albeit largely unproven throughout the cycle. At the moment, there is no technology in the world to cope with the specific problem. In any event, the cost of bulk installation would be around £300,000 per firm. I should like my hon. Friend to bear that figure in mind.
If dye-works at Hinckley in my constituency are going to have to pay £300,000 each, one does not have to be psychic to work out the impact on their competitiveness. If they are forced to pay such an amount, I envisage the thriving dye industry at Hinckley facing serious difficulties. It would affect not only Hinckley but the other centres to which I have referred, such as at Loughborough and Wigston. A very serious cost factor is involved, and I encourage my hon. Friend to look carefully at the possibility of making further money available for research, perhaps to Severn Trent, for the peripheral works that are necessary.
The absence of colours in the flows, apart from intermittently during the summer months, which was due to the fashion colours—the light colours—to which I referred, has prevented Severn Trent from carrying out any trials. It stated that, despite the works being included in the original joint action plan in late 1993, it is not in a position to offer colour removal facilities at those sewage treatment works from 1 January 1996, when the consents are due to become operative. Thereafter, Severn Trent seems to be of the opinion that the associated costs would be excessive at those works, always assuming that suitable technologies were available. It claims that it does not follow that the system established at Wanlip would be suitable elsewhere.
If Severn Trent, with its massive resources, thinks that the costs will be excessive, how does it think that Halls, in my constituency, Atkins or any of the other dye houses to which I referred, are supposed to continue trading? Severn Trent has advised that it will not be appealing against the NRA's colour consents, but meanwhile has imposed consents on each of the dischargers—passing the buck, one might say. Those consents are not identical to those that the NRA has imposed, and Severn Trent argues that it is not possible to pass the percentile approach up the pipe to individual dischargers, with the possible exception of Pinxton, where there is only one discharger.
According to Ofwat, its target time scale for deciding appeals is 18 weeks from the date when the further mediation between Severn Trent and the dischargers breaks down—I think that it probably will break down. In practice, though, the time scale is within the gift of Severn Trent. For those discharging at Loughborough, Hinckley, Pinxton and Wigston, where no colour-removing facility is being offered by Severn Trent, there is no choice but to enter appeals not later than 31 December. The central thrust of the appeals, subject to obtaining sound legal advice, would be that the discharger's costs are more than those of Severn Trent to treat the discharge to the same environmental standard at its works.
I know that the KIF is perfectly prepared to co-ordinate such appeals, with the assistance of an experienced environmental law practice; I have had discussions with 1588 it on that point. I hope that it does not get as far as that, and that is one reason why I raised the issue this evening. My understanding is that, under paragraph 6 of schedule 10 to the Water Resources Act 1991, the Secretary of State for the Environment has the power to direct the NRA to revoke a discharge consent or impose or modify any conditions of the consent if it appears appropriate to him to do so, in consequence of any representations or objections made to him. It appears, however, from the general context in which that provision is set, that its purpose is to enable the Secretary of State to impose stricter requirements—I certainly do not argue that that is what we want from my hon. Friend tonight—and not to relieve the burden. The KIF has been advised that that power is capable of being interpreted in such a way as to allow a relaxation, even a direction quashing the NRA's consents. I ask my hon. Friend a specific question—I know that this is a complicated matter. Will he give an undertaking that he will at least consider what action he can take directly to alleviate the problem, and not, as seems to be the current policy with Severn Trent, pass the problem down the pipe, as we say?
In five days, the KIF has raised enough money for legal costs, including counsel's opinion, to address the issue at Hinckley, Loughborough, Wigston and Pinxton, on the Erewash. I understand that, when an appeal is entered, consent is immediately set aside. If it has to get the consents set aside—it cannot comply with them anyway by 1 January next year, for all the reasons that I have given—and an appeal is entered, we shall be in a state of suspended animation. We shall have to look at ways to break that. Severn Trent could have appealed against the NRA consents to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but it took a policy decision not to do so. Why did it not appeal? Why did it not get on and do something about it? I think that the answer is that it thought that if it left the problem alone, it would not have to address it and that it would end up at the discharger's door.
I hope very much that in the first stage of the appeals procedure, which now looks to be an inevitability, action will be taken to get the relevant parties—the NRA, Severn Trent and the dischargers—together for sensible discussions. I know that the KIF intends to set up consultative meetings between those key groups. The mediation process could take weeks or months. The length of the negotiations is under the control of Severn Trent. If it got beyond the preliminary appeals procedure, to what is the appeals procedure proper, the consents would not be quashed, but Severn Trent would be forced to remove the colour at reasonable cost. It could have undertaken trials in 1994, but it did not. In 1995, it has a problem because the fashion colours are light.
This is a complicated business. It is not an issue on which people can easily hold their attention, precisely because it is so detailed. One of the complexities of the problem is that the dye discharged is not of a constant nature; the chemicals in it are not constant. That means that there are changes daily. We need not just one process to clean the dye that is in the discharge but several, and that raises some big issues. If the end users, for example the dye-works at Hinckley, are supposed to deal with the problem themselves—never mind the enormous costs, at £300,000 per dye-works—there are environmental issues, too, because with such constantly changing chemicals, they will need a chemist to get it right. It would be much safer for Severn Trent to take the issue and solve the 1589 problem collectively in the peripheral treatment works. It is absurd to expect individual dye-works to introduce very complicated processes at vast expense.
It is also grossly unfair on my region, because specific problems relate to rivers. The River Soar in Leicestershire is a slow-flowing river, unlike many others, so disposal of effluent takes longer. That is why there is pressure. Never mind Sketchley brook at Hinckley, into which most of the Hinckley dye-works discharges. The quality of receiving water, to use the jargon, in the area is worse than in the rest of the country, where the problem does not exist. It behoves Severn Trent to face up to its responsibilities.
I must compliment my hon. Friend and his Department on the participation of the textile and retail division in presiding over the tripartite talks set up by the review committee. That really has helped, and I understand that it has led to a satisfactory solution at Wanlip, where there are between 30 and 40 dischargers. However, other dyers in Leicestershire—not least the five in Hinckley to which I have referred—face a tremendously difficult time, with 1 January, when the consents come in, just around the corner.
I have referred to the enormous costs that those dyers face, and I have mentioned the environmental worries. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to make every effort to make the mediation stage of appeal a success—to persuade Severn Trent to accept the responsibility, which it is morally obliged to accept, to upgrade the peripheral treatment works at Hinckley and Loughborough, and the others that I have listed. If my hon. Friend can do that, he will have served the House well.
I look to my hon. Friend to press for a sensible negotiated settlement that will protect not only the environment but jobs in Hinckley's dye houses, which are vital to the town, the county and the country.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for raising such an important subject. I know that he is very concerned about the health of the textile industry, which, as he rightly said, is important to many of his constituents. He has certainly demonstrated that concern tonight, along with his mastery of the technical details of a complicated subject. He has used that knowledge to give the House a penetrating analysis of the problems facing the textile industry in his constituency, and in other parts of Leicestershire and the midlands.
My hon. Friend has outlined some of the issues that face the textile industry in its efforts to meet the standards required for the discharge to water of effluent coloured by dyestuffs. The issue also involves problems for the National Rivers Authority and the water companies in the meeting of their objectives, as the House will have gathered. As I have said, the matter is complicated and sensitive, and I do not wish to upset the delicate balance that has been reached in discussions among the parties so far; nor can I comment in any detail on issues that may affect individual cases, for fear of prejudicing any appeals to the Secretary of State by those who feel aggrieved.
I do, however, wish to outline the position, and the reasons why the NRA considers it necessary to control 1590 the discharge of dye colour by textile companies. We are all familiar with the high quality of the knitwear goods produced in Leicester and surrounding areas, and with the attractive range of colours and patterns that are available nowadays. Of course, once dyes have been applied, any surplus must discharged from the premises in waste water.
In matters of this sort, there is a danger that the issues will be exaggerated. It would be wrong to characterise this issue in terms either of an over-zealous regulator making life difficult for British industry to no worthwhile purpose, or of a lurid picture of rivers flowing purple and red and devoid of life. Neither of those characterisations would be accurate.
Generally, dyestuffs are non-toxic pollutants. However, in this case it is not a question of interference for no good reason. Although dyestuffs are not toxic, the discolouration of rivers caused by uncontrolled discharge of dyestuffs is of legitimate aesthetic concern, and a source of pollution. There is understandable public concern about visibly coloured water, or rivers suddenly changing colour. That concern, and the need to control such pollution, is at the heart of the wide and diverse range of uses to which we put our rivers.
Rivers are major features of our landscape. When they are used for the discharge of waste, it must be on a sustainable basis. They are used not only as sources of water for a wide range of industrial purposes, but as sources of drinking water. They support valuable ecosystems, which must be protected. Just as important, they are an invaluable recreational asset, particularly for the angling community.
For those reasons, we must manage our rivers efficiently, and ensure that they are able to meet the needs of all who wish to use them. The NRA exists to carry out that management, and has a statutory duty to ensure that pollution is controlled. There is, of course, public concern about pollution, and the NRA is properly responsive to that concern.
Under the Water Resources Act 1991, it is an offence to cause or knowingly permit polluting matter to enter a water course; however, acting under and in accordance with a discharge consent provides a defence against such charges. Thus, both discharges made from a manufacturing plant and those made via a sewage treatment works require consents, and the NRA is able to impose requirements in respect of the discharge that protect the local aquatic environment and the key users of those waters.
As for dyestuffs, I understand that, for some time, the NRA has been keen to introduce conditions into consents to control the discharge of coloured waste that meet environmental needs, while ensuring that the consent conditions that they set are achievable. For a variety of reasons, progress has been slow.
§ Mr. TredinnickI asked my hon. Friend to find out whether his Department has direct powers to intervene, and whether, if the Secretary of State has such powers, he would at least consider using them.
§ Mr. ClappisonMy hon. Friend has issued a powerful plea. As he implied, he knows of the rights of appeal that exist, and is aware that some of the matters to which he referred are within the province of the regulators, and are involved in the relationship between regulators and 1591 dischargers. I will respond to that powerful plea in due course, but before I do so, I feel that I should set out the background, and the reasons why regulation is required.
As I said, progress has been slow, but discussions have continued. This year, discussions between the Government, the NRA, water companies and industry representatives have made good progress on standards and their implementation from 1 January 1996. The objective is to ensure that discolouration caused by dyestuffs is not visible to the naked eye. I noted my hon. Friend's comments on that.
I believe that the NRA has worked to ensure that attention is paid to the needs of industry, as well as fulfilling its statutory duty to protect our rivers. At the same time, industry is aware that this source of pollution must be controlled, and that it will be necessary to contribute to the cost of reducing discolouration: it is a well-established principle, applying widely across the environmental field, that the polluter pays.
The sewerage undertakers have also been included in the dialogue. When discharges are being made to sewer, a consent is required from the sewerage undertaker, who must ensure that discharges are such as to enable effective treatment to take place to remove pollutants, and—when the effluent is finally treated and released into the river—for NRA requirements to be met in respect of the discharge from the treatment works that they operate.
As I understand it, the National Rivers Authority has come up with proposals that have secured a good measure of agreement. Acceptable standards that will achieve the desired aesthetic effects, but that are not overly stringent, will be progressively introduced from 1 January, and compliance will be assessed on a basis established with some flexibility.
That provides the conditions for the textile industry to rise to the challenge and, to meet pollution reduction targets, to work on means of reducing discolouring emissions. One of the most promising may be to recycle waste water within the plant, which would have the benefit of allowing installation costs to be offset against other savings. The complex process of dyeing and treatment of residues might be re-examined with a view to minimising waste.
I congratulate the regulators and the industry on progress so far, but I do not underestimate the difficulties that must be resolved in an industry that, for historical reasons, is based on old infrastructure. The ability to invest and to modernise has been affected by global competition, and there have been job losses and poor profitability. The industry has gone through difficult times.
That combination of factors lies at the root of many of the environmental concerns that the industry faces. The National Rivers Authority is aware of those difficulties, and has aimed to recognise the problems and to reach a sensible agreement that will not jeopardise the industry's future.
Many of the factors that I have outlined affecting the manufacturers' economic position will concern manufacturers in my hon. Friend's constituency, especially in relation to the dischargers to the six peripheral treatment 1592 plants to which he drew attention. I am sure that he will share my pleasure that good progress has been made on discharges to the treatment plants at Wanlip, which will help 30 to 40 dischargers. As he rightly says, however, issues remain at the six peripheral works.
My hon. Friend has made a strong case on those dischargers and those plants. In response to his plea for an undertaking, as I have said, there are some restrictions on my position on this matter. I must be aware of matters that properly lie within regulators' province and of any possible appeal rights, but he has rightly outlined the interests that my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry have taken in the matter so far, which will be maintained. We recognise the importance of securing an agreement, if possible, on this important subject, which affects, as he has said, so many of his constituents who are employed by these manufacturers.
It would be for the House's benefit if I briefly repeated the background of assistance that has been given by the Department of Trade and Industry and by the Department of the Environment, which my hon. Friend fairly and fully outlined. That assistance has been in the form of funding for a manual of best practice through a £10,000 grant, mediation between parties, recycling support—which is important and which, as my hon. Friend has said, has been valued by industry—and a continued role in meetings between the parties. In all those respects, the Government have been seeking to assist the industry, and will of course continue to do so in the same way.
It is worth emphasising that the benefits go further than just to the industry, important though that is. There are other benefits for the environment and for industry in environmentally friendly processes. They are a hallmark of an efficient and competitive industry. Consumers of the end product are increasingly seeking reassurance that the process of manufacture has not damaged the environment, and green technology can therefore help in the marketplace.
The textile industry is no exception; it cannot afford to fall behind. New technology and investment may be necessary to meet environmental standards, but development of that technology should be of long-term benefit to the industry that develops it. It is part of the process of change and adaptation, which also benefits the environment. I emphasise that.
There are signs that that is already happening. The NRA annual report for 1994–95, published earlier this year, showed that, overall, there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of our rivers and canals in the past few years. More specifically, there has been a net improvement of 26 per cent. in the length of rivers and canals, between 1990 and 1994, achieving good environmental standards.
Next year, the NRA will be publishing its quinquennial report on river quality in 1990–95. In part, that is a result of a joint approach by the NRA with industry in developing workable standards that meet the environment's needs and safeguard industrial output.
I think that that is an appropriate point on which to draw my remarks to a conclusion. Against that background, I reiterate the need for continuing, sensible dialogue to resolve the remaining difficulties. The NRA has a duty to protect our water environment from pollution, from whatever source. A timetable has been 1593 drawn up for implementation of the NRA consent conditions, and, in turn, conditions laid down by water companies.
I therefore congratulate all concerned on the way in which they have, in recent times, approached this problem, with a genuine desire to cater for one another's particular needs. I am pleased to note the progress that 1594 has been made so far. It is in all our interests to ensure that river pollution is minimised. The NRA has been working towards that, and I hope that the opportunity to move forward will produce the desired results.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eight o'clock.