Isle of Wight (Sewerage) (Hansard, 25 March 1996)

§ Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting me the Adjournment debate. As the National Rivers Authority seems to have featured quite significantly in my parliamentary life lately, it is perhaps appropriate, first, to set the scene and to pay some tributes.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published his draft Environment Agency Bill, I welcomed the fact that it was the first draft Bill that Parliament had seen in many a long day. At that time, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, I undertook an inquiry into the Bill. I have always supported the principle of Select Committees' scrutiny of primary legislation. I believe that the work of the Select Committee on Deregulation, which I now chair, has proved the merits of the system. I hope that the Committee's short inquiry will ensure the successful launch of the new agency, which will take over from the NRA and other bodies on 1 April. I have to say that that is not an especially propitious date.
I thank the NRA staff for all that they have done. It is sad that the staff has laboured under the propaganda of the Liberal Democrat party, the master in British politics of the smear-and-sneer technique. It has continually denigrated the authority's work, principally on the ground that some of the staff used to work for Southern Water. Integrity and honour seem not to occur to the Liberal Democrat party.
As always, proof is in actions, not in words. The NRA has, without fear or favour, brought to account those who flouted the law and caused pollution. How many prosecutions were initiated when the Liberal Democrat council was responsible for such matters? The answer is that there were so few that no one can remember there ever having been one. So much for the party's environment credentials. I wanted to get that off my chest because even council officers have been parroting black propaganda about the NRA lately, no doubt to cover up their previous inertia.
We know from the BSE problem that issues can get out of control as a result of the media. At the same time, the Isle of Wight has had great successes with its tourism image. It was announced last week that eight of the island's beaches have been given the Tidy Britain group's seaside award. That means that the island has more beaches than any other county in that group's south-east region. The Yarmouth tourist information centre came second in a nationwide competition, winning the silver award.
Southern Water has spent an enormous sum in improving the island's sewage schemes in the past few years. The raw sewage from my home on the island was discharged straight into Cowes harbour—a reversal of the usual practice of Cowes on Field. Similar schemes round our island shores have connected old Victorian outfalls and improved the environment out of all recognition.
Why is there a need for tonight's debate? We know that the public's expectations and the requirements of the European Union are rising all the time, as, too, is 809 our knowledge. Given powerful computer programs, the ability to model the tidal effects of sewage outfalls is much greater now than ever before.
Southern Water proposes to link up the whole of the island's sewerage system, including all those that discharge into the Solent, with a question mark over the Norton outfall at Yarmouth, and to pipe the effluent out to sea via one point on the channel side at Sandown. That has given rise to the concerns that I wish to address tonight.
First, the Solent is the largest natural oyster bed in the whole of the United Kingdom, covering 93 sq km. In fact, it is much larger than that, as I know, having dived from the Needles bridge on a flood tide up through the Solent towards Black Rock. Many of the oysters are at depths that make them uneconomic to collect or are too near the main shipping channel to be harvested safely. To all intents and purposes, the Solent can be considered as one giant oyster bed. I am concerned that the NRA does not seem to have the power to monitor the length and effectiveness of outfalls. The one at Norton, for example, is several feet shorter than was originally designed, which has undoubtedly given rise to some of the problems.
At the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I visited, with an island deputation, the MAFF fish laboratory at Weymouth. We were told the e-coli count of oysters sampled from around the Solent and were shown the NRA's tidal model for sewer outfalls. As all that information is shared with the NRA, MAFF and vice versa, I was very concerned that my parliamentary questions to the Department of the Environment produced somewhat obscure answers. However, my hon. Friend the Minister has agreed to see a deputation from the island. Sadly, it is a worrying example of two separate Departments that are both responsible for different aspects of the same problem but with no one able to exercise full control over the food chain.
The Department of the Environment must explain why it has continually refused to support the complete treatment of sewage being discharged into the sea generally, and particularly into the Solent. Please do not tell me that the European Communities directive does not require it, because the health data held by MAFF is there for all to see, and the European Community will revise and improve the standards in years to come. I want to know, either tonight, or, as a result of the debate, in due course, what powers the Minister, the NRA or the new Environment Agency have to require Southern Water's scheme, known as Seaclean Wight, to be put on hold while the whole scheme is reappraised, not just for the island but for Portsmouth and Southampton. The data that I have been given cause me great concern. It needs a fresh look, if for no other reason than the fact that the very same Southern Water engineers categorically assured me that the existing schemes and outfalls into the Solent would meet future requirements. Operation Seaclean Wight will make every one of those outfalls redundant, just a few years, or, in one case, just a few months, after millions of pounds have been spent, to say nothing of the considerable disruption that we have already endured.
810 That disruption will be nothing compared with what is envisaged under the new scheme. The Sandown Hotel and Guesthouse Association has expressed through its chairman, Brian Byatt, and its secretary, Mrs. Sandy Ringer, considerable misgivings on three counts: first, the length of the outfall and the position of the discharge points, which, from my experience as a yachtsman, is not in deep enough water, and is placed where currents will not carry sewage out into mid-channel; secondly, apart from rudimentary screening, no treatment is envisaged; and, thirdly—it is the only organisation to have raised this with me—Sandown is the wrong place, because in hot weather, with still air, there is an inversion problem and any odour can linger over the town. We have experienced that already.
Although I understand that Southern Water already owns the site—it is probably a natural decision on its part to use the area for this expansion—I do not believe that, given the massive capital sum and the fact that in future more and more treatment will be required, the Minister, the NRA, the Environment Agency, or I as the Member of Parliament, should accept this scheme without another appraisal, particularly as it is clear to me that Southern Water will have to address the problems of its outfalls on the mainland side of the Solent sooner rather than later. I fear that the island may then be seen as the principal treatment centre for all the Solent's cities and population. Given that millions of pounds have been spent and that the right solution was not found the first time, surely it is not asking too much to request a delay of a few months so that a more suitable site can be sought in conjunction with the council.
Finally, may I ask what powers my hon. Friend the Minister has to ensure that the Norton outfall is also connected to a single treatment plant for the whole island, as well as requiring a reappraisal of the whole scheme? My hon. Friend may feel that I have overstated my case, or, perhaps, that I am one of those Back Benchers to whom a handful of constituents have only to say boo to put them into a bit of a panic. Let me tell him that when the Ventnor scheme was mooted by Southern Water—indeed, the very same engineers were involved—the hoteliers and the town's population, including Ventnor town council, asked for a scheme to pipe the sewage to another treatment works rather than discharge it into the sea.
I backed Southern Water to the hilt. I supported its judgment that that was not possible because of the geology surrounding the town. My hon. Friend may imagine my surprise when, after all that, Southern Water performed a complete about-turn. That is why I am so wary of its advice in regard to the new all-island scheme. I cannot and will not, for the sake of Sandown and of the island's tourist industry, allow the scheme to proceed without alerting Ministers to the possible problems. I told representatives of Southern Water that I had serious misgivings about Sandown as a site when they visited me at the House on 10 January. If anything, what I have heard from MAFF and the Department of the Environment, and learnt from my visit to Weymouth and answers to my parliamentary questions, has reinforced my gravest misgivings.
811 The turn of the century will see an end to the "flush and forget" mentality of our forefathers. It is my job to ensure that the Isle of Wight's sewerage system is good for another 50 years, not another five minutes—which, sadly, is our island's experience to date.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison)
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). As he has told the House, he takes a close interest in all environmental issues, especially those affecting the precious environment of the Isle of Wight.
Let me take as my starting point what my hon. Friend rightly said about the investment programme being carried out by Southern Water. By the end of the century, Southern Water will have invested £1.2 billion in projects since privatisation: that represents an average spend of approximately £1,200 per household throughout the region. On the Isle of Wight, the investment figures equate to approximately £3,700 for each household—more than three times the regional average.
It is important to give some of the background to the schemes to which my hon. Friend has referred. As part of the scheme that is currently due to be completed by the year 2000, Southern Water is evaluating two options for the continuous sewage discharges to the Solent that are affecting water and hence shellfish quality. My hon. Friend drew attention to those. The first is to transfer all flows for primary treatment and discharge through the new Sandown outfall. The alternative is to transfer all flows except the Norton discharge, which would be given secondary treatment. Southern Water is now undertaking a feasibility study, and expects to announce its chosen option later this year. Whichever option is chosen, it should have a major positive effect on the quality of shellfisheries in the Solent. The timetable for the completion of the scheme is the year 2000, but Southern Water has confirmed that once a decision has been made it will look at accelerating the necessary works.
The problems facing local shellfisheries form part of a wider pattern of water quality issues. Southern Water is committed to improving the waste water treatment facilities on the Isle of Wight. The company has invested more than £50 million over the past decade in improving waste water discharges to coastal and esturial waters on the island and the benefits can be seen in the number of beaches where water quality now meets European Union standards. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to that as he mentioned that eight "Tidy Britain" awards were received this year on the Isle of Wight.
In 1986, six of the 13 EU bathing beaches failed the defined standards, whereas last year only two failed and remedial works are planned for both of those. That is good news for the Isle of Wight and for those who enjoy its beaches.
The recent downgrading of the Yarmouth shellfish harvesting area has been associated with an increase in flow through the Norton outfall. It is not yet clear what has caused the deterioration in the Yarmouth shellfishery and the Norton discharge may not be the 812 only explanation. There may be a number of sources of contaminants and these need to be investigated. What can be said is that the improvements that are required under the urban waste water treatment directive by the year 2000 will contribute significantly to improvements in water quality at nearby shellfish beds.
As for the concerns about the shellfishery classification, it is far from clear that any deterioration is the result of the transfer of flow to Norton. The issues to be addressed are, first, is the deterioration only apparent? The classification system is complex and inaccuracies are always possible in what is an imprecise science. Secondly, if there is a deterioration, what is causing it?
I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend and of his constituents. It is clear that further work needs to be done to determine what is causing the problem. I am therefore asking my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture to ask his officials to meet the National Rivers Authority again to pool their information and to see exactly what lies behind the deterioration. In this way the most appropriate and cost-effective response can be found. The NRA has also offered to meet concerned hon. Members and their constituents to provide information and advice.
I shall now deal with Southern Water's plans for sewerage on the Isle of Wight. The company's long-term proposal for Ventnor and Bembridge is to intercept the sewage flows and direct them to Sandown for primary treatment. The proposal includes the construction of a new 3.25 km long sea outfall into Sandown bay, with the whole scheme to be delivered by the end of 1998.
This new outfall has been designed to accommodate the potential transfer of flows from the continuous sewerage discharges now entering the Solent area, as well as those for Sandown, Bembridge and Ventnor. The discharges include Norton, Gurnard, East Cowes, Ryde and Fairlee.

§ Mr. Barry Field
My hon. Friend mentions Norton, but Southern Water says that it has not decided whether it will connect Norton and the National Rivers Authority, in correspondence with me, says that it has no powers to require it to do so, although it would like Southern Water to do so.

§ Mr. Clappison
My hon. Friend is right to mention that. I said earlier that it was one of the two options for Norton, and it is important to see it in those terms. As my hon. Friend knows, Southern Water is now consulting on the waste water treatment strategy for the Isle of Wight.
The receiving waters for the discharge at Sandown have been identified as a high natural dispersion area under the urban waste water treatment directive. This would require the combined discharge to be given a minimum of primary treatment, which the NRA agrees is adequate for many coastal discharges. It is the NRA which recommended a number of candidate coastal and estuarine areas for identification as high natural dispersion areas. In so doing it advised the Department that no further environmental benefit would accrue from the provision of secondary or tertiary treatment.
Primary treatment will produce a very significant improvement where existing discharges are untreated, as at Sandown. However, under the terms of the directive, 813 a comprehensive study is first required to demonstrate whether there would be any adverse environmental effect from a primary treated discharge into an identified HNDA, rather than secondary treatment. Southern Water is undertaking the comprehensive study required at Sandown. If it should show that a primary treated discharge would result in an adverse effect on the environment, the National Rivers Authority will not give consent for a primary treated discharge and secondary treatment will have to be provided. That work is being undertaken to the timetable set out in the urban waste water treatment directive, which requires the necessary treatment to be provided by the end of 2000.
814 As my hon. Friend said, he is bringing a delegation to see me. I have listened carefully to his concerns about the overall sewage treatment plan for the Isle of Wight and, especially, to his three points on behalf of the Sandown Hotel and Guesthouse Association about the length and the position of the outfall, the extent of treatment and the choice of Sandown as a location. I also listened carefully to his comments about Norton being one of the options for treatment. I have listened carefully to all those points and I look forward to exploring them further with my hon. Friend when I meet him with his constituents.