HC Deb 31 March 1998 vol 309 cc1167-74

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

11.37 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown)

I raise a subject that is close to many people's hearts. I will try to avoid the obvious jokes; I will leave those to sedentary colleagues.

In the early part of the 19th century, we used to have open sewers running down the streets of our cities. We have moved on a little since then, but, to a regrettable extent, we still treat our coastal waters as open sewers, so we have not got that far. Eleven per cent. of our population still have their sewage discharged from outfalls into the sea after nothing more than preliminary treatment, which, in practical terms, means that water companies pump out what could be described as thick coliform soup, but with odd bits in it, so it is a bit like minestrone.

That is not a very sanitary practice. It is not very nice at all, and it constitutes a great public health risk. It is no pleasure to stand on the cliff at Portobello in my constituency and look out to sea. One can see the end of the outfall. If there is a gentle onshore breeze, the smell is not very nice.

Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)

It is the same in Newhaven.

Dr. Turner

Yes, I am sure it is.

As we approach the millennium, it is appalling that we still have the most primitive, unsanitary practices, which expose us to health hazards that would have been recognised by the Victorians. The irony is that we have the means to stop it. That is the important thing. We have the means, but we need the dedicated will.

What are we to do? What is the next step? The European Union has made its contribution with the urban waste water treatment directive. If that were applied literally, it would mean that all our coastal sewage would be given at least secondary treatment. It would mean that my dearly beloved local water company, Southern Water, would have to meet the terms of that directive by 2000.

That water company has submitted proposals to build a new plant at Portobello, and has promised secondary treatment. The chairman and managing director came to see me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), and assured us that, at the very least, the company would put in secondary treatment. What we were not told was that, at the same time, it was trying to take advantage of a loophole in the directive, which is to seek derogation on the ground that sewage is being discharged into a high natural dispersion area. If that application is accepted and endorsed by the United Kingdom Government, only primary treatment will be needed.

The designation of a high natural dispersion area is exclusive in the European Union to Portugal and the United Kingdom. One cannot compare the seas around Portugal with those around the UK. The seas around Portugal are genuine high natural dispersion areas because they are very deep. Our seas are very shallow. To describe the North sea and the English channel as high natural dispersion areas is foolish. When one examines the concentration of heavy metals in the North sea, it is clear that whatever goes into the North sea or the channel just stays there and gets washed around. The idea of dispersion is demonstrable nonsense.

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent report on sewage treatment by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs made the clear statement that the category of a high natural dispersion area should be abandoned immediately? It made that recommendation for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend. It also referred to the evidence of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain which mentioned, among other things, the Solent, which is in my part of the world.

That association said that much of what was allegedly sent out to sea in a high natural dispersion area came back over the shellfish and made them difficult to market without rewashing. I strongly support my hon. Friend's suggestion that an area of high natural dispersion is not appropriate for Great Britain.

Dr. Turner

I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention, with which I concur totally. I had planned on dealing with that Select Committee report in a moment, and I shall.

The European Union has also produced a bathing water directive, which is slightly defective, as its mandatory guidelines are commonly breached in our bathing waters. Even the blue flag guideline figures—which, if met, allow a blue flag to be flown—are no guarantee that water is safe. The commonly monitored marker organisms are very misleading and do not provide an accurate picture of the public health hazard. The real, much more useful, marker is faecal streptococci, which is rarely measured. Attention has centred on the coliforms. Therefore, work has yet to be done on the bathing water directive itself.

There is a new bathing water directive—unfortunately, it is not yet in force—which will make some progress on the problem, but not enough.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) observed, the Environment, Transport and the Regional Affairs Select Committee has just produced a report on sewage treatment and disposal. I congratulate the Select Committee on its very thorough report, and totally concur with its conclusions and recommendations. Although I take seriously all the report's conclusions and recommendations on how to deal with problems—each of which is worthy of a separate debate—two conclusions and recommendations are more relevant than the others to this debate.

First, the report clearly recommends that, by 2002, tertiary treatment should be applied to sewage at all times and in all places. That target is entirely reasonable, physically obtainable and economically feasible.

The report's second immediately pertinent recommendation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test has already said, is that the category of high natural dispersion area should no longer be recognised in the United Kingdom.

I hope that the Government will take very seriously those two clear recommendations.

Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that water companies are making vast profits and paying out huge dividends, and that they could well afford to foot the bill to deal with the issue themselves? Does he also agree that—according to Water Watch, a consumer organization—in the Anglian region, £46 of everyone's water bill is being paid to shareholders? Does he also agree that research commissioned by Surfers Against Sewage shows that, in the first five years since privatisation, the Office of Water Services, the regulator, has allowed the water industry to out-perform the FTSE 100 by 35 per cent.?

Dr. Turner

I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The water industry's financial record is enviable, if one is a water company shareholder. Since privatization—in the years 1990–97—water companies have tucked away £2 billion in dividends alone. In that period, on average, they have been registering a 35 per cent. pre-tax profit, which is a massive profit margin. They are distributing 24 per cent. of their turnover in dividends. Therefore, 24 per cent. of everyone's water bill goes in dividends to shareholders.

I find that quite objectionable. It far outstrips the performance of most companies. The privatised utilities are best described as a licence to print money. They do not face massive commercial risk. They are faced with the need for investment, but they have the turnover to be able to afford it without soaking the customer.

Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in towns such as Brighton, which he and I represent, where tourism is a vital part of the local economy, it is essential that residents and visitors should have every confidence that sea water is of the highest quality that modern technology can provide? In view of the figures that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) have mentioned, does he agree that our local water company, Southern Water, has a responsibility to help build that confidence for residents and tourists by investing now in the latest technology for water treatment, rather than waiting until forced to do so by directives from either the Government or the European Union?

Dr. Turner

I wholly concur with my hon. Friend. Beside the cost of the plant, the extra cost of installing tertiary treatment to provide the standard of water discharge we want is relatively trivial. The cost of the proposed Portobello plant is £60 million, and it would cost a further £1.5 million to install ultra-violet treatment to provide a tertiary stage.

That is trivial in relation to the overall sum involved. In terms of public appreciation, it would be a very good investment; and it would also be a very good investment for the economy of Brighton and Hove because it would mean we could have a coastline that not only qualified for a blue flag but was genuinely safe to swim from, surf on and use for various other water sports.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the biblical saying that one reaps what one sows does not apply in this context? The way the tides work on the south coast means that it is not only Brighton and Hove that suffer from the problems in Brighton and Hove, but resorts such as Eastbourne and Hastings further along the coast suffer from them, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost to Southern Water is infinitesimal compared with the cost to our tourist industry, which is already under threat as a result of the problems that land on our beach?

Dr. Turner

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The way in which the tides work along our part of the channel coast means that Brighton's sewage plume just about reaches Seaford's and Newhaven's, which in turn moves along to Eastbourne. There is a belt of polluted water sloshing along the channel and, given a good onshore breeze, it comes ashore.

Mr. Baker

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Turner

I have very little time.

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned my constituency.

Dr. Turner

I will give way if the hon. Gentleman is briefer than usual.

Mr. Baker

I shall be brief. I am trying to helpful. My constituents share the hon. Gentleman's concern that Southern Water should invest in tertiary treatment. It is simply not good enough for it to come up with a cheap solution which involves dumping sewage further out to sea. The hon. Gentleman will have my support and that of my constituents for his efforts.

Dr. Turner

I thank the hon. Gentleman and wholly agree with him. I am beginning to run out of time, so I shall start to wind up.

It is quite clear that the water companies are putting greed and the desire for profit above their heavy responsibility to provide for good public health, and are prepared to permit the continuation of a public health hazard in order to maintain their profits. That is quite unacceptable in the face of the public health case for good water treatment. Briefly, even water of blue-flag standard is not guaranteed safe for swimming, because the examination of micro-organisms tells us nothing about viruses. There is clear epidemiological evidence that swimming in blue-flag quality waters is a health hazard, and leads to viral infections in particular.

I conclude with an urgent plea to the Government to consider the excellent Select Committee report seriously. I think that they can be trusted not to treat it with the contempt with which the previous Government treated the previous Select Committee report on sewage treatment and disposal, which was also highly critical of the standard of treatment and recommended at least secondary treatment. That was nine years ago, but nothing was done. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to give us firm commitments tonight, but I hope that we can at least be assured that serious consideration is being given to a vital public health issue.

11.56 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on obtaining tonight's Adjournment debate. As he said, sewage treatment is an emotive subject for many people. In the time left, I shall try to explain some of the issues that will inform the Government's views and opinions.

My hon. Friend mentioned the benefits of full sewage treatment, and his concern that only primary treatment is currently being proposed by Southern Water for a number of sewage discharges along the south coast, including the large discharge in his constituency at Brighton, Portobello.

I certainly agree that we must consider very carefully before allowing coastal discharges to receive primary treatment only. However, we also need to think carefully about environmental standards and priorities before we commit limited resources, paid for through water bills, to specific improvements. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to put the matter fully into context.

Among the main statutory obligations which Southern Water—along with all the other privatised water and sewerage companies—must meet, are those imposed by the European Union's urban waste water treatment directive. The directive requires all significant discharges of sewage to be treated according to their size and the nature of the receiving waters over a phased timetable from 1998 to 2005. The largest discharges, and those with the greatest potential to adversely affect particularly sensitive waters, are to be brought up to the directive's standards more quickly than smaller discharges.

The directive specifies secondary treatment as the norm, but requires at least primary treatment for discharges to areas with high natural dispersion characteristics, such as the areas identified off the south coast. They were identified by the previous Administration in 1994 and involved 58 potential areas, following advice from the then National Rivers Authority, which had applied the criteria set out in the directive.

Designation of such areas, though, does nothing in itself. It merely provides a platform for decisions about the level of treatment to be provided following comprehensive studies. In practice, decisions about individual discharges are most important. We do not expect to make decisions on areas of high natural dispersion until after all the comprehensive studies on discharges in each area have been assessed, so that any relevant information coming out of the studies can be included in our consideration.

We are, of course, concerned that primary treatment should be used only where scientifically justified. Under the terms of the directive, it must first be demonstrated that there would be no adverse environmental effect from providing less stringent treatment than secondary treatment.

That must be shown through a comprehensive study of the impact of the discharge on the receiving waters. The study may be commissioned by the relevant water company, but it must follow a predetermined format. More importantly, the results of the study must demonstrate a lack of adverse environmental effect to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency, not the water company.

The Environment Agency is taking a rigorous approach to the assessment of such studies. If the comprehensive study fails to prove no adverse environmental effect, then the agency will require secondary treatment to be installed. That is evidenced by its decision to require secondary treatment at Hendon in Northumberland, because it would provide environmental benefit. The agency refused to certify the comprehensive study, and secondary treatment will have to be provided.

Even primary treatment represents a considerable improvement on raw sewage being discharged from large cities into our coastal waters, as has happened until recently. Primary treatment significantly reduces the polluting effects of sewage by removing at least 50 per cent. of suspended solids and reducing biological oxygen demand by 20 per cent. It can also remove up to 50 per cent. of bacteria and viruses, which may be harmful to human health.

Moreover, where a discharge is made through a long sea outfall—often several kilometres offshore and into very deep water—the natural action of seaborne micro-organisms is capable of performing effectively and very rapidly the same process of further breakdown of polluting matter that occurs in secondary treatment.

I understand that Southern Water is planning to provide advanced primary treatment, by adding chemical assistance to the more basic primary treatment at its coastal discharges at Brighton, Littlehampton and Bognor Regis. That is projected to give a reduction, before discharge, of as much as 90 per cent. of the bacterial load—close to what would be achieved by full secondary treatment.

We have noted the concerns of those who are still not convinced that anything less than full secondary treatment will afford the necessary environmental protection. Representatives of the Environment Agency were asked in the autumn of last year to make a presentation to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on the criteria and procedures applied to make recommendations for the identification of HNDAs under the directive. The presentation also covered the basis of the comprehensive study procedure. A representative of Surfers Against Sewage and researchers from the Water Research Centre were also asked to attend, to widen the discussion and represent the concerns of those not directly involved in the process.

The aim of the meeting was to provide more comprehensive briefing on the scientific aspects of the process of HNDA identification and of the comprehensive studies process. At that time, not many of the comprehensive studies had been completed or fully considered by the agency. However, we counselled the agency to be rigorous in its approach to assessment. On that basis, we were sufficiently reassured to allow the process to continue, pending a further meeting when more work had been done.

During the interim, completed comprehensive studies for the Southern Water discharges have been provided to the agency. Copies have been sent to the relevant local authorities and made available to the public for comment. The Environment Agency's southern region also advertised the availability of the studies in the local press.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment met the agency again last month to consider the generality of the issues. In the light of that discussion, we are considering the Government's policy options. It is right that we should carefully examine all the evidence, which may go beyond that provided by the comprehensive studies. There are a number of factors to be considered, relating to the national context as well as the south coast situation. We shall ensure that the decision-making process takes into account the views of local people, as water charge payers and concerned environmentalists.

Ministers have not had detailed discussions with Southern Water about the financing of its commitments, because that is primarily for the company to discuss with Ofwat. However, Southern Water is among the smaller companies. The extra cost of providing secondary treatment at all its coastal discharges would be substantial—more than £150 million on the company's estimates.

In addition, we have heard today calls for nothing less than tertiary treatment, including the installation of ultra-violet disinfection for all coastal discharges. If there are sound environmental reasons for providing UV disinfection—for example, to protect bathers—that may be desirable. However, there would be an additional price to pay. Southern Water estimates that the addition of UV disinfection would incur further capital costs of £50 million, and annual operating costs of £2.5 million.

The Director General of Water Services will be considering the size of the estimates as part of the periodic review of water company price limits, which is already well under way. As part of the review, all water companies are under pressure to deliver efficiency gains, but it would be unrealistic to suppose that costs would not be passed on to water bill payers.

There is a strong argument that higher standards of treatment should be provided, if that is what local people want, but they must understand that they, as water bill payers, will ultimately have to pay for them. Even a very significant downward adjustment of Southern Water's estimates by Ofwat would be likely to result in price increases for Southern Water's customers.

It is true that some companies have undertaken to go further than their statutory obligations in upgrading sewage treatment, and to finance it in part through efficiency gains. We welcome that where it happens, but it must be a commercial decision for each company, within the constraints imposed by Ofwat, as the financial regulator.

I should make it clear that we are not in the business of protecting water company profits. We are seeking to strike an appropriate balance between environmental needs and priorities, and the impact on water bills. That applies not just to the relatively narrow question of the level of treatment for coastal discharges but to the full range of environmental objectives.

I expect that many of our constituents will say that they are prepared to pay a little more for environmental improvements, but others already find paying their water bills difficult. We should bear it in mind, too, that unnecessary additional treatment has a range of negative environmental consequences, including the use of additional land and energy consumption, with the potential for additional air pollution.

Last month saw the publication of the Environment Sub-Committee's report of its inquiry into sewage treatment and disposal. The report, which has obviously been mentioned, brings together a range of issues, including some that are very pertinent to this debate.

The Sub-Committee recommended that, by 2002, all sewage should be treated to tertiary level at all times. As a corollary, it recommended abandoning the concept of high natural dispersion areas. Alongside that, it is argued that the Director General of Water Services should not be seeking real-terms cuts in sewerage charges at the next periodic review.

We welcome the Sub-Committee's interest in these matters. The Government will, of course, be responding formally to its recommendations in due course, once we have given the important issues raised serious consideration. It is a pity that the Sub-Committee's report did not make more effort to set the recommendations against likely cost implications.

The recommendation for universal tertiary treatment, for example, goes far beyond European requirements, and exceeds the level implied by scientific evidence or health needs. Neither we nor the water companies have costed a comprehensive programme at such a very high level, but it is likely to run into many billions of pounds.

I agree that there should be no prejudgment at this stage of the appropriate level of water bills during the next pricing period, although, equally, we must be realistic about what is achievable at affordable cost. That is part of the process on which we are about to embark, in the context of the periodic review.

The director general will be seeking guidance from the Deputy Prime Minister about the priorities to be given to possible quality objectives to be achieved through water company investment. In response to that request, which is scheduled for July, we will set the policy framework for investment by water companies over the coming period. The issue that we have been debating will be an important element of that strategy. I assure hon. Members that the Government will take very serious account of the views that have been expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve midnight