Dumping of Waste at Sea: ECC Report

HL Deb 18 December 1986 vol 483 cc289-309

12.5 p.m.

Lord Nathan rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Dumping of Waste at Sea (17th Report, 1985–86, H.L. 219).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the dumping of waste at sea is a matter of considerable public concern and interest, which is evidenced in part by the number of your Lordships participating in the debate today. Our report was published in July and was, I know, considered by certain of the delegation attending the London Dumping Convention in early October of this year. It defines certain issues and expresses views as to certain solutions and I hope that it may have been useful in that context. I suspect that next year dumping of waste at sea will come more into the public domain, consequent upon the Conference on the North Sea which is to be held in November in this country following a similar conference held some time ago in Bremen. So we are talking about something which is of public concern and is, I think, likely to become more well known to the public.

I should make it clear to start with that we found that the Commission's proposal which is the subject of our report expressly did not concern itself with nuclear waste and we followed that principle. So our report does not deal at all with nuclear waste and I shall not refer to it in any way. Any proposal relating to the control of dumping waste at sea is bound to be of special concern to this country. The sea is part of the environment shared by all and it must be safeguarded with particular care. We in the United Kingdom have a special interest in ensuring this to protect the amenity of our coastline and our coastal waters, as well as our commercial interests—most obviously fishing.

But the inevitability of waste has to be recognised. Commercial and industrial waste, as well as natural waste, such as dredging spoil, has to be disposed of. No doubt improved technology in recycling and reducing the volume and toxicity of waste will be developed, but large quantities will still arise and have to be disposed of. If one disposal route is to be reduced or eliminated, another will have to be found or enlarged.

The Commission's proposals are contained in the draft council directive (No. 8805/85) which has as two of its major objectives reduction in the quantities of certain substances dumped at sea, and the eventual elimination of incineration of waste at sea. The reduction in dumping is to be by steps of 10 per cent. per annum for five years from 1989—a total reduction of 50 per cent. This is not confined to chemicals and other substances which might generally be regarded as dangerous, but extends to, for instance, sewage sludge, dredging spoils and industrial wastes. The case for the Commission's proposals rests initially on the potential damage to the marine environment from dumping and marine incineration of waste. Such damage is a matter in the first instance for scientific assessment.

The committee has been struck by the lack of scientific evidence in support of the proposal presented by the Commission and by the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee. The committee believes that the case for a major reduction in dumping at sea has not been made out. Indeed, the study undertaken in preparing the report indicates that, for some categories of waste, dumping at sea is in many cases the disposal route involving the least environmental cost and is likely to be the preferable option.

The serious impact of the proposal, if adopted, on the United Kingdom may be illustrated by reference to sewage sludge disposal, which is included among the substances that will be affected. The United Kingdom produces a larger quantity of sewage sludge than any other member state of the Community expect Germany. This is so because some 96 per cent. of the population is connected to the main sewer, a far higher proportion than in most other member states. We rely substantially on sea disposal because such a large proportion of the population—over 13 million people—live on or near the coast compared, for instance, with Germany with about 3.5 million.

The London sewage system was designed so that much of the sewage would be disposed of to the sea, the sewage being transported to the few very large treatment works on the Thames estuary by pipeline, so alternative disposal routes present great difficulties. It is therefore relevant to consider what the environmental impact of dumping sewage sludge at sea is. This depends largely on the strength of water currents on the sea bed near the dumping sites. Most dumping sites are in vigorous waters with the result that wastes are dispersed and have little or no impact on local fauna. Most dumping sites show some accumulation of metals which are trace contaminants of all sewage sludge.

These contributions to the total burden of marine pollution are, however, a minute proportion of the whole. Sewage sludge, industrial waste and marine incineration together contribute only 5 per cent. of the total input of heavy metals to the sea. The most serious pollution comes from the air and from the rivers pouring into the sea.

Of course, the fact that they contribute a minute proportion of the total does not mean that improvements cannot and should not be made. A critical distinction has to be made between pollution effects on the sea which are reversible and those which are not. The former do not present a hazard because it is only necessary to cease dumping to restore the environment. Much, for instance, has been made of eutrophication—the over-fertilisation of plant life—which, it has been said, arises from the dumping of sewage sludge at sea. The evidence given to us does not indicate that this has presented a serious problem in United Kingdom waters. If it did, a reduction or, indeed, elimination of dumping when that problem became evident would cure it. The real danger is from waste which produces irreversible ecological changes which are most likely to arise from heavy metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons.

A much more important input of metals to the sea than sewage sludge arises from dredging spoils, at least ten times the amount from sewage sludge. There are three estuaries, the Forth, the Mersey and the Severn, which are seriously contaminated with metals, and it may be that these dredging spoils should be disposed of to land. In Rotterdam, where the inner harbour is seriously contaminated, that course has been adopted, although the less contaminated spoils from the outer harbour are disposed of to sea.

The Oslo Commission, constituted under the Oslo Convention, has set up a joint working group with the London Dumping Convention to consider disposal of contaminated dredging spoils and the best means of dealing with them. Contamination of the Firth of Forth and the Mersey derives from industrial activity over the past 100 years and more, and in the Severn estuary consists of cadmium, which arises naturally. The vast majority of ports and harbours, however, are virtually free of contamination, and it is essential that they be dredged in order to keep them open. There can be no objection to the transfer of material from one part of the sea bed to another part of the sea bed if it is not contaminated, yet the Commission by its proposal seeks to reduce the dumping of such dredging spoils in the five years following 1989. While the proposal envisages a reduction in dumping at sea, it proposes elimination of marine incineration of waste. The committee has concluded that marine incineration should be retained as an option for appropriate waste disposal.

One advantage of marine incineration is safety. I visited the incineration vessel, "Vulcanus II", and was greatly impressed by the equipment used, including the monitoring equipment, which I was advised was in no way inferior to that used in high temperature incinerators on land, which I have also visited. The likelihood of an incineration vessel having an accident at sea and discharging its poisonous cargo is no greater than such an accident to a chemical cargo vessel which constantly plies across the seas. Failure to incinerate the waste properly is no more likely to occur at sea than on land and is likely to be far less damaging environmentally and to public health than such a failure on land.

For those and other reasons, the committee believes that marine incineration of waste should be maintained. It appears, indeed, from information that has become available since publication of our report that some states which some years ago supported the proposal that marine incineration should in due course be banned are now changing their minds. The Commission proposal, however, falls to be considered not only on its merit; it has to be considered in the context of the international conventions relating to dumping waste at sea and marine incineration. There is a global convention, the London Dumping Convention, and a number of regional conventions, of which the Oslo Convention relating to the North-East Atlantic and the North Sea and the Barcelona Convention relating to the Mediterranean are particularly relevant. The parties to each include both member states of the Community and non-member states.

The conventions represent a substantial achievement in international regulation of the use of a common resource, the sea, by those who share its coastline. Each regional convention contains regulations appropriate to the sea to which it relates. There is a world of difference between what is appropriate for the enclosed sea represented by the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. The Commission proposal seeks to apply the same regulations to all seas. It really is not sensible to apply uniform standards to these diverse environments. As and when new controls on sea dumping and marine incineration are necessary, it would be far preferable that these be introduced under the conventions and with the advice of the scientific teams already assembled.

Those are some of the reasons which have led the committee to consider the Commission's proposed directive on dumping waste at sea and marine incineration to be ill-considered and inappropriate, and to recommend that it should be dropped. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Dumping of Waste at Sea (17th Report, 1985–86, H.L. 219).—(Lord Nathan.)

12.19 p.m.

The Earl of Cranbrook

My Lords, it is my great pleasure to open the debate by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the Select Committee on a masterly and very valuable report.

As the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has mentioned, there is currently a high level of interest in the quality of the marine environment of Europe not only because of the existence of the European Community draft directive on dumping of waste at sea but also in anticipation of next autumn's Conference on the North Sea, which is to be hosted by this country.

Papers on environmental aspects of the North Sea are already in an advance state of preparation by departments of state, and are also being prepared by intending participants in a preliminary conference that is to be held in the spring under the Water Research Council.

In addition, concerned non-governmental organisations have been encouraged by grants from the Department of the Environment and from industrial and other sources to put together their views within the framework of a North Sea forum which I have been invited to chair. This forum will report early in the new year. In the Netherlands, a North Sea seminar has already been held under the sponsorship of Werkgroep Nordzee, and in the United Kingdom Friends of the Earth, in late October, launched a new international campaign which they have called "Seas at Risk".

In my own personal involvement in an appraisal of all these activities, I have found the Select Committee's report an accessible, convenient and most comprehensive source of detailed information. The witnesses who came to be interviewed included a full range of specialists and experts on different aspects, working from contrasting standpoints. I recommend the report most strongly for its value as a source reference on all these topics.

As your Lordships heard a moment ago from the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, it is the committee's opinion that a directive to reduce the dumping of waste at sea is undesirable and inappropriate, and that the related proposal to eliminate marine incineration altogether is unjustifiable. Paragraph 93 of the report points out the illogicality of trying to apply uniform regulations to such varied environments as the European seas; and paragraph 94 disputes the need to duplicate the functions of the existing international conventions. These points were emphasised a moment or two ago by the chairman of the committee. Nonetheless, we must recognise that not only in Brussels but in other quarters also, including I suspect some United Kingdom based non-governmental organisations, these recommendations will be controversial. The steps by which the committee reached its conclusions need to be looked at with some care.

Paragraph 86 of the report emphasises a point (which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and for which there is abundant confirmatory evidence) that inputs of organic pollutants and of inorganic materials—pollutants that are degradable and others that are persistent in nature—are far greater from indirect sources—from air and from rivers—than from direct dumping. Taken in isolation, however, this fact does not support continued dumping. If there are pollution problems all sources must be attacked, including minor sources. Direct inputs are the more easily controlled; and even if the resulting improvement is slight, they should be among the first to be tackled. The argument de minimis is not applicable, and I felt that the committee was wrong to hint that it might be so, although I judge from his words just now that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, would not in fact have gone that far.

Paragraph 87 introduces the most important topic of cross-media pollution, to which I shall come back in a moment or two. Paragraph 88 comments on the lack of scientific evidence of current damage to the environment. I felt that this paragraph rather lightly dismisses three factors. The first is the undisputed evidence of local pollution due to admittedly transient episodes of eutrophication of the water column, and also to localised degradation of the sea bed by blanketing effects—places where the sea bed is covered thickly with sewage sludge, colliery wastes or with fly ash in non-dispersive sites.

Against the evidence of deterioration of the marine environment one can argue perfectly satisfactorily that to dump materials of this nature on land would equally sterilise the receiving area; but I do not think the parallel is exact. Especially in the longer term, marine covering matter is potentially more susceptible to unpredictable movements than is any solid matter disposed of on land. This must be kept in mind.

Secondly, and a point not enlarged upon by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, there are undoubtedly some unpleasant phenomena among the living marine creatures—notably diseases and strange lesions in fish—which demand some form of explanation. Scientific research needs to be intensified to satisfy public unease on this issue.

Thirdly, there is an important and legitimate worry, touched on in paragraph 90 of the report, that black list substances may accumulate, perhaps over very long periods of time, until a threshold is crossed and their effects begin to show. It can then be too late to act. The monitoring that is advocated in paragraphs 104 to 108 of the report would serve to give a prompt warning of environmental crises. But if black list substances have accumulated until they begin to have deleterious effects, no amount of monitoring will ever provide a remedy.

These three issues remain in the field of controversy and cannot be dismissed lightly at present. On the other hand, the committee is surely right in paragraphs 87, 89 and elsewhere to stress the central importance of a multi-media approach to pollution control. The phrase "best practicable environmental option", shortened conveniently to BPEO, orginated in the fifth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and now a decade later, rather suddenly, it has become a term very much in vogue. It appears in this report in the evidence from ICI on page 64, from the Water Authorities Association on page 90, from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on page 114, from the British Ports Association and in many other submissions.

I was particularly interested to note the firm support for this concept enunciated by Mr. Markham and Mr. Peet of Friends of the Earth International, particularly in paragraphs 406 and 412 of their evidence as it appears. Mr. Peet is a Dutchman, and cross-media analysis is very strongly emphasised in the Netherland's pollution control policy. The Netherlands 1986–90 five-year plan for the environment has adopted this approach wholeheartedly and I think it is one which should be very strongly recommended to fellow members of the European Community in this and other contexts.

I await with some interest the reply of my noble friend the Minister. If Her Majesty's Government decide to follow the strong prompt which has been provided by the committee's report and reject this directive, it will be essential to evolve a firm policy on several of the points that have been raised. For instance, in paragraph 106 there is a call for further scientific research. Paragraph 108 suggests that there must be openness on matters of practice of waste disposal. Paragraph 109 talks of vigilance against infringements. Paragraphs 110 to 113 talk about careful evaluation of alternatives and, as I have mentioned just now, place emphasis on the BPEO; and paragraph 114 calls for consistent attempts to minimise wastes. All these are thoroughly laudable and surely require to be incorporated openly and firmly into government policy.

But beyond this I think there is one very important need for action, here and now. What we require is a synoptic approach to the entire United Kingdom submarine shelf zone and the seas that cover it; that is, the EEZ by another name. Piecemeal action by different government departments and different agencies is not an acceptable way of approaching the environmental problems of this important national area. What is required is an integrated strategic plan for long-term sustainable management of this vast new frontier which is being opened up to us by international recognition of our responsibilities over the continental shelf and the shelf seas. It is only if such a plan exists that any one sectoral aspect, such as the problems of the disposal of waste by dumping, can be sensibly evaluated in the larger context.

Our national plans must include the designation of zones suitable for appropriate uses. I have no doubt that such uses would include the exploitation of the sea bed by dredging or mining for sand, gravel, ballast or hardcore. It should include reserves for fisheries purposes, including pelagic and benthic fish and shellfish. It should include strict marine nature reserves. I think it is quite plausible to assume that the overall plan would include zones which could legitimately and safely be recipients of dumped waste and could be sacrificed by being blanketed permanently by deposits that are harmless to the wider environment.

Such a strategic approach to the management of our shelf seas must obviously wholeheartedly take account of international obligations. It must not provide any form of excuse for the Government to refrain from open participation in the fora provided by the Oslo and Paris conventions. It must also be sensitive to the special problems of adjacent areas of the shelf seas such as the shallow inshore waters of the southern North Sea.

Personally, I remain open minded on the question tackled by this report of how, or whether, a specific European Community directive on the dumping of wastes could improve the protection of the marine environment, and I shall follow today's debate with great interest.

12.33 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, there is a lot to agree with in what has been said both by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook. The basic thrust of the committee's report is vividly illustrated for those who have not had time to read it all by the pie charts on page 17 which set out in sectors of circles where all the metals, including heavy metals, that are found in the North Sea have come from. What strikes one immediately is that industrial dumping is virtually invisible on that pie crust display. It is atmosphere and rivers all the way, and not industrial dumping.

To the extent that we agree that metals, especially heavy metals, are the main danger, to that same extent we must realise the force of the argument that the Commission has been tackling a very small part of the problem and that perhaps it would be wrong to adopt directives which get ahead on one tiny corner of it before anything is ready for the rest. I believe that our Select Committee has got it right in the main; that is to say, that this directive should not go ahead alone. The work that has been done need not be wasted. The right step would be for the Commission to tackle the much wider spectrum of problems concerning North Sea pollution and include the work already done on industrial dumping. The de minimis argument does hold. It is so tiny a part of the real problem that it would be reasonable to wait until a broader view can be taken.

What would that broader view be? Here, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is absolutely right. After the Rhine disaster, it is perfectly obvious that rivers must be right at the top of the list of what must be done to reduce sea pollution. It is not only river pollution but sea pollution too. I am not quite sure how all these words are used—crossmedia, cross-sectoral, synoptic, and so on—but what does someone do who is now dumping his refuse into the North Sea when he is not allowed to do so? One must look at how that would be if it were dumped on land. One must look at how it would be if it were dumped in the deep Atlantic. One must look at how it would be if it were incinerated on land, or shot into space, or disposed of in any other way. Every possible combination of the alternative disposal systems must be considered. If at the end of the day you find that each would be as bad as dumping in the North Sea, or worse, and if dumping in the North Sea really matters—we come back to the original decision—there is no alternative but to forbid the process that gives rise to the waste.

I submit that any consideration of these disposal problems in general which does not include the possibility of forbidding a given industrial process—if there is no sensible solution to the dumping process—is an incomplete consideration. One must consider the whole picture. If the material cannot be safely dumped anywhere, then it must not be produced.

With that, I conclude by saying that I warmly endorse the approach of this report.

12.37 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, on his lucid introduction in moving the reception of this report and, indeed, on his customary ability in leading the committee to make the report. It is important, and as a member of the committee I join with the noble Lord in acknowledging the importance of the subject and the interest in it.

I agree with the noble Lord that we are certainly not complacent because we are advising that the Commission's directive is not justified. Indeed, there is no scientific evidence which would justify it, so we are certainly not complacent. In that context, it was particularly interesting to hear my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, with his great authority and knowledge of these matters and who evidently read not only the report but all the evidence, speaking on the subject and emphasising the necessity to take this matter seriously, although we are advising against accepting this particular directive proposed by the Commission.

There is one point on which I did not agree with my noble friend. He contended that it was easier to stop dumping waste at sea than to control the effluents from the rivers. I do not think that is so. Certainly one can stop dumping waste at sea but, as has already been said, one is presented with the very difficult problem of alternative methods of disposal. However, on controlling the quality of the effluents, that is a subject on which we in this country have a great deal of experience. Indeed, it costs a great deal of money but we are making a manful attempt to do this, estuary by estuary, while we can.

However, when one looks at the condition of the Rhine—and there are appalling international problems to be dealt with—it is perfectly obvious that the Rhine is discharging more pollution of every sort, particularly heavy metals, than all the other rivers in Europe put together. If we can set about controlling industrial effluents in this country in a methodical manner—and that is the subject to which I wish to refer—the quality of the effluent in the estuaries of the rivers can be controlled and made acceptable and we can eliminate damage done in that particular way. So it is really a matter of considering one method of approach compared with another.

In this particular case, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has said, if the directive were implemented the method of disposal would hit this country particularly hard because we dispose of far more sewage sludge than any other country in the Community, and therefore the cost of finding alternative methods would bear very heavily upon us. In fact, we dispose of some 29 per cent. of our annual production of sewage sludge into sea dumping areas; that is, some 12 million tonnes. As the report states, alternative methods of disposal will involve us in capital costs amounting to an extra £85 million and an annual cost of an extra £32 million which would have to be passed on to the Community in increased water charges.

It is therefore reasonable to ask why the directive was made. From the evidence that we received it appears that there is serious concern in Germany about pollution of the North Sea in the Wadden Sea area off the north coast of Germany. They are also concerned with the harmonisation concept and the fact that this is a cheaper method of disposing of sewage sludge than they themselves are able to employ. However, I do not think that that is an argument that would necessarily commend itself here in this country or generally throughout Europe.

The point has already been very well made that there is no scientific evidence to show that the dumping of waste in that area of the North Sea is the major cause of pollution. On the other hand, there is much evidence for massive pollution from the Rhine and probably from other German rivers discharging northwards. Incidentally, when considering alternative methods for the disposal of waste one must never forget that in West Germany there is the handy alternative method of disposing of waste by taking it across the frontier into East Germany, where methods of control seem to be very different from those in Western Europe.

The British method of dumping sludge is very carefully controlled, and it is worth saying so now. Specially designed sludge vessels go out regularly from nine estuaries to dump sludge at points fixed some miles out to sea. These areas are selected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for their suitability, and are regularly monitored to ensure that there is no toxic build-up of heavy metals in particular. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspectors regularly take samples from consignments of sludge to ensure its acceptability.

The regional water authorities who are the producers of the sludge, which comes from some hundreds of sewage treatment works in the country, control the industrial effluents discharged from their plants by the industries concerned and they set the appropriate standards with which the industries must conform. The industries instal the necessary pre-treatment plants, with particular reference of course to heavy metals, in order to conform with these standards, and the inspectors make periodic checks to make sure that these standards are maintained.

The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, made a point as to the need for greater openness. The records are there but greater publicity should undoubtedly be given to them in order to relieve anxieties which are felt in many quarters as to how well this control is in fact effected. My belief is that it is very thoroughly done, but if reports were more regularly published undoubtedly they would produce greater confidence. I therefore hope that the water authorities will take note of that point.

Our rational system of treatment control and monitoring enables us to claim with some confidence that the sea-dumping of sludge is doing the minimum amount of harm and certainly conforms with the principle, to which reference has already been made, of the best practical environmental option. That was the finding of our Select Committee, and I hope that my noble friend who will reply to the debate has been convinced by it and that the world as a whole will see that our recommendation has been soundly made.

12.45 p.m.

Lord Rugby

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for the opportunity that I have had to listen to the arguments and assimilate the evidence which has been logically and methodically marshalled in order to assist in arriving at an agreement to the final version of the seventeenth report on the dumping of waste at sea. The background to this report is that this country and its European neighbours are becoming increasingly more complex industrially; increasingly urbanised; increasingly demanding of resources; increasingly wasteful and destructive of the habitat; and perhaps increasingly intolerant of the effects which the economic priorities have had upon their neighbours. The report is therefore opportune and welcome.

The economy of the European nations thus outlined must sooner or later come to terms with an environmental policy which, apart from other considerations, will insist on stricter guidelines as to how to dispose of waste products in all their varying degrees and categories of toxicity; how to separate the harmful from the less harmful; and how to explore the best routes for disposal. It must highlight those practices which are unneighbourly and damaging to the Community. I therefore concern myself with the three clear headings which were spelt out in the report. First, there is the assimilative capacity of the sea and its ability to absorb what is being put into it without long-term damage and to restore the status quo within a reasonable period once the dumping has ceased.

As regards the dumping of sewage, various marine areas around our coast have been used for dumping, and these have been well monitored. One example is the Firth of Clyde, which over a 12-year period had some 19 million tonnes of sewage deposited within an area of approximately one square mile. Tests showed that the effects were nil for four miles in any direction from the centre of those deposits. The immediate centre itself could have been aptly described as a maritime square mile of hyper-enrichment, including of course some accumulation of heavy metals, but after some two years, when the deposits of sludge had been stopped, returning to its original state. Therefore that seems to me to be an acceptable route for disposal so long as it continues to be carefully monitored.

My second heading is the best practical environmental option. This heading introduces the thorny subject of black-listed chemicals which are highly toxic, persistent and resistant to chemical change. The options for disposal are limited and politically sensitive. In this regard I was most impressed with the evidence given by witnesses dealing with incineration at sea. It is my personal view that these black-listed materials—organo-halogens and PCBs—should be tested for their destructibility by such incineration. It is a developing technology, and at present there is nearly 100 per cent. total destruction within these very efficent burners. It is my hope that the Commission will look carefully at this method as being the best practical option for the disposal of these toxic chemicals, and that furthermore, if this method is found to be successful, it might possibly commission a ship which might be built in our dockyards.

The third option comes under the heading of precautionary action and altogether discounts marine disposal of any kind. The committee really did not establish a very good argument on the basis that any kind of disasters in the foreseeable future would show up from the manner in which we dispose of these waste products.

Dredging spoils have been referred to in various ways during this debate. I was rather interested in one particular point, and that was the manner in which Hamburg, with 2 million cubic metres of dredging spoil to be disposed of each year, attempted to put it on to the land and found that it poisoned the crops because of the enormous cadmium content. They then made arrangements with East Germany, who were no doubt delighted to take it at great cost, and then proceeded to dump it back in the sea again.

Finally, in committee I raised the particular point of the disposal of what is known as PFA (pulverised fuel ash), commonly known as fly ash. Thirty million tonnes of this are produced per annum. It is a dust which is extracted from smokestacks of coal-fired stations and from their furnaces. After the many usages for which it has been made commercially acceptable, it still remains in considerable surplus.

The method deployed by the Central Electricity Generating Board at Blythe and Newcastle is quite simply dumping it in the sea along the south Northumberland coast. I think it may not be too long before that is seen to be environmentally unacceptable. Therefore this appears to be an area in which ingenuity and enterprise can be exercised in achieving a more acceptable and possibly rewarding avenue for a viable usage of this embarrassingly surplus by-product.

My Lords, I welcome this comprehensive and valuable report. I hope that the Commission will find it of immense value in formulating their policies.

12.52 p.m.

Viscount Ridley

My Lords, it has been a great privilege to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I have formed a great admiration over the last few months, for his knowledge of these somewhat unsavoury matters. I should also like to congratulate him on the way he has introduced the debate.

I support the conclusions which the committee has reached. I want to deal only with one matter—the incineration of waste at sea. Like the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, I had the opportunity to visit the marine incineration vessel "Vulcanus II" and to see for myself at first hand what it does.

This is a vessel specially built for the purpose. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but the system with which it is designed seems to me to be as perfect as it can be. A 99.999 per cent. efficiency is claimed in destroying harmful chemicals by this method, and the computerised system of monitoring what happens would seem to me to be as foolproof as it is possible to make it.

I will not elaborate upon the reasons behind the committee's decision on this matter, as they are set out in some detail at paragraphs 96 to 101 of the report. It is important to remember that the alternative—incineration of this type of waste on land—can be potentially much more dangerous, and up to five times as expensive. The Commission's view which, I think, caused it to suggest this ban, was based on the much more primitive technology which was available up to 10 years ago. It should be remembered also that the scale of the problem in the United Kingdom is that about 3,000 tonnes per annum needs to be incinerated. That figure is less than 5 per cent. of the potential annual capacity of the "Vulcanus II" to destroy.

It is also significant that this vessel has been visited by Greenpeace which is hardly an organisation likely to agree to such a process as marine incineration without a fairly critical approach. Greenpeace has not seen fit to object to the process, either to the owners of the vessel (as far as we were told) or indeed to this committee during the inquiry.

Furthermore, Friends of the Earth who, at the time of this inquiry had not done more than visit the ship and had not spent any time there, had no evidence to give to us of harmful effects of incineration at sea. I hope very much that this country will be able to continue to use this process because I believe it is the safest, the best and the cheapest method available for us in the circumstances.

Finally, there are those who think that your Lordships are at their very finest when they are debating sewage and related matters. For their benefit, and because it is almost Christmas, I hope noble Lords will allow me to introduce a small carol into this debate. I have no intention of singing it because I cannot sing. It is very brief: God rest ye merry gentlemen, God bless the EEC, And if you handle sewage sludge, don't dump it in the sea, But if you get away with it, bless Sub-Committee G".

12.55 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I do not think that I can cap that! I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his patient and courteous chairmanship of the committee, as well as his expertise, and indeed for the comprehensive way he has introduced the subject this afternoon, which leaves very little for the rest of us to do. It was a very interesting subject and the committee had to discuss matters outside the scope of the proposal. Indeed, we all found it so fascinating that the difficulty was to restrain ourselves for most of the time to something approaching the proposal.

The conclusions, which I fully support, were inevitable given the terms of the proposal and the evidence available to the committee at the time. In spite of the wording of paragraph 86 I do not think that the committee was at all complacent about the situation or accepted dumping at sea as a long-term inevitable activity. I think that point is plain if you read through the text of the report. The committee was certainly not complacent about the total arrangements for waste disposal in the United Kingdom. The activities which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, mentioned as being about to take place were very welcome. Some of them were news to me, especially the idea of the North Sea forum. I look forward to seeing what their activities produce.

Perhaps the most important part of the report for the purposes of our debate this afternoon is the section on "alternative proposals" starting on page 23. I support these proposals not only as a member of the committee but also from the Front Bench.

The problem of disposal of waste at sea cannot be separated from that of disposal on land. The two activities are related to each other. The availability of alternative sites is an essential factor in deciding which route will be followed for waste disposal. This is particularly evident in the disposal of those wastes currently incinerated at sea, about which so much has already been said. To dispose of these substances on land would require special facilities; namely, special incinerators which would probably be resisted anywhere in the United Kingdom.

At this point it may be relevant to ask ourselves whether or not it is in the interests of applying the best practicable environmental option for responsibility for waste disposal to be divided between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, dealt with the difficulties of division of responsibility on a much wider scale. He was also discussing research. However, I wish to concentrate for the moment on this question of sites, because it makes it extraordinarily difficult to reach a decision about which is the best method of disposal if there is a split responsibility between two government departments.

The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has already drawn our attention to this matter on a number of occasions and has reiterated it in the context of this report. It seems to me that an activity of such environmental importance should properly be the concern of the Department of the Environment. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is here to answer us this afternoon, because no doubt he will have something to say on that.

That brings me to the question of the way forward. We have heard already in general terms that if we are to improve on the present situation—which we must—there are two basic requirements: research and monitoring. We need research to discover better methods of disposal and to examine possible long-term effects of current practices. On that point the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, enlightened us on the question of fish diseases, about which we seem to know only a marginal amount and seem to take a lot for granted. Above all, we need research into ways of reducing waste at source.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, whom I am sorry to see is not in his place, mentioned forbidding the output of certain substances, but I feel that control must start at a much earlier stage than that.

The question of waste output should play a large part in the granting of planning for any new process. That must be the best solution. We seem to overcome one difficulty only to encounter another. The only safe route is to assume that all waste substances are potentially harmful and to take steps to reduce output at source.

The noble Lord, Lord Rugby, drew attention to our disregard for the growing problem of waste output of all kinds. I do not feel as pessimistic as he did about it, because I think there is a growing public concern about waste output generally, especially in the Scandinavian countries, from which I hope we shall learn lessons. They are now using a great deal of household waste for recycling and heat regeneration. That is a useful thing to do.

Efficient monitoring is vital, especially at our present state of development. It must ensure that agreements and conventions are upheld; that permit or licence conditions are adhered to; and that disposal sites are checked constantly for unforeseen or abnormal effects. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred to monitoring by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I find it disappointing that the ministry has not accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology that inspection of industrial waste dumping at sea should be 10 per cent. of voyages made, but has set a target of 7 per cent. That is mentioned on page 24 of the report. I hope that the Minister can give us a reason for a lowering of the target to 7 per cent. and can tell us whether it took expert opinion on this matter, and if so, whose opinion it was.

Other points emerged in evidence which pointed to the need for a closer monitoring of disposal. Some were connected with land disposal and so were not strictly relevant to the proposal that we were discussing, but they serve to illustrate the committee's concern for greater vigilance. For example, we had rather unsatisfactory exchanges and discussions with the CBI on the use of boreholes. That should be investigated a little further. We should never be complacent about the state of our knowledge on waste disposal. As I have said, today's apparently harmless substance may be tomorrow's problem, as we have already found to our cost with, for example, asbestos.

This sensible, unemotional report offers wise advice. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take it.

1.3 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and your Lordships who were members of his committee for having produced a most valuable and well-researched report. It is a constructive contribution to the discussion on marine environmental policy. I welcome the opportunity to try to set out not only the Government's view of the Commission's proposal, but to give our response to your Lordships' further recommendations about the United Kingdom's sea disposal policies and practices.

The Government attach great importance to the protection of the marine environment. Last year, your Lordships debated and gave agreement to what is now Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Under that Act, sea disposal may not take place except under the terms of a licence from the appropriate government department. Such licences are not issued unless scientific examination shows the operation in question to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the marine environment, the living resources it supports and human health, and unless it conforms with the Oslo and London dumping conventions. The Act also requires that interference with legitimate uses of the sea, such as fishing and recreation, should be prevented and that licensing authorities should consider the practical availability of alternative disposal methods on land before permitting recourse to sea disposal.

That Act laid down some tight but general criteria which must be taken into account when licensing is undertaken. The amounts of waste we dispose of at sea are a small part of the total waste arising in this country. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent for what he said about the care with which sludge is disposed of at sea. I assert that great care is taken to ensure that each application for a sea disposal licence receives critical scientific scrutiny and that each is assessed against the prevailing international rules. That work is carried out by scientific staff at the Ministry's fisheries laboratories at Lowestoft, Burnham-on-Crouch, Aberdeen and elsewhere. Your Lordships will be aware that considerable resources are committed to that important task, and rightly so in view of the importance of the sea in the country's economic and social life.

While sea disposal may be the best practical environmental option for certain types of waste, we must be sure that that is the case on each and every occasion that a licence is granted.

I noted that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook drew attention to the general support given by all who contributed to the report for the principle of the BPEO and that in particular representatives of the Friends of the Earth see the merit of weighing environmental costs of land and sea. That underlines the fact, ably highlighted by the committee in its report, that we cannot just rule out waste disposal options as the Commission proposal would do, before most scrupulously weighing the alternatives on scientific criteria.

The Government share the committee's main recommendation on the directive in paragraph 102 of the report: that the proposed directive on dumping at sea is inappropriate and should not be adopted. We think that, for reasons which I shall go through quickly because your Lordships have dealt with them so ably and succinctly. The first, as the report says, is that the Commission proposal attempts to harmonise what cannot reasonably be harmonised. By that, I mean that the proposal would impose one set of rules for sea disposal in seas as divergent as the Mediterranean, the Baltic, the North Sea and the north Altantic. That is precisely why different international conventions—the Oslo. Helsinki and Barcelona conventions—exist: to regulate sea disposal in those different sea areas.

Secondly, the Community proposal would require a 50 per cent. reduction in the sea disposal of certain types of waste. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said that the committee had been struck by the lack of scientific evidence to support the various recommendations. It is strikingly evident that the Commission presented no scientific justification for that second drastic step. There is no recognition, for example, of the fact that the overwhelming majority of contaminants which reach the sea arrive via the atmosphere or rivers rather than from the sea disposal of waste, as has been amply demonstrated in the committee's report. As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, great efforts have been made in the United Kingdom to reduce discharges from our rivers. That is an area where we can look forward to continuing improvements.

To return to the Commission, it has not made any attempt to assess the possible drawbacks associated with the increase in land disposal which would be the inevitable result of its initiative. It is central to the Government's policy that the best practicable environmental option be assessed, scientifically and objectively in each case, without the kind of preconceptions that we find here.

I feel that I must say on behalf of the Government that the economic and environmental consequences of a 50 per cent. reduction of sea disposal would have a considerable effect on this country. As the report points out, significant extra quantities of sludge, liquid industrial wastes and dredged spoil, which are being safely disposed of at sea at present, would have to be disposed of on land. That would be likely to damage the competitiveness of British industry, to cost jobs, and to add considerably to the problems facing water authorities. All that is involved for a proposal with no scientific basis and, by virtue of the domination of river and airborne contaminants over those disposed of directly at sea, unlikely to result in any appreciable improvement in the marine environment. That really does not seem to the Government to be an acceptable balance sheet.

Thirdly, and much more briefly, because the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, together with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and my friend Lord Ridley have spoken about this, the Commission proposal envisages an early end to the practice of marine incineration, but once again with no evidence to show why this is necessary or desirable. As my noble friend Lord Ridley said, we do not actually make a great deal of use of this option in this country, but we do not think—without scientific evidence—that it would be in Europe's best interests for this option to be closed off completely. Surely it is common prudence, bearing in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that we have to recognise the inevitability of waste and to keep scientifically acceptable options at least available rather than arbitrarily to foreclose them.

On this recommendation of the Commission, finally, I should like to pay tribute to the excellent track record of the existing international conventions in this field, notably the Oslo and the London dumping conventions, to which this country adheres and to which we make a major scientific contribution. Their work is based above all upon good science, and I am sure that your Lordships need no persuasion from me to be convinced of the efficacy of these bodies. For these reasons, which very much follow the speeches made today, the Government do not believe that the Commission's directive should be adopted.

Perhaps I may now briefly try to reply to the other recommendations of your Lordships' committee for the further improvement of our domestic controls over the disposal of waste at sea. The first one is that mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It is the question of the level of inspection carried out by departments to satisfy themselves that sea-disposal operations are being undertaken in accordance with licence conditions; and in particular the recommendation of your Lordships that not less than 10 per cent. of voyages made by vessels dumping industrial waste should be inspected, in line with the view expressed by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology some years ago.

The Government have given careful consideration to this recommendation, as we did when it was first put forward. Taking account of an efficiency scrutiny recommendation, the Government at that time took the view that an inspection level of 7 per cent. would be sufficient. In re-examining this decision we have taken into account the very small number of infringements and irregularities which are uncovered each year and which tend to indicate that such phenomena are, if anything, declining as the higher 7 per cent. inspection rate bears fruit. The noble Baroness asked me for our reasons. We have no evidence of any fall in standards—rather the reverse. Consequently, there is no indication at present that current inspection rates are inadequate. For that reason, we believe that we should stick to the 7 per cent. However, I should like to assure your Lordships that the situation will be kept under careful review.

Secondly, the committee calls for additional research to improve our understanding of benthic communities and sediment movement. I am happy to report that departments are already engaged in scientific work in these fields, and that we shall certainly examine the best and most cost-effective ways of building on what has already been achieved.

Thirdly the Committee asked the Government to consider what they can do to meet the wishes expressed by a number of witnesses for more information on the quantities and characteristics of wastes disposed of at sea, and for more public consultation before licences are issued. Looking first at the question of publishing information about the wastes disposed of at sea, your Lordships rightly pointed out that this material is already published in the annual reports of the Oslo Commission, copies of which are in the Library of the House. However, the Government accept that more can and should be done to provide public reassurance, and I am therefore pleased to be able to respond to your Lordships by announcing today that reports on the licensing, enforcement and monitoring of sea-disposals will in future be published each year and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It is hoped to produce the first of this new series next year in relation to disposals this year.

As regards consultation before licences are issued I am a little less forthcoming. Departments already can and do consult on an informal basis with those who have an interest, principally water authorities, which have responsibilities for water quality within the three-mile limit. However, we do not see a need to go beyond this as of now, though we are willing to keep the position under review.

The committee recommends that others outside the Government departments, and in particular water authorities, should play a role in presenting evidence on the UK's sea disposal policies to the public, through the water authorities' annual reports to Parliament. This point of the committee's had been drawn to the attention of the Water Authorities Association, and I can say that its members are considering what contribution they might usefully make in this field.

The committee recommends that automatic data recording devices should be fitted to vessels engaged in sea disposal operations. Strangely, that is a point which has not been raised today. I say "strangely" because it was on Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 that my noble friend Lord Craigton moved an amendment in this House which enables us to stipulate as a condition of a licence that automatic data recording equipment ought to be fitted to a vessel. However, the Government wish to satisfy themselves that suitable equipment is available to licensees before ordaining that it should be used, and we need to consult further those concerned both in the manufacture and the use of such equipment before we take a final decision. We are now actively pursuing the development of the specifications for such equipment in consultation with those concerned.

The committee also recommended that water authorities should reduce inputs of contaminants to the sewerage system so as to lessen further any effects of sea disposal of sewage sludge. We understand that this is a policy which the authorities already pursue, to the extent consistent with economic constraints both on themselves and on business, and concentrating necessarily on any potential problem areas such as heavy metals. I am able to say today that I understand this has already resulted in a significant reduction in the levels of a number of contaminants disposed of at sea in recent years. I am sure that the water authorities will have noted the report's recommendation in this regard.

With regard to dredged spoils, your Lordships made no recommendation except to suggest that if land disposal was to replace sea disposal as the main outlet for this material, local authorities and central government ought to be prepared to give financial assistance to port and harbour authorities to offset the additional costs involved.

Your Lordships argued that "the polluter pays" principle would be inappropriate in these circumstances. Your Lordships may be aware that this year the Oslo and London conventions adopted new guidelines for the disposal of dredged spoils at sea. These guidelines indicate the factors to be taken into account in assessing whether or not the environmental impact of disposal of dredged spoil is acceptable. But they do not rule out sea disposal as the best practicable environmental option for the UK's dredged materials, and the eventuality addressed by the committee in this instance is therefore not one to which I need respond now. If that necessity arose we would wish to look very carefully at all the circumstances before deciding on the appropriate response.

Finally, the committee recommended that a general policy of encouraging the reduction of waste and the toxicity of waste should be pursued, so as to tackle pollution problems at source. I am sure that this is a general principle which we would all endorse, and I know that industry itself is aware of its responsibilities in this area. We must, however, remind ourselves that such reductions cost money and that we must, as always, balance the economic burdens we place on our industries against the likely benefits to the environment. That is not a justification for doing nothing and I am not saying that. It is a recognition that we must order our priorities with care and strive for balance between competing uses.

There are two further points to which I should like to reply. The first was raised by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook who asked for a co-ordinated approach to be taken to the management of the marine environment. The Government believe that it is an important consideration and are establishing arrangements to help ensure that account is taken of all relevant research in this field within government. That is a matter to which my noble friend Lord Nugent also referred.

Then there was the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about departmental responsibilities. It is almost inevitable, I am afraid, that responsibilities will be split between departments where different considerations arise. The Department of the Environment is of course responsible for the disposal of wastes on land whereas my department is mainly responsible for the protection of the marine environment and its resources, of which fish are by no means the least. But there is close liaison between the DoE and the Ministry of Agriculture and formal procedures are in place to check on each application.

I should like finally to say that the Government are committed to the protection of the marine environment, and I hope that we do not appear in any way complacent. We are constantly seeking ways of improving our knowledge and we have strengthened our domestic legislation on sea disposal. We continue to meet our international obligations. We devote considerable resources to evaluating the effects of sea disposal according to scientific criteria and to examining alternative disposal options.

We are really very willing to learn from, and to respond to, the many suggestions in the committee's report. I hope that some of what I have said has shown that we have already accepted some of what your Lordships have said. But we share with your Lordships' committee the conviction that our approach rather than the Commission's proposal is the right one for this country.

1.22 p.m.

Lord Nathan

My Lords, my task at this stage of the debate is merely to thank those who have participated in it. It has been extraordinarily encouraging to find the spread of expertise and knowledge which has been available this afternoon. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, is a leading scientist, and his support for so many of the conclusions that we reached is extremely encouraging because of his great knowledge of the subject. I was glad to note that he dwelt a little on the alternative proposals that we had listed towards the end of the report, and to which I had no time to refer in my remarks.

It was interesting that he referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, just now, to the question of the management of the continental shelf and the waters over it, which was the subject of more informal discussion in the committee because it fell, we thought, rather outside the precise terms of reference to which we were bound to confine ourselves. It was also encouraging to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who has been so interested and concerned with regard to the North Sea over such a long time and who has taken a leading part in its protection.

The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, as a Member of the committee, is an infinite source of knowledge on anything to do with water, fresh or salt, and to have his support is an enormous encouragement. He spoke of controlled sludge dumping. I know from what he has told me that he has actually carried out the dumping by pulling the lever on one of the specialist ships concerned, so he speaks from personal knowledge.

I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, how grateful I am for his assistance on the committee, and particularly for referring in his remarks to certain of the principles that we thought it right to indicate in our report—the assimilative capacity of the sea; the question of the best practicable environmental option, which has been discussed a good deal; and also the precautionary principle, which seems more and more to dominate Commission thinking, derived perhaps largely from a German influence.

We had certain apocryphal stories with regard to the circulation of the waste from Hamburg through East Germany and out again through the river to Hamburg and the sea, but alas we had no evidence to support the story—which is a good one—in our report, and it therefore cannot be found there.

To the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I must say a word of thanks for his remarks with regard to marine incineration and the question of monitoring, and indeed for his Christmas carol. To the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, I would say that I am grateful for her reference to the alternative proposals, and particularly for the unification of responsibility for ascertaining the best practicable environmental option with regard to waste disposal. It is very much the same point to which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, referred, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.

I was also interested in the point—which is of great concern—as to the production of waste; the question of planning production processes and, in the course of that planning procedure, considering what waste is to be produced and how it is to be disposed of. This is a matter of increasing concern. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for her reference to research with regard to the accumulation of some of the more dangerous wastes. The phrase used so often in the recent reports of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is "the creation of these time bombs". It is something to which one wants to pay particular attention.

I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, how grateful I am for the encouraging remarks he made and also for the encouraging tone in which he made them. It is clear that he strongly and personally, and no doubt on behalf of the Government, too, supports the main thrust of the recommendations we have made in the report. This is a great encouragement, and really makes the rather large amount of work involved in the preparation of the report very much worthwhile.

With regard to the dredging spoils, to which he referred late in his remarks, the point that we had in mind was that there were certain estuaries, to which I had referred, which are heavily contaminated. We had certain thoughts with regard to what should be done about that, but since that very question was under consideration by the scientists who are an expert group under the Oslo Convention it seemed foolish that we should embark upon that subject. We should much prefer to await their report on what should be done. It was for that reason that our conclusions quite clearly were tentative and depended upon what that group of experts might tell us.

Finally, once again may I thank those who have participated in the debate for the trouble they have taken in making their contributions; and I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, not in singing but in referring to his song, and wish everybody a happy Christmas.

On Question, Motion agreed to.