Chemical Waste: North Sea Dumping (Hansard, 31 January 1990)

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, the Government are firmly committed to end the sea disposal of chemical waste and we are making very good progress. The materials dumped cause no harm in the sea. We are fully complying with our international commitments.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is it not the case that the British Government agreed under the Oslo Commission and under the North Sea anti-waste agreement to cease dumping in the North Sea from the end of 1989? Is it not also the case that Sweden, Norway, Holland, Denmark and Germany have all protested about our continuing dumping in the North Sea? Is that not yet another case where the British Government are out on their own and believe that they are right and all the rest are wrong?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, the North Sea countries asked the Oslo Commission to set up a procedure for exemptions. That procedure was agreed only last June and it is the procedure that we are currently using. The ministerial declaration from the North Sea Conference exempted from the ban: materials which can be shown in the competent international organisations to cause no harm in the marine environment … unless there are no practical alternatives for disposal on land". The four countries that the noble Lord mentioned of Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands have raised objections to some of the licence applications about which the Government have provided information. Those objections have been carefully considered and answered. Some countries have called for further discussions, and a meeting of the Oslo Commission's ad hoc working group on dumping has been convened for 14th February. None of the objections raised contain valid grounds for not issuing the licences concerned.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while there is pollution in the North Sea, our country is only one of many bordering the North Sea and our contribution to pollution is a great deal less than that of other countries with great rivers like the Rhine? The greatest amount of waste dumped in the North Sea by Britain would be only a fraction of that emitted by the River Rhine. Is he aware that the dumping of sludge in the North Sea is carefully monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and that there is no sign of a build-up of toxicity in that area or of any effect on fish stocks? While it is true that the dumping of chemical waste will have to come to an end, we would be wise to wait until the five-year survey that is being carried out by the Natural Environmental Research Council is completed so that we know what exactly is happening in the North Sea and who is responsible for most of the pollution.

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. The continental coast line is indeed affected. As he mentioned, the main problem is river discharges of which 80 per cent. come from continental countries. Half of the total river discharges come from the Rhine and the Meuse.

§ Lord Gallacher
My Lords, in anticipation of the fact that eventually the dumping of chemical waste in the North Sea will have to end, are the Government actively pursuing alternative sites? In that pursuit will they take account of the importance of finding sites adjacent to the factories where waste is being generated? Will the Minister also give us an assurance that those who generate chemical waste will be obliged to meet the full costs of disposal, including the environmental costs?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, we are committed to stopping sea disposal of industrial waste as soon as possible. We have already withdrawn more than half of the 20 liquid waste licences which existed at the end of 1987. An example of that is that one licence application for sea waste disposal from Fisons that we put to the Oslo Commission will not now after all be renewed as an acceptable alternative treatment now exists.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the environmental condition of the North Sea is a matter of some argument, as is the proportion of waste that is emitted from rivers and that which is dumped there? Is it not the case that the British Government agreed to end dumping by the end of 1989 but that they have not done so? Will the Minister tell the House what advice and instructions are given by the British Government to those companies which are concerned about dumping? Have they warned those companies that dumping must come to an end or are they just telling them that the Government can cover the matter up for them?

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, the Government are fully committed to phasing 304 out the dumping of industrial waste. The wastes currently being dumped are not harmful and we are following the procedures agreed to last summer. As my right honourable friend Mr. Curry said in another place, we agree with the tide of public opinion that thinks industrial dumping should stop. As he also said, we are committed to stopping it at the earliest practical date.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, that is the Government acting as judge and jury. Apparently the Government are saying that the waste is not harmful. The other members of the Oslo Commission say that it is harmful. Apparently, international supervision has broken down.

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, the Government consider that our case is very strong and has a secure basis in science. We shall discuss the cases further with other countries and shall listen carefully to their views. Ultimately the agreed procedure leaves the decision on licensing to the Government.

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, before we pass to the next business perhaps I may apologise to the House and to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for trying to intervene at Question Time, which I was told was out of order. Duties of hospitality resulted in my arriving somewhat tardily in your Lordships' House. I was dismayed to find that we were in mid-Question after 12 minutes, which continued for a further two or three minutes. I rose in protest, unaware that a protest had already been lodged. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my apologies.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said. I shared his objective but his method on that occasion was inappropriate.