It is generally accepted that we should dispose of what there is where we can control it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that one criticism of what we are doing to spoil our marine environment is that we have adopted what is basically an "out of sight, out of mind" disposal solution. It is believed that if things are removed from visibility, they do not matter and that the problem flows away when it is invisible.

Sewage sludge should be treated and screened properly and we should have the necessary processes for that. We should ensure that we have alternative land sites rather than sea sites. That point has been argued consistently. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the problem is not confined to sewage sludge, but relates to everything that we export off the coasts of our country. It is no good simply saying that we should send our waste or burn our toxic materials offshore; that can do just as much, if not more, harm at sea as on the land.

Since I have been a Member of the House, it has been the general view of the Government—and everybody else—that disposals should take place where one can see what one is doing and where one can control and monitor the effects of the disposal of anything that is toxic or harmful.

Our second proposal relates to achieving by the end of the decade zero discharges of inputs that are harmful to the marine environment. Although that is not a short time scale, it is important that we have such a target, because at the moment we have only an inadequate list of materials for which we have targets.

Our third proposal relates to the dumping of fly ash, which causes a particular problem because some people claim—and the Government argue this case—that such dumping does not cause any harm to the marine environment because it is inert. In addition, it is argued that there are no land-based alternatives. However. there is also a serious dispute about whether we are in breach of the international requirements on fly ash. There is no doubt that fly ash will continue to be created, but the problem is what we do with it. Another dispute relates to the implications of such dumping both now and in the future.

We believe that the commitment that Britain made in the agreement that was signed at the 1987 international conference was to phase out the dumping of industrial waste in the North sea by 31 December 1989. We further believe that fly ash dumping breaks the terms of that agreement because it harms the marine environment by killing the sea bed. Alternative disposal methods are available, such as using landfill sites or using energy conservation measures to reduce the amount that needs to be dumped. Furthermore, such dumping cannot be justified by the arguments that the Prime Minister and other Ministers regularly use, such as the prior justification procedure argument—that there is no practical alternative on the one hand and, on the other hand, that harm is not caused.

The tragedy is that the north-east coast of Britain is the only place in Europe where fly ash is dumped at sea. Furthermore, the amount that is dumped at sea is small and is therefore capable of elimination. In simple scientific terms, it effectively renders the sea bed inert. It is not as solid as, but it is like putting down, a concrete particle substance, and certainly much life is killed by being smothered with fly ash. There is a great problem in monitoring the effects of what we do and the extent of fly ash dumping. I hope, therefore, that the Government realise that it is not that we pretend that there is no problem—there is an issue, because we create fly ash as a result of burning coal—but there are alternative disposal solutions which we have advocated and which are perfectly feasible and proper.

We also propose measures to prohibit the dumping of industrial wastes from the beginning of next year. This is where the Government are at their most vulnerable. The Government said that they would phase out the dumping of industrial wastes by the end of 1989, but they have granted licences which take us beyond the end of 1989 to the end of 1992 and potentially into 1993. What they did was made worse by the way in which they argued their case. They said that they were ending dumping—there were great press releases and great declarations of intent—but then they talked about exceptions. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), they admitted the extent of the exceptions. My hon. Friend's question was: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many licences to dump chemical industrial wastes in the North sea will be terminated by 31 December 1992; and how many will continue to be in force;(2) what percentage of chemical industrial wastes dumped in the North sea will be terminated by 31 December 1992; and what percentage will continue. The answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), was: It is my intention that all licences to dispose of industrial wastes in the North sea covered by the 1987 North sea declaration will be terminated by 31 December 1992. For two of the wastes, however, involving 77 per cent. of the current total annual licensed tonnage, it might not be technically feasible to meet this deadline. I will extend the licences for these last two wastes into 1993 only if absolutely necessary on technical grounds and for the shortest possible part of that year."—[Official Report, 8 March 1990; Vol. 168, c. 853.] It is not acceptable for the Government to say that they are willing to sign up to get rid of wastes by 1989 only for us to discover that they have exceptions which not just prove the rule but break it.