I welcome this chance to debate the marine environment, because the Government are committed to protecting it and to reducing still further the discharge of dangerous substances into the North sea and the other seas around our coasts. However, I cannot accept new clause 9, because it will not take us more quickly to that objective.

The new clause is something of a random mixture of general intentions and arbitrary targets, strung together with no consideration of priorities for action to protect our seas—priorities which have marked the approach of successive North sea conferences, which have rightly focused on the dangerous substances reaching the sea, mainly through rivers, and then agreed the means to reduce them.

At The Hague conference in March agreement was reached on 36 substances for which reductions of 50 per cent. or more will be sought by a deadline of 1995; for four substances, a more ambitious target of a 70 per cent. reduction was set. The United Kingdom is well on the way to meeting those objectives. These figures, and our achievements to date, are contained in the United Kingdom's national action plan on North sea discharges, which was published on 5 March. So I do not disagree much with new clause 9(1).

The differences between us arise in subsection (2), which contains an arbitrary revision of the time scales negotiated and agreed upon at The Hague conference after full consideration of the practical realities involved. Sewage sludge dumping, about which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke at some length, accounts for only about 1 per cent. of dangerous substances reaching the North sea. River-borne pollution is by far and away the most potent source of pollution. But we have agreed to phase out sewage sludge dumping by 1998. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey must face up to the practicalities of his time scale, which would seek to phase it out within three years. The engineering and technical complexities of finding alternative means of disposal of 30 per cent. of the sewage sludge arising in the United Kingdom are great.

The reason why we have so much sludge to get rid of is that we treat more of our household sewage than any other country in Europe does. So we are talking about large volumes of waste, and it must be recognised that it can be disposed of in only three ways: into the earth, on the land or into the sea.

I should have greater respect for the hon. Gentleman's drastic timetable if I did not know that if someone wanted to construct an incinerator in or near his constituency he would be one of the first to object. We must face the fact that no alternative means of disposal is welcomed by or pleasant for those living nearby. Even when pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey would not admit that these alternatives are politically, socially and technologically difficult.

I have exactly the same objection to the hon. Gentleman's other time scales—