House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Jul 1990

Column 674

A company which, according to its own operatives, puts the safety of its equipment and personnel secondary to production is unfit to operate a plant in a residential area.

For all the reasons that I have outlined, we are greatly disturbed about the proposals to develop the plant. I am alarmed on behalf of my family and my constituents. The proposal will put a time bomb in our midst. It threatens the environment, the quality of life and, possibly, the lives of my constituents and those of other hon. Members.

I supported the creation of the Trafford Park development corporation. One of the problems is that it was given extraordinary planning powers and, in effect, took the place of the local authority. When the corporation was given those powers, it was assumed that it would have responsibility for planning on matters that affected only Trafford Park and would not have a wider impact. It was considered that the park was an industrial area and that it was quite reasonable to give the corporation such planning powers. I have doubts about whether that was true, but for the most part the development corporation has dealt with planning applications in a way that has caused no criticism. In this case, the development corporation is not the appropriate planning authority, because the issue has wide implications for the area. The proposal is of major concern within the development area itself. Kellogg, an international manufacturer of foodstuffs, has expressed concern and doubts about the impact of the plant, and no doubt the corporation will take its views on board.

If the corporation refuses the application, as I hope it will, the company will appeal. The application will then go before the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Minister may say that ties his hands, as to the extent of the response that he can make. While I appreciate that, it is most unsatisfactory that we should be forced to fight with one hand or perhaps both hands tied behind our back. If an appeal is made, there will be a local planning inquiry, but if the corporation grants the application there will be no parallel right of appeal by the community.

I should like the Minister to say this morning that he will call in the application with a view to refusing it so that the threat to lives in my community will be scotched at this early stage. If he cannot do that, I should like him to say that the issue is of such importance that the corporation is not competent to determine the matter and that the Secretary of State will call in the application in such a way that will guarantee a local planning inquiry, at which local objectors as well as the company can make their case to the inspector, so that the matter can be properly considered. The hon. Member for Davyhulme will demand for his constituents, as I demand for mine, that they are given maximum protection, and that includes a right to ensure that their concerns can be voiced at the highest possible level.

I am alarmed at the prospect of the incinerator, as are thousands upon thousands of people, including my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, and the hon. Member for Davyhulme. Collectively, we want the plant stopped, and we look to the Minister to protect the quality of our constituents' environment. The best way to do that is to ensure that it is not allowed to be built.

Column 675

11.23 am

Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on his success in securing a debate on an issue that is important to his constituents and to mine, and I thank him for his courtesy in volunteering to allow me to share some of the precious time available to him.

I re-emphasise the deep concern and disquiet that is felt by the residents of my constituency at the prospect of two incinerators in Trafford Park that will be used to burning of toxic and other chemical and clinical waste. However, public concern extends far wider than my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stretford, to Eccles and Salford, immediately across the Manchester ship canal, and to the entire Greater Manchester area. The issue should not be viewed by my hon. Friend the Minister and by the Government as one that affects only one or two constituencies.

Trafford Park was the first and greatest of the purpose-built industrial estates, and it remains to this day the largest industrial complex in the United Kingdom. I have been closely involved with Trafford Park for 20 years. In 1970, together with Norman Quick, who this year is high sheriff of Greater Manchester, founded the Trafford Park industrial council with the aim of ensuring the continual development and prosperity of Trafford Park as a major industrial and commercial centre, and of improving its environment.

The past 20 years have seen a vast transformation in Trafford Park's environment, especially in respect of air pollution. In 1970, Greater Manchester's death rate from bronchitis was the highest in the country bar none. A high proportion of the deaths were due to emissions from Trafford Park, but also because almost every home had a coal-burning fire. The last two decades have seen that situation change out of all recognition. It would be tragic if today, in the 1990s, we were to put at risk much of the good work that has been done over the past 20 years. No matter how efficiently the plant may operate, and no matter how free of breakdowns it might be, the level of emissions will still be considerable.

At a public meeting at Lancashire county cricket ground two or three weeks ago, the promoters of the scheme, Leigh Environmental, admitted that PCBs and dioxins would remain undestroyed. Not surprisingly, the company claimed that the level would be very low, but that factor cannot be ignored. The plant would put out a large volume of various dioxides--particularly sulphur dioxide, which is believed to be a direct cause of bronchial problems, asthma, and various other ailments.

Although the Government have a responsibility to secure the safe disposal of chemical wastes, I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford that the heartland of a conurbation of 3 million people is not the proper place for that to be done. One acknowledges the difficulties that confront the Government. There is opposition, rightly, to the dumping of toxic chemicals at sea, and it is no longer acceptable to use landfill sites to bury such waste, because it can then find its way into the water table and may subsequently contaminate water supplies. That opposition led the Government to consider incineration as the way ahead.

In view of the Government's concern about global warming, I wonder whether this is the best or the only way ahead. Above all, I query whether the middle of a

Column 676

residential area comprising 3 million people is the appropriate place for it. The incinerator is to be sited in Trafford Park, upwind of the conurbation of Greater Manchester, with prevailing westerly and north-westerly winds, and will have a devastating effect throughout the the area downwind of the plant, which includes the centre of Manchester and surrounding dormitory suburbs.

Local residents are not the only people to be concerned. Industry and commerce in Trafford Park feel that their interests will be blighted, none more so than food manufacturers.

One must ask, when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, seemingly with great and indecent haste, rubber-stamped this proposal, subject to planning permission by the development corporation, did it consider the implications for food processors in Trafford Park? Kellogg is in Trafford Park, producing cornflakes for the entire nation, and other major food processors are there. Is that a suitable place for a toxic waste incinerator, alongside major food-processing companies? My constituents certainly have the gravest doubt about it.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister inquire of the director of HMIP what consultations he has had with the chief medical officer of this country and the medical establishment about the suitability and desirability of placing incinerators in the middle of residential areas?

I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford, and I hope that Trafford borough council, which is considering the matter, will recommend that the proposal be rejected. I also hope that Trafford Park development corporation, which is the planning authority--like the hon. Gentleman, I have reservations about whether that should be the case in a matter which affects the environment and people's health--will refuse the planning permission applied for.

I hope that the Secretary of State will call in the plans because they are unacceptable as they stand. It is not merely a question of saying that we do not want this in our backyard : no one wants it in their backyard. It is not acceptable to spew toxic wastes out of chimney stacks within a few hundred yards of people's homes, schools and playgrounds.

A few years ago there was a malfunction at one of the sulphuric acid plants in Trafford Park. A big joke was made of the incident because young ladies working in office blocks on the other side of the ship canal in Salford found that their tights were

disintegrating. This is a serious matter, not a laughing matter. One must wonder what effect such malfunctions and the continuing emission of wastes into the atmosphere will have.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give my constituents some reassurance on this matter.

11.33 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Atkins) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on raising a matter which is of great concern to him. In his own inimitable way, my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has spoken about the concerns of his constituents. The hon. Member for Stretford also referred to the anxiety of the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). They will all know that I have come to this job afresh, and while I am familar with Trafford Park as an industrial site of great significance, and with both of the Old Traffords in

Column 677

the area, I am not as familar with the detail of this case as I shall inevitably become. I have considerable sympathy with the points that hon. Members have raised and understand their concern. There has been a great deal of publicity in recent times related to problems associated with the movement and disposal of various kinds of waste and that has coincided with the growing and welcome public awareness and concern over the protection of our environment. It is not surprising that in this climate of opinion proposals for large new waste incinerators tend to generate genuine apprehensions, expressed across the House this morning, among people living and working in nearby areas who fear that the quality of the air they breathe may suffer as a result.

One can readily understand the feelings of the people of Salford and Trafford who, having seen, as my hon. Friend eloquently described, all that has been done since the 1950s to clean their air of smoke and pollutants, feel that they may now be facing a new, and perhaps more harmful, if less visible, threat. It is natural that they should feel that way, and that they should seek to have that threat removed from their locality. But, as hon. Members know, a statutory framework of control exists and is being operated to protect their interests. The operation of clinical and chemical waste incinerators of the kind being proposed by Leigh Environmental at Trafford Park is a scheduled process under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, and the Health and Safety (Emissions into the Atmosphere) (Amendment) Regulations 1989. The incinerators, therefore, will be required to be registered with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution before they are permitted to operate. They will also be required to use the best practicable means to prevent the emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances and for rendering harmless any which may be emitted. This requirement will apply to discharges occurring from anywhere on the premises as well as from the chimneys. It relates to the manner in which the plant is operated as well as to the provision of systems and equipment.

Special wastes regulations will apply to materials arriving at the site as well as to solid wastes leaving it, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be consulted by the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority about the terms of the licence for the disposal of these wastes.

There is therefore in being a comprehensive system under which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution--the national regulatory body--will apply detailed control over operations at the incinerators, should they be built. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is of course closely aware of what is proposed and I understand has raised no objection to the planning application.

The controls apply to the operation of the plant but its development is also subject to the normal processes of planning control. To a large extent, that is the substance of this debate. Planning controls are concerned with regulating the development and use of land in the public interest, an expression which, on the face of it, is extremely wide. In general, however, it is unnecessary and unreasonable to seek through planning control to duplicate controls that operate under separate and more specific legislation. Nevertheless, there may be occasions when the use of planning controls is justified. Local authorities were advised in the Department's circular 11 of 1981, on clean air, that

Column 678

"Planning permission should be refused only where the authority is satisfied that the development in question would result in a significant deterioration of local air quality even after the use of specific process to control pollution".

It is open to planning authorities to refuse permission for a particular development when that development will be registered by HMIP, provided that they are satisfied, having regard to all the material considerations, that the effect on the atmosphere is unacceptable, or that it is otherwise contrary to the public interest to allow the development to proceed.

These, then, are the control procedures operating in respect of the Trafford park incinerator proposals. The question arises whether the planning issues raised by them are such that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should intervene and call in the planning application for his own determination. This would have the advantage, for the objectors, that if my right hon. Friend did call in the applications, he would almost certainly arrange a public inquiry into them.

The vast majority of cases which are called in have already been referred to the Department as substantial departutes from the operative development plan for the area. In the case of the incinerator proposals, I understand that Trafford park development corporation has not treated it as a departure from the plan. That is not to say that the application could not be called in, but in this situation very strong grounds for doing so would be needed. Hon. Members are concerned that the local planning authority in this instance is an urban development corporation and not a local authority and, moreover, that the effects of the incinerators, should there be any, are more likely to be felt by people outside the corporation's area than those within it. Hon. Members have made the point that it is on the edge of the site.

It is true that the corporation has a duty to secure the regeneration of Trafford Park and therefore seek to promote investment and development there, but the corporation is also a local planning authority with the same responsibilities for controlling development as other planning authorities. It has the same duties with regard to giving publicity to applications and for consulting other authorities, and, like other planning authorities, takes into account representations made to it.

I have no doubt that Trafford Park development corporation takes these duties seriously and will take careful and full account of the understandable fears of its neighbours, and of evidence about the possible consequences of operating the incinerators. Indeed, it seems to me that a corporation in whose interest it is to promote a good image of its area, is most unlikely to give less weight to questions of the sort than other authorities.

I therefore do not consider that the fact that these applications are being considered by a development corporation, or the fact that much of the concern that it is causing arises in neighbouring areas, are in themselves issues of a nature which would justify intervention by my right hon. Friend. I see no reason to suppose that the corporation will not consider all the representations and objections made most eloquently and forcefully by the hon. Member for Stretchford and by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, and that it will not make a decision based on all the material considerations.

In coming to a decision, the corporation will have the benefit of the environmental statement prepared for the

Column 679

applicants and submitted with the planning application. In accordance with the relevant regulations, the statement has been placed on deposit with the application and has been available for public inspection since 5 April. There has, therefore, been time for other authorities and bodies to study it and to prepare cases against it. I am sure that the development corporation will consider any such cases most carefully.

On the evidence so far before the Department--I repeat those words for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stretford and my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme on the evidence so far before the Department, I am not persuaded that a sufficient case has been made for taking the exceptional step of calling in the planning application. I understand people's fears about the proposal, but I do not think that fears alone, unsubstantiated by evidence, are sufficient to justify calling in the application. I can assure hon. Members, however, that all that has been said today, and any new evidence and representations that may emerge, will be carefully considered and appropriate action taken by me and my right hon. Friend if it is necessary to do so.

Royal Assent

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and one Measure :

Appropriation Act 1990

Finance Act 1990

Government Trading Act 1990

Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990

Representation of the People Act 1990

Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Act 1990

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990

Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990

Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990

River Tees Barrage and Crossing Act 1990

Hasmonean High School Act 1990

Associated British Ports Act 1990

Medway Tunnel Act 1990

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Act 1990 City of London (Various Powers) Act 1990

British Railways Act 1990

Penzance South Pier Extension Act 1990

Great Yarmouth Port Authority Act 1990

Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990

Column 680

Water Pollution (Camelford)

11.44 am

Mr. Gerrard Neale (Cornwall, North) : I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of the pollution at the Camelford water treatment works, which occurred on 6 July 1988. The matter has been given undue prominence again during the past few days and I believe that it should be debated in the House and that, on this occasion, we should try to get the facts straight.

I intend to rehearse a few of the details surrounding the incident and its immediate aftermath ; to deal with certain points that arose from the Lawrence report, which was produced as a result of studying what had happened ; to deal with elements of the Clayton report, which was an independent medical inquiry, to deal with certain specific issues, such as whether there has been a cover-up, whether there should be a public inquiry, the contribution of the press and the media and then to consider certain recommendations of the Clayton report.

Camelford and its immediate surrounding area is one of the most attractive parts of the west country. Hon. Members who represent the west country speak highly of our constituency environment. We are proud of it. The area around Camelford, stretching out from Port Issac, Tintagel and Boscastle is one of the prettiest areas in my constituency. In 1988, its faith in the standard of its water supply was shattered as a result of an event on 6 July. It was only during the next few days that some elements of the scale of the incident became known when people had the most extraordinary reactions when using the water in tea and coffee or for washing. Many dead fish were seen in local streams and rivers. However, at the same time, people were being assured by representatives of the water authority--this was before privatisation--that the water was perfectly safe to use and to drink. When I was in the constituency, I heard such reassurances being given on the local radio.

It has since become clear that in the middle of the following week the board of the water authority knew exactly what had happened and decided, in the interests of public confidence and not causing undue alarm, not to tell the public what had happened.

In the first week following the incident, suspicion and alarm grew. The press discovered that the incident had been caused by a lorry tipping 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate into the wrong tank at the treatment works, thereby polluting drinking water which was entering the main system on the Lowermoor network. The Lawrence inquiry, which was set up by the water authority, reported at the beginning of August, setting out the full details of exactly what happened and why.

An appalling chapter of incidents had led to the pollution of the water supply. The inquiry reported the most desperately awful accounting between various members of the water authority dealing with the incident. It revealed gross lapses of security ; the delivery lorry driver had a key to the treatment works and that key fitted every padlock on the premises ; there were no signs to the various tanks so it is little wonder that the new driver visiting the site for the first time had little or no idea where to tip the chemical.

I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in his place. During the months following the incident he has shared my concern. He will

Column 681

recall that I was particularly outspoken at the time about the attitudes and actions of the water authority and the board. I made certain demands of the Secretary of State which were not heeded at the time.

However, exactly what happened has been made quite clear. A lorry tipped 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate into the wrong tank, thus polluting the water supply. The water authority reacted to the inquiry's report by accepting responsibility for the incident, apologising for it, and subsequently meeting certain clear-cut claims for loss.

From August to December 1988, suspicion grew that the public were not being told the truth. One of the reasons why I was so outspoken at the time of the publication of the Lawrence report was that, because the public had not been told immediately about what had happened, subsequently they found any pronouncement about it hard to believe.

In so far as my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) have any influence on any public institutions in future, I urge them to make absolutely certain that when those institutions commit an error they are directed to publish the facts immediately, because if they do not there are the most profound effects on the local population.

Between August and December 1988 various comments were made--many without foundation. We were informed that the sludge in the bottom of the tank into which the aluminium sulphate had been poured meant that the aluminium sulphate would have entered the water supply far more quickly than had previously been thought, and that information caused alarm. It is also clear that a number of people were still complaining about feeling unwell.

I went to see the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who is now the Minister of State, Department of Transport, just before Christmas 1988. I was accompanied by Walter Roberts from Camelford whom I thank for all his efforts. We impressed upon the Minister that he should set up an independent medical inquiry, which was subsequently established under the chairmanship of Professor Barbara Clayton. It was appointed on 11 January 1989 and began its research into the problems.

Before the setting up of the inquiry, it was established that, with one exception, there was considerable scepticism among all the local general practitioners that there had been any unusual referrals of patients to them as a result of the incident. They could not detect any particular abnormalities in the referrals. Nevertheless, the panel, which included some extremely eminent people, considered the incident in great detail. Subsequently it reported that the Camelford incident had resulted in no long-term health effects. It judged that the worst possible level of aluminium contained in the water supply that could have been consumed by any of my constituents could not have led to permanent health damage.

Hon. Members who are interested in these matters will know that Professor Edwardson of Newcastle general hospital was a member of the committee. He is a renowned expert in the subject and was impressive in giving evidence at the publication of the findings. He told those present that he and a laboratory assistant had drunk a sample of the worst possible level of aluminium that could have been consumed and had suffered no ill effects. He also said that considerable work on aluminium intake had been done at Newcastle general hospital and elsewhere. Work had been

Column 682

carried out on renal patients who, by the nature of their problem, consume over much longer periods far higher levels of aluminium than were ever experienced in the Camelford area. Such work has shown that it takes a long time of sustained high-level intake before any material effect is registered.

After the report was published and as a result of the incidents I have described, there were people only too ready to dispute its findings, question its efficacy and challenge the reputation of those on the panel. I must tell the House and my hon. Friend the Minister that I did not join in any of that. I was happy with the way in which the report had dealt with the matter. I was further reassured because Professor Edwardson said that if I ever needed any further information from him, I could obtain it.

It has been suggested in various correspondence and by certain people affected by the incident or those seeking to help them that there has been a cover-up. As the local Member of Parliament I have sought to apply such judgment and experience as I have--at times, in scientific matters, it seems to have been far too little--to discover whether that is the case. I have come across no evidence of a cover-up, though I remind the House of the unfortunate decision made at the start when the water authority decided not to inform the public until the publication of the Lawrence report.

Ministers have always been extremely helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the new Minister have all been open and helpful. This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as Under-Secretary of State for Health. The health authority has done all it can to help, but it is not for the health authority to prove that certain problems relate to the Camelford incident. It is charged with the duty of looking after public health. As I have said, I have found no evidence of a cover-up and that should be placed on the record.

People have asked--and are asking again as a result of the publicity this week--for some form of judicial review or public inquiry. I hope that whenever that is put to my hon. Friend the Minister he will see to it that his officials remind him, by inserting the word "resist" on his brief, that that would not be a good idea. An enormous amount of time and effort would be taken up by a public inquiry which would tell us nothing that we do not already know. We know exactly what happened and who was responsible, because they have accepted responsibility and even paid damages. We are left with a medical problem, which we must consider.

I am a great believer in freedom of speech and certainly of the press and I have always expressed doubt when pressures have been exerted in this place to curtail it. However, I have been astonished by some of the reports in the national press and other media. They seem to accept only the evidence and opinons of certain people to prove a certain point and content themselves solely with trying to promote that point without scientific evidence to back it. Often, they do not give people who hold an opposite view the chance to contribute to articles or to give their view of statements that are made.

There has been a litany of such cases, and I shall refer to the Clayton report, the independent inquiry into the health aspects of this incident, which says in its conclusions and recommendations :

Column 683

"Serious anxiety about the possibilities of long-term effects has been widespread in the community. Much of the continuing anxiety is attributable to reports in newspapers, radio and television which have given prominence to alarming statements by some scientists concerning the long-term effects for which there is no adequate scientific foundation."

I can only urge those who are rightly interested in the subject to ensure that they take proper account of that and seek to advance our understanding of the medical implications of the incident rather than merely channel it in ways that appeal to some political, environmental and other interests, because that is not in the best interests of my constituents, who are trying to discover why some of them are undoubtedly ill and have been proved to be ill.

I suspect that were you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ask hon. Members about what they had read in the press or seen on the media in the past few days, their clear impression would be that brain damage has been caused as a result of this incident. The first sentence of a press release of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority, which was issued with a recently published paper that caused the media activity in the past few days, says :

"Despite tests, no scientific proof has been produced that contaminated water two years ago affected the memory or caused major life changes for the people in the Camelford area who drank it." The collection of papers on the Lowermoor incident which were published with the press release show nothing that links cases of illness to the incident. We must be careful about what we say. The conclusions and recommendations of the Clayton report state : "10. An appropriate expert organisation should be designated to provide the directors of public health with authoritative medical and toxicological advice without delay in the event of an incident. A national panel should be established comprised of independent scientists whose expertise is most likely to be relevant and who would be willing to assist the designated organisation at short notice.

11. In the event that members of the public have been exposed to chemically contaminated waste as a result of an incident, the designated organisation should advise the directors of public health of clinical tests relevant to assessment of exposure and to the diagnosis and treatment of patients."

I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that his predecessor accepted the report's findings and I should be interested to hear what steps have been taken to establish a panel. One of the complaints made by local doctors, the health authority and certain integrated parties is that they have not been able to find out from the acknowledged experts what they should do. I would not want to put any colleague through what faced north Cornwall or through the difficulty that we faced in not being able to direct people to expert information. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take whatever steps remain to be taken to ensure that a panel is established quickly and that every director of public health is informed of its existence and how to get information about it quickly. That important adjunct to their service should be available.

The final recommendation in the Clayton report states : "In the event that expert advice indicates a serious possibility of long-term harm, clinical surveillance and epidemiological following should be implemented."

Knowing my hon. Friend the Minister, I am certain that, unless I admit that there is a contradiction in my contribution, he will remind me of one. I have said that I have not found any evidence that has suggested to me, as

Column 684

a Member of Parliament who is deeply interested in this matter, any connection between the illness of certain people which has been reported and the incident on 6 July. If I find that there is such evidence, I shall do whatever I can to ensure that it is used in the right way. I have established with Professor Edwardson of the Clayton panel that the latest series of papers issued change his opinion not one jot. He remains absolutely convinced that there is no evidence of a connection.

In connection with that final recommendation of the Clayton report, I must say this. As I have admitted, in a number of cases the press and media have been gravely irresponsible in their coverage of this matter. There have been some excellent and balanced reports, but there have been reports--no doubt there will be more--that have been grossly unbalanced and have pushed a particular line. No doubt, for their own reasons, some outside this place will want to do the same. The cumulative effect on my constituents' anxiety is profound. I concede that this is true throughout the country but people in Camelford are ill and the doctors cannot say why. Moreover, the reports that have been made and even the papers that have been issued contain comments to the effect that the authors can see no causal link but that they cannot rule out the possibility of a connection. It is to the great credit of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority that it is continuing to look at the evidence that is coming to it and to press for further research. For example, a report on pregnancy tests in the area is almost completed.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept that, although there is no such evidence, recommendation 11 should be activated for the benefit of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority and that the health authority should be encouraged--in so far as it needs any encouragement--to set up a panel of acknowledged experts on the various elements of the matter to whom it can refer and whom it can ask to research the matter. I say that simply because I do not have the conviction that this is the last time that the matter will blow up in the press and media. I think that it will happen again and again because there are too many grey areas with which it is impossible to deal. Every time that happens, it will cause anxiety and problems.

I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that he intends not to institute a public inquiry, because that would be irrelevant and would divert too much attention away from the medical research that needs to be done. I hope that, at every possible opportunity, he will encourage the publication of the correct story and the known evidence, to reassure my constituents of the truth on every possible occasion. I hope that he will ensure that the panel to deal with incidents across the country is established quickly and made known to health authorities throughout England and Wales. I hope that he will assist the health authority in any way possible to set up its own panel to advise it.

Perhaps at the same time my hon. Friend could make it clear that, like me, he has no evidence to suggest that the water supply is now in any way unsafe and that we are talking about a historical incident. Perhaps he will make it clear that it is perfectly safe for people to live in Camelford, to consume the water and to go on holiday there and have a jolly good time. Finally, will he confirm that if, at some stage, someone finds proof and wishes to

Column 685

sue those responsible, either the new privatised company or the existing residuary water authority will deal with the matter? 12.14 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell) rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : I take it that the Minister has the leave of the House to speak again. That is so.

Mr. Dorrell : I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to speak twice. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) have considerable reason to be grateful to him for the effective way in which he has sought to represent their concerns and to address the real issues that arose from the incident which occurred more than two years ago.

My hon. Friend has given the background facts of the incident, so I shall not weary the House by repeating them. He has also demonstrated once again that he is the full master of the facts surrounding the incident and that he is well capable of drawing out the key issues of concern to his constituents--the public concerns arising from the incident have been real and have to be addressed--and of ensuring that substantial facts are addressed and that facts are distinguished from unfounded allegations, and, perhaps even worse, the allegations of those who have a malicious intent in using public concerns for their own short-term gains.

The real issues that arise from the Camelford incident can broadly be divided into two headings. First, there are the operational issues of a water undertaking and, secondly, there are the public health issues and the concern about whether the Camelford incident resulted in identifiable health risks for those who drank the admittedly polluted water.

As my hon. Friend said, the operational aspects were the nexus of the issues addressed by the Lawrence report, published in August 1988, which provided a clear analysis of the undoubted shortcomings that led to the incident. There were clear shortcomings of management which the report identified. The South West water authority took steps to rectify those.

My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment asked all water undertakings to review their management and operating procedures, their on-site security, their procedures for receiving chemicals, their monitoring of the quality of treated water and their emergency plans. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), now the Secretary of State for Employment but then the Minister responsible for water, reported to the House in April 1989 that a number of improved operational procedures had been adopted in the water industry following that review.

Therefore, the water industry can legitimately claim that it took effective action to learn the lessons of the incident and then took steps to ensure that those lessons were disseminated and that action was taken to try to minimise the risk of such an incident recurring. Those were the management issues addressed by the Lawrence report. There was also the question of the handling of public information at the time of the incident,

Next Section

Home Page