| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 686
and I am sure that my hon. Friend was right to emphasise the necessity for any undertaker finding itself in that position to publish the facts immediately.Any attempt by an undertaker, whether it is in the public or private sectors is irrelevant, to conceal facts operates against its own interests and, more importantly, against the public interest. To draw on an unrelated experience of mine as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Energy at the time of the Chernobyl disaster, that was precisely the case that my right hon. Friend sought to press on the Russian Government. Where there is a public health concern, it is in everyone's interests, including the undertaking's, that the facts are published immediately. That did not happen in this case and it is a cause of legitimate criticism which is accepted by the South West water authority.
It is important for us to control such criticism because, although it is true that the authority did not act as it should have acted at the time of the incident, that shortcoming was addressed within two months of the incident, and that addressing of the issue is now more than two years ago. So although there was a legitimate cause of concern at the time, it is no longer a ground for criticising the way in which any of those active or involved have operated since the publication of the Lawrence report and since the issues have been in the public arena.
However, as my hon. Friend correctly said, although the operational facts were published and were in the public domain relatively quickly--not quickly enough, but relatively quickly--after the incident, public concern continued to develop, and that led my predecessor to set up the medical inquiry under Professor Dame Barbara Clayton. That was established on 11 January 1989. That inquiry was set up to address the second nexus of issues, the public health questions, and to see whether those who drank the polluted water suffered a direct health consequence as a result of drinking it.
The committee that was set up by my predecessor had eminent membership, people who used their scientific experience to assess a specific scientific question. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is as important in assessing scientific cause and effect to insist on rigorous science as it is to insist on the availability of public information.
I believe that my predecessor, by setting up that committee and by staffing it with experts in the field, and then by insisting that Government comment on the subject, took account of the rigorous science that was produced by that committee, proceeded in the right way.
Public information must be available, but if we are talking about scientific cause and effect--about an assessment of whether the health of individuals was damaged by a particular incident--that is not a question on which a politician is qualified to comment. It is a question of medical fact. I am not a doctor, nor was my predecessor and, with respect to my hon. Friend, nor is he. We have no choice as politicians but to rely, in relation to technical and scientific questions, on the technical and scientific advice that we receive from the eminent bodies that we set up precisely for the purpose of giving us that advice.
My hon. Friend asked a series of questions. He asked whether there had been a cover-up, and I agree with the way in which he addressed that issue. As I said, everyone acknowledges that inadequate information was available in the first few weeks. I do not believe that is any longer the case. From the time of the publication of the Lawrence
Column 687
report, the commitment has been clear, both on operational and health questions, and that has been to ensure that the information available is made public. That has been a shared commitment by the Government, the health authority and the water authority, and any suggestion of a cover-up seems entirely misplaced.My hon. Friend asked whether there should be a public inquiry. It is always too easy when faced with public concern to say that the only way to handle it is to set up another public inquiry. In this case, inquiries have sat and the facts--with a few exceptions to which I shall come--have been established. If the call is to set up a public inquiry, the first question to be addressed to those who espouse that call is : what will the public inquiry inquire into? I do not believe that any case can be made out for conducting a public inquiry into the operational issues arising from the incident, because there is no sphere of ignorance into which a public inquiry can inquire. The facts are known ; they are in the public domain. There is no legitimate case for a public inquiry on those issues.
As to whether there is a case for a public inquiry into the medical issues, it seems at the very least highly arguable whether a public inquiry is a legitimate instrument for inquiring into medical matters. In any case, the bulk of the medical questions have already been addressed, although there are some follow-on questions arising as a result of the papers of the February seminar, which were published this week, and about which I shall say more later. There does not seem to be a case for a public inquiry into either operational or medical issues. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North wishes me to give an assurance that I shall not, on the facts currently available to me, establish an inquiry, I am happy to do so.
I have already referred to the document published this week, and it is important to be clear about that document. It is a publication containing papers that were presented to a seminar earlier this year to consider specific health trends following the Camelford incident. None of the papers in that document seeks to establish, or does establish, a casual link between the conditions described in the papers and the Camelford incident, but the papers pose questions that merit further examination.
The authors of many of the papers presented to the conference, while not claiming that their studies demonstrate a causal link between exposure to aluminium in water and the long-term medical conditions described in their papers, believe that some issues require further
Column 688
attention, particularly the serum aluminium results, which are thought interesting because they fit in with current understanding of how the body metabolises aluminium.No clear explanation has been given and the matter could easily be worth further investigation. The issue needs confirmation and further study, as is usual with any new scientific data, especially where they conflict with established findings. The authors do not confirm that ill-health experienced by people in Camelford is due to aluminium in water or raised levels of aluminium in water, but it seems that those issues require further attention and the health authority has already said that it will set in motion the machinery for further examination of those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North talked about the recommendations of the Clayton report. He rightly said that my predecessor has already committed the Government to accept that report's recommendations in full. He specifically drew my attention to recommendations 10 and 11, and asked what progress had been made on the setting up of those committees. My Department is currently completing consideration of the means to establish the organisation to provide authoritative medical and toxicological advice should any incident occur. We shall shortly be announcing the appointment of the national panel that was called for in those two recommendations. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that those two recommendations, and the other recommendations of the Clayton report, will be not only accepted, but acted on by the Government. My hon. Friend talked about recommendation 13 and asked for some more follow-up work to be done to allay the fears that still exist. The papers that were published following the seminar in February raise specific medical questions on which further medical advice is necessary, and that medical advice will be sought. Such a specific scientific question that must be addressed on a rigorous scientific basis, and not by the bandying of political and public concerns through the media. Such questions will be addressed in the laboratory and not in the television studio.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North on the way in which he has represented his contituents' concerns, and I share his commitment to ensure that it is essential that all those involved are open with information concerning public health. There is no public interest to be served by concealment. I share also
Column 689
Heyope, Knighton (Fire)
12.30 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor) : I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in an Adjournment debate on the important subject of the tyre dump fire at Heyope, Knucklas, near Knighton in my constituency. I have tried on two previous occasions to secure such a debate. People often say, "Three times for a Welshman" ; on this third occasion, I have been lucky enough to bring the matter to the attention of the House. I am especially glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is present to deal with my constituents' anxieties.
The fire was described on the front page of one of the tabloids as a "burning inferno" on the first day of the year, I suspect that the papers were short of news, but it made a dramatic headline none the less. However, it has become a forgotten fire. My objective is to give a balanced view and to come up with serious suggestions about how it can be tackled, while stressing the legitimate fears of my constituents for their community and for the precious environment in this lovely part of my native Wales.
Late in the day on Saturday 28 October 1989--ironically, one of the wettest days of the year--a fire was started at a tyre dump in Heyope. We believe that it was arson, but the police authority has yet to track down the perpetrators. That irresponsible act set light to some of the 10 million scrap tyres on the old dump, which lay in a dingle through which flowed Ffrwdwen brook. For those who are not familiar with the dingle, it is a deep wooded valley on the borders of Wales. Twenty years previously, the dump had been started by the predecessors of the Motorway Remoulds company of Knighton, in an age when the environment was not considered in the same light as today. The tyres became a serious pollution hazard as soon as they caught light. Before, when they were inert, they were not believed to be a pollution hazard. The resulting pollutants from the burning tyres ran into the brook, and the fire and fumes polluted the air. It took the Powys fire brigade nearly 10 days to get the fire under control, and it had to seek help from the Shropshire brigade to tackle the blaze. The fire services deserve our grateful thanks for controlling the fire.
The Motorway Remoulds company is a valuable local employer, employing some 110 people in Knighton. It could be said that the company is also performing a useful service in recycling tyres by retreading them. The only problem is that as a by-product there are many waste tyres, which are dumped at Heyope in the landfill site. The old site--which is still burning some nine months after the fire started--was licensed by the local authority, the then Radnorshire county council. A new site nearby was licensed about three years ago by Radnorshire district council. That is more strictly controlled under the council's interpretation of waste management paper No. 26. Tipping takes place in compartments and the tyres are shredded. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs commented on tyre dumps and on the Heyope site in its recent report on toxic waste disposal in Wales. I was a member of the Committee and its main recommendation was that the waste management guidelines for disposing of tyres should become a condition of any site license. It also
Column 690
recommended research into recycling programmes for worn tyres. The Select Committee's recommendations are extremely sound.During the Select Committee's study two factors emerged about the interpretation of waste management paper No. 26. They came to light in a letter from the Clerk of the Committee to the technical director of environmental services of Radnor district council, Mr. Lance Cartwright, who replied to inquiries about the Committee's interest in the fire. The Radnorshire environmental health officer said : "The telephone call with which the principal EHO Cartwright received.
I would confirm that the above facility was licensed in accordance with our understanding of waste management paper 26."
He quotes the relevant sections of the document and says that the site is mono-disposal whereas paragraphs in the waste management paper No. 26 refer to the disposal of tyres on a co-disposal site. He goes on :
"In the light of recent events I would suggest that waste management paper 26 could be revised so as to more fully cover the situation of either mono or co-disposal sites."
Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution commented on that in a letter to the Committee on 9 March :
"Though the section on the disposal of tyres in waste management paper 26 is contained in the chapter on co-disposal, I think the opening sentence is very clear in advising against the large scale disposal of tyres, be this at mono or co-disposal sites. The fact that mono-disposal is not mentioned specifically should be read as this form of disposal being not recommended. However, I do accept that this advice against the large scale mono-disposal of tyres is not as clear as it should be. When we revise waste management paper 26 we shall take the opportunity to make clear our strong advice against the disposal of shredded tyres in other than minor quantities."
That shows that there is some confusion about waste management paper No. 26. The local authority has interpreted it in one way and Her Majesty's nspectorate of pollution has interpreted it in another. The matter must be clarified.
The pollution caused by the fire gave rise to great worry in the area. The bodies dealing with the effects of the pollution are the National Rivers Authority, Radnor district council and Motorway Remoulds Ltd. At one stage Harwell was called in. In addition, Powys fire service has played an invaluable role. The pollution has affected water courses, especially the Ffrwdwen brook, and air pollution has also been experienced. Local people are understandably worried and have formed an effective tyre fire association. They fear that the fire may flare up and that the area may have to be evacuated. There was a small outbreak on 23 June but fortunately it was extinguished.
I congratulate the NRA on its effective monitoring of pollution and its preventive action. The NRA told me that from 12.15 pm on 29 October the local pollution control officer was at the scene. The brook flows into the River Teme, and approximately 50 miles downstream, water is extracted for drinking purposes. I am informed that up to 4 million consumers in the west midlands depend on that supply. The NRA ensured that pollution did not enter the river Teme after the initial outbreak, although traces of phenol were found as far downstream as Tenbury in the first two days.
Biological deterioration has been noticed in the Ffrwdwen brook up to one mile downstream from the fire site. Peak phenol pollution reached a brief high after the intitial fire of 2,000 mg per litre, but that fell rapidly to low
Column 691
levels. The brook breached EC drinking water standards three times in respect of phenol concentration in the initial stages. Other chemicals present were cyanide and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which are carcinogenic. At no time was the brook or the river Teme above European drinking water standards in this respect and the NRA is continuing to monitor the situation.Radnorshire district council engaged Harwell to investigate air pollution, and a brief report was produced at a cost of £500. However, monitoring of air pollution has been inadequate, and it has not produced detailed information comparable to that available from the NRA in respect of water pollution.
Air pollution is of major concern to residents, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure them. They would like the site to be regularly monitored for air pollution, although I suspect that insufficient resources are available to do that adequately. No problem may be evident on a superficial examination, but the local population needs more convincing reassurances.
A small authority such as Radnorshire needs assistance because it cannot respond alone. I ask the Minister to note the recommendations of the Welsh Select Committee regarding waste disposal authorities and the need to provide resources on a larger scale, and on a regional scale in Wales. The pollution inspectorate is inadequately resourced in Wales. That was highlighted in the Welsh Select Committee's report. The Principality has only two HMIP officials and its office is moving to Bristol.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist) indicated dissent.
Mr. Livsey : The Minister indicates otherwise, so perhaps he will put the record straight when he replies.
Motorway Remoulds deserves some sympathy. The company is trying hard to overcome its problems, but a long-term solution must be found. The priority must be to put out the fire quickly. The company is digging out some of the tyres and damping down those that are exposed and are still burning. That is a long job, and it presents hazards in terms of run-off into the local stream. It is also vital to maintain employment at the Knighton factory, which provides jobs for 110 people.
The long-term future of the dump must be examined with the ultimate objective of phasing it out. Recycling should be at the top of the agenda, and the production of rubber crumbs, and of rubber for playgrounds and for other purposes, should be investigated. The feasibility of tyre burning in power production should also be examined, although a plant would cost £38 million. However, that option would dispose of 12 million tyres annually, which is roughly half the number dumped in Britain each year. The contents of tyres are complex. Rubber now constitutes only a minor part of a tyre. Carbon black and metals of various kinds are also used.
I ask for more resources from the Welsh Office and from the tyre industry to put out the fire, even if it costs as much as £100,000 to do so.
I hope that the Minister will address the problem of resources for a small authority such as Radnor. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution must be beefed up, with a full-time director and office in Wales at least six staff. Radnorshire district council needs more resources. I
Column 692
believe that the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs need to be taken on board.I am sure that the Minister will have studied the Department of Trade and Industry report on recycling and disposal of tyres. About 23 million tyres are dumped annually in the United Kingdom and we need a regulatory framework such as exists in other countries. For example, in West Germany there is a payment of DM 100 per tonne for dumping tyres.
The report says that historically landfill is cheap but is not now appropriate, that the United Kingdom is backward with proposals for recycling and that we need recycling legislation.
The local community is worried about a number of matters : it wants regular air tests, monitoring for health risks to children, who should be kept away from the stream, evacuation procedures, the continuation of water monitoring and monitoring of potential health risks.
The Heyope fire must be put out now. We need to maintain jobs. We need the resources to tackle environmental pollution, and to clear it up. We need weekly information to be provided to the local community so that residents know what progress is being made on the site. We also need to review landfill procedures under waste management paper No. 26 and we need to legislate.
Will the Minister promise future legislation, based on the DTI report, so that all tyres are recycled or burned, and will he now initiate a five-year programme to bring that about?
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) on bringing this subject to the attention of the House, even at this late stage. Otherwise, I might have been tempted to remain in his constituency after my visit to the Royal Welsh show yesterday. I am rather surprised that, as a farmer, he has not been there this week. It certainly brings great credit to agriculture and, with the present fine weather, offers a marvellous scene for young and old and for those people who want to learn about the industry.
The Heyope fire is a matter of considerable concern to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and he will, I am sure, be interested to know that when the deputy chief environmental health officer of Radnorshire district council visited the site on Monday of this week, there was no sign of smoke there at all. However, the work dealing with this fire is clearly still continuing, and we hope that the contractors will be able to extinguish the remains of it before very long--that is, this summer.
The site is a waste disposal site, operated under licence from Radnorshire district council. The council, as waste disposal authority for its area, is responsible for licensing all private sector waste disposal sites, passing resolutions for any sites operated by the council, and carrying out all site inspection and enforcement duties required under part 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
Similarly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the duty of the National Rivers Authority to protect surface and ground waters against pollution and to ensure that flora and fauna are protected. The council granted a waste disposal licence to Motorway Remoulds Ltd, in 1982. The licence was
Column 693
granted for the disposal of scrap tyres at a site specified as Batches Dingle, Heyope, Knighton and it stipulated that the disposal of tyres at this site should be limited to 5 tonnes per day. As waste disposal is a locally determined matter, the regulation of this service is the responsibility of the district council, and under the provisions of the Act it is the council's responsibility to take the steps needed for the purpose of ensuring that the activities to which the licence relates do not cause pollution of water, or damage to public health, or become seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality affected by the activities.Thirteen conditions were attached to the licence for controlling the landfill operation. Notable among these conditions were the requirements to restrict disposal activities to the disposal of tyres ; that the site should be securely fenced ; that the watercourse flowing through the site should be culverted and that fire fighting equipment should be provided on site to meet the requirements of the chief fire officer. A further licence condition states that the whole site shall be covered with soil to a depth of at least 9 in and the soil maintained at this depth to allow consolidation to take place. In 1987, in agreement with the company, the council revised the conditions of the site licence to include a condition requiring the operator to tip the tyres within contained areas. The purpose of this condition was to contain the possibility of a fire outbreak to the "contained" area, but insufficient detail is contained within the licence to prescribe the nature and extent of the containment. A further condition sets out the requirement that the site access road shall be kept in a good state of repair, sufficient for the access of any fire-fighting equipment that may be called.
Following the fire, Radnorshire district council proposed further amendments to provide greater clarity about the provision of fire-proof barriers. I understand that a meeting to consider that in detail is to be held between representatives of the council, the fire authority and the National Rivers Authority on 1 August, which is next week.
The operator of the site, Motorway Remoulds Ltd., collects worn tyres from a nationwide network and transports them regularly to its factory at Knighton for reprocessing. I understand that the company's selection and test procedures reject on average about 2,000 tyres per week which are sent for disposal to the Heyope waste disposal site. The outbreak of fire occurred ironically on 29 October last year--one of the rainest nights of last autumn, and as the hon. Gentleman said, it has been suggested that it was started deliberately, but it is impossible to tell.
The district council visits the site on a regular basis to advise where necessary both on environmental health grounds and waste disposal activities. Similarly, the National Rivers Authority is visiting the site fortnightly to ensure that risk of pollution to the stream passing through the site is minimised.
To reinforce pollution prevention activities filter units have been installed in the bed of the stream within the confines of the site to prevent oily waste from the landfill area discharging into the stream. This oily waste is collected in 45-gallon steel drums and transported off site by contractors for disposal at a suitably licensed site.
Column 694
Polluted water produced during fire-fighting activities is being stored and recycled on site in a closed loop system, so no polluted water is entering the stream.Inspectors from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are liaising with the regulatory authorities, providing advice, where considered necessary. I assure the hon. Gentleman that HMIP covers all forms of pollution and has a staff of seven in its Cardiff office. That office will remain--it is not going over the channel. As I have said, the inspectors liaise regularly with the local authority.
The most recent visit by a member of the inspectorate took place on 16 July. As there had been a partial collapse of the sealed surface area of the site on 23 June, which had resulted in dark smoke being emitted. That had been quickly brought under control by the site contractors present on site. The fire service had attended on that occasion, but fortunately, before the fire service arrived, the fire had already been dealt with by resealing the collapsed areas with inert material stored on site. No other fire outbreak has occurred at the site since that date.
The company has engaged consultants to advise it on the most appropriate measures, and work is currently being undertaken to excavate the burning tyres, to douse them thoroughly with water, and to spread them over the stabilised area of the site to cool off. The cool material is, I understand, then reintroduced into the lower tipped area where the fire has been extinguished, and the mass of waste consolidated and resealed. I understand that the contractors are gradually working their way up the valley, excavating partially pyrolised waste, cooling it with water and repositioning it in a non-active area of the site. I understand that large clouds of steam are emitted when new areas are opened up and watered, but no polluted water is leaving the site--all water seeping from the base is filtered and recirculated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will feel reassured by that.
Mr. Livsey : I appreciate what the Minister is saying about water pollution, but my constituents also need reassurance about air pollution. Does the Minister have any plans to do anything about that?
Mr. Grist : As I mentioned, HMIP covers various forms of pollution. The first responsibility falls on the local council, and environmental health officers are qualified to reach a preliminary conclusion on that. If the environmental health officer or the HMIP inspector who calls regularly feels that it should be examined in greater depth, I am sure that it would be, but official bodies are already in place to take care of that issue and they are better qualified than the hon. Gentleman or me to do so.
Two tracked excavators are deployed to excavate the area. The excavation and reconsolidation of the tipped material will continue until all hot zones have been treated, and I understand that most of the work may be completed towards the end of this or next month. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of water pollution, and the fact that there is a public water supply intake some 50 miles downstream of the site. There has been some pollution of streams in the immediate vicinity of the fire, as I explained in a written parliamentary reply to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 5 March. The advice I have now is that there has been no significant pollution to date and that no polluted water is leaving the site.
Column 695
The National Rivers Authority is maintaining bunds across the river where it emerges from the culvert to the tip. It is monitoring the water quality regularly and will continue to do so until such time as this particular problem has been sorted out.The hon. Gentleman mentioned several other matters. I should draw attention to the fact that the Government have a wide variety of proposals for recycling tyres and for updating waste management paper No. 26, which was referred to in the report of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. The Committee took the trouble to mention the reference in that waste management paper to recommended practices for the disposal of tyres. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured that the British tyre industry is also taking the matter seriously. On the Select Committee's first recommendation, we propose to enhance the status of waste management papers so that the authorities will be obliged to take regard of their recommendations instead of merely taking note of them in carrying out their duties of licensing and enforcement.
We recognise the size of the problem created by the large numbers of tyres being disposed of annually, and have for some years been encouraging the development of effective solutions. In November 1989, the Department of Trade and Industry commissioned a major study by KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock aimed at finding economically efficient, environmentally sound and commercially viable methods for the recycling and disposal of used tyres.
As indicated in the Government's reply to the report of the Committee, the report of the study has been presented to the Department of Trade and Industry, and it is intended to discuss it in a working group representative of the interests concerned, including consumer and environmental bodies. I understand that preliminary meetings have been held already between officials and representatives of the tyre industry, motor traders and tyre retreaders.
Column 696
On atmospheric pollution, the Clean Air Act 1968 states : "dark smoke shall not be emitted from any industrial or trade premises and if, on any day, dark smoke is so emitted the occupiers of the premises and person who causes or permits the emission shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine."That legislation has been recently strengthened by the Control of Smoke Pollution Act 1989 which enables local authorities to prosecute for illegal night-time burning--where the colour of the smoke cannot be asertained--and to take action against anyone, not just the occupier of the land, who causes or permits dark smoke to be emitted. However, the statute makes allowances for inadvertencies and we feel that that might form sufficient defence in this particular case. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for more recycling in general. He should remember that last year the Government established an advisory group on recycling to help identify ways sharply to improve the United Kingdom's recycling performance. The group comprises representatives of industry, trade and commerce, district and county councils and voluntary and environmental organisations as well as central Government. The group has been focusing on domestic waste and looking at the recovery and recycling of a wide range of products and materials such as glass, paper, metals, plastics, tyres, textiles and comestibles. Its recommendations will be taken into account in the preparation of the forthcoming White Paper on the environment. If the hon. Gentleman waits for that White Paper and considers what is in the Environmental Protection Bill, he will find that most cases and most of the concerns which he rightly expressed today will be taken care of in those Government publications. This is a matter which concerns us all. The hon. Gentleman is right not merely to defend his constituents but to take an interest in something that concerns Britain and in which the European Community is taking an interest. He will be aware of the frightful fire in Canada. I am glad that his case is not as serious as that. Things are in hand and his constituents can be reassured.
Column 697
Ivory
1 pm
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the case of the firm of H. Harris Ltd. of St. Ives. It is a sad story. The firm has been in existence since 1800 and has always been under the same ownership. Let me make it clear that the owners are not related to me.
The firm moved from the east end of London to St. Ives during the war after its premises had been bombed. Since that time, until just over a year ago, it carried on a highly successful and respected business. It might seem rather odd that at one stage the only two firms of ivory cutters in the United Kingdom were in St. Ives. The second firm was a breakaway company from H. Harris. It existed for some years but subsequently closed and its business interests were taken over by the parent company. H. Harris was on the point of expanding until just over a year ago when the basis of its business was virtually destroyed overnight.
We all know of the grave and proper concern there has been in recent times- -it has been taken up by national newspapers and television--over the fate of the African elephant. We have all seen dramatic pictures on television of poachers at work carrying out their heinous, illegal trade in ivory. I am not denying that it is a big problem.
As a result of the publicity, Her Majesty's Government decided suddenly and without real warning to take unilateral, interim measures pending international action, hopefully to deal with the problem. I have considerable doubt about the ban that was imposed. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) taking his seat, as he has played an honourable role in trying to obtain a ban and international action. As I said, I am not criticising the eagerness of the Government or environmental agencies in taking action against the serious problem of poaching. My view, for what it is worth, is that the ban will probably succeed in driving the illegal trade underground and making it more difficult to control, while forcing out of business firms such as that in my constituency which have acted scrupulously over the years and dealt only in legal ivory. The ban fails to take account of the difference that exists in Africa over stocks of elephants. Attention has been focused properly on the Kenyan problem, but further south in Botswana there has been for many years a regulated trade in ivory and the stocks of elephants are increasing dramatically. Therefore, there has to be culling of the stocks and that has given rise to a legitimate and legal trade in ivory.
That trade has been controlled for many years through the convention on trade in endangered species. The firm in my constituency has always complied to the letter with all the requirements of CITES. It imports only legal ivory and, every time it does so, it has to undertake an elaborate certification procedure to show where the ivory came from. Exports of its finished products had to be certified.
The firm's trade is in cutting keyboards for high-quality pianos and organs. It is an old-established firm which has always been in the Harris family. Its present owners, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd-Owen, are my constituents. Mrs. Lloyd-Owen's maiden name was Harris, and her father was made a member of the British empire in recognition of his services and of those of his firm to exports over many years.
Column 698
In May last year, largely as a result of pressure from the hon. Member Newham, North-West, the then Leader of the House hinted that the Government might take interim action to deal with poaching. That surprised my constituents, because until then they had always been consulted by the Department of the Environment on various matters connected with the ivory trade--and so they should have been, because theirs was the only firm in the country involved in that aspect of the trade. They immediately contacted me and I tried to obtain further information.Subsequently, an announcement was made by my noble Friend Lord Caithness, the then Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside, following a visit that he paid to Kenya, that the Government felt that there should be a ban on trade in ivory and that they would take unilateral action to impose it in the United Kingdom in advance of a meeting of European Ministers on the subject and a later meeting of CITES. It was expected that CITES would move the African elephant from the appendix 2 procedure, which allowed limited trade, to appendix 1, which in effect stopped the trade in ivory of African elephants.
That came as a bombshell to that small firm in St. Ives. Its business was almost destroyed overnight and it had to lay off its sole employee, Mr. Curnow. It had been the ambition of Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd-Owen to hand their flourishing business to their daughter to maintain the family link. Their business stopped, and it is now a company in name only.
I do not criticise the Government for imposing a ban on raw ivory, although I have the reservations that I expressed. But any Government who take such drastic action without notice or consultation have a moral duty to compensate those whom they put out of business. I can understand why Governments and international bodies take drastic action in the name of conservation, but they should take account of highly respectable and law- abiding firms such as H. Harris and should compensate them if they are put out of business overnight. I have had long correspondence and meetings with Ministers on the subject. I pay tribute to them because they have been very courteous and have responded to my letters. I had informal consultations with Lord Caithness on the eve of the important meeting of European Ministers that imposed the European ban. The fact remains that the firm has virtually disappeared.
The Government's attitude is summed up in a letter that I received in June from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who said that he could
"find no grounds for departing from our normal practice of not paying compensation when restrictions on trade are introduced for the purpose of conserving endangered species."
Why? I understand that the Government are anxious not to create a precedent. In this environmentally conscious age, Governments usually react quickly under pressure from parliamentary colleagues and the media. Suddenly, a head of steam builds up and Ministers think that they should take sudden action for perhaps political or public relations reasons. That is their right. I referred this case to the ombudsman, who confirmed that right and said that he was sorry that he could not take up the matter. However, I believe that the Government have a moral duty in these circumstances.
Column 699
There is a parallel case that affects my constituency. Some bulb growers suddenly found themselves faced with a ban on the use of aldrin. I do not dispute the reason for that ban, but, again, no compensation was given. The Government should rethink their policy about implementing such overnight bans. They should consider whether compensation should be given.I make no apology for making a special plea for H. Harris, partly because of its long, distinguished history and partly because it is the innocent victim of conservation politics and policies, both national and international. If the Government alter their stance and give compensation to that firm, I do not believe that a queue of other firms will knock at their door, because only this firm has been affected drastically.
My purpose is to make a last plea to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and, through him, to the Government to think again about this case. There have been many consequences for Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd-Owen. They have been left with £30,000-worth of ivory. They have a building in St. Ives which is now empty. They are a few years off retirement and would normally have hoped to carry on for some years. The ban has had a considerable effect on the family. I am sad that this is the end of a firm which has operated for 190 years, and I hope that the House and the Government are sad as well. Rather than just sharing my sadness, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond not just with sympathy but practically to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd-Owen, and that means compensation.
1.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member foSt. Ives (Mr. Harris) on securing this debate. It is characteristic of him that he should use it to put forward the worries of his constituents. I know from reading correspondence from him that he has set out the case vigorously to my hon. Friend the Member for the Environment and Countryside.
My hon. Friend has made clear the effect on H. Harris Ltd. of the imposition of the ivory ban. I have considerable sympathy with those firms or individuals who are affected by any trading bans that arise from international obligations. They are a reminder that environmental protection and nature conservation have consequences for trade and industry. They should be taken into account, and in this case were. I reassure my hon. Friend that we would not have contemplated such a ban unless we were convinced that it was necessary for conservation reasons.
The House will recall that the Government were among the first to recognise the seriousness of the threat to the African elephant posed by poaching and by pressure from human populations. We have been in the forefront of moves to ensure the survival of the African elephant and, I hope, its ultimate recovery. The main instrument through which these efforts are focused is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora, for which, mercifully, there is an acronym--CITES. We were one of the first countries to sign the convention and since its inception we have played a major part in strengthening and improving it.
Column 700
My hon. Friend will have followed, through his other parliamentary duties, the gradual strengthening of the conservation of the African elephant--in particular, its move from appendix 3 of the convention up to appendix 1. The African elephant was first listed on appendix 3 of the convention in 1976 so that trade could be monitored. In 1977, it was moved to appendix 2 and commercial trade could then be permitted only if it did not pose a threat to the survival of the species. Sadly, despite a tightening of controls in 1985, the number of elephants continued to decline, chiefly because of the activities of ruthless, determined and well-organised poachers. The elephants' number fell as low as 600,000. That may sound a lot of elephants but Africa is a very large continent and the number of elephants had greatly exceeded that in previous times.On 29 May 1989, Lord Caithness announced the Government's intention to support proposals to list the species on appendix 1 of the convention, thus effectively banning commercial trade in ivory. At the same time, there was the agreement in principle to a ban on imports of ivory into the European Community under the stricter controls already in force within the Community.
On 9 June--while the arrangements for the ban were being made--the Government introduced a unilateral ban on imports of ivory into the United Kingdom, as provided for by the existing European regulations. That was followed by a European regulation imposing a Communitywide ban which came into force on 17 August last year.
As the House will know, the whole question of the conservation of the African elephant and the proposed appendix 1 listing was fully discussed at the seventh meeting of the conference of the parties to CITES held in Lausanne in October last year. It was a long and difficult negotiation but the conference decided to list the African elephant on appendix 1 of the convention and to ban trade until the conference of the parties decided that trade in particular elephant populations can be resumed without threatening the survival of the species.
Another very difficult and sensitive issue considered at the conference was a proposal to allow trade to continue in stocks of ivory accumulated before the decision to transfer the species to appendix 1. That was of considerable interest to the United Kingdom as it affected Hong Kong.
As my hon. Friend knows, Hong Kong has been a major traditional ivory trading centre for many years and it was estimated that 3,000 local people depended on the ivory trade for their livelihoods. The Hong Kong authorities had reaffirmed their commitment to complying with the ban, but they were understandably concerned about the need to allow some time for their ivory traders to dispose of their stocks. For this reason, the authorities approached the British Government and asked to register a temporary reservation against the appendix 1 listing on their behalf.
The Government considered that request carefully and supported it. The effect of the temporary six-month reservation that resulted was that during the period that it remained in force, Hong Kong could export its existing ivory stocks to CITES parties which had entered appropriate reservations, or to non-CITES states. The reservation was the best way of meeting the Government's
| Next Section
| Home Page |