| Home Page |
Column 713
House of Commons
Friday 10 July 1992
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Points of Order
9.30 am
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that the second motion on the Order Paper is on Government social policies on Merseyside and stands in my name. It has been drawn to my attention that the civil servants of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales have been ordered to produce extra long briefs to ensure that he uses all the time available on the first motion on the Order Paper. It has also been drawn to my attention that the Government Whips have been active in recruiting Conservative Back-Bench Members to speak in that debate.
It is absolutely clear that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), is running away from debating the second motion. I hope that when you, Madam Speaker, observe what goes on in the Chamber this morning, you will be censorious about the Government's behaviour.
Madam Speaker : Let us continue with our proceedings and hope that we can make some progress.
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may assist the House and you to know that, in opening the debte on the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) will have said all that there is to say on the topic within about half an hour. My hon. Friends and I intend to speak briefly, as I am sure you would desire, to ensure that there is time to debate the second motion, as my hon. Friends representing the Merseyside area wish. May I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth)? It is clear that Conservative Members have been thrown into the Chamber by the Whips, having been drawn from hither and thither, with the intention of frustrating proper debate.
Madam Speaker : I can go no further than what I have just said. We must now make progress and see how we go.
Column 714
Toxic Waste Disposal (Wales)
9.37 am
Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) : I beg to move,
That this House believes that the import of toxic waste into Wales should cease and that the commercial trade in toxic waste should come to an end ; notes that there is considerable unease among the people of South East Wales about the activities of ReChem International, Pontypool ; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Wales to hold a full, independent and public inquiry into that plant.
In a sense, I am delighted that many Conservative Members are present this morning because the matter clearly concerns those hon. Members who represent areas with toxic waste incinerators, such as mine.
The motion has two aspects : first, it calls for a complete ban on the import of toxic waste into Britain ; secondly, it refers to the need for an independent public inquiry into the ReChem plant at Pontypool in my constituency. The issue has been simmering for nearly two decades. My predecessor, the hon. Member for Pontypool and then for Torfaen, Mr. Leo Abse, had a great interest in the ReChem problem. Since 1987, when I became a Member of this House, I have tabled a number of early-day motions asking for an independent public inquiry into ReChem and on each occasion a clear majority of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies have called for such an inquiry.
Members of the European Parliament, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), when he represented South East Wales, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who is still our representative in Brussels, played a sterling part in trying to ensure that European legislation covers plants such as ReChem, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent will explain later.
All the local authorities are involved, including Torfaen borough council, Gwent county council, Pontypool community council and many others, are opposed to the Government's insistence that there should be no public inquiry into ReChem. My party, including the ward party in New Inn, the constituency party in Torfaen, the Welsh council of Labour's annual conference and the national British conference of the Labour party have all expressed, through resolutions and motions, that there should be an end to the import of toxic waste and that there should be a public inquiry.
A number of pressure groups have sprung up in my constituency which are opposed to what is going on in ReChem, including Mothers and Children Against Toxic Waste, the excellent STEAM headed by David Powell and the Panteg Environmental Protection Group. All the different groups, together with the whole community, are opposed to what is going on in ReChem and are concerned about the need for a public inquiry.
Mr. Jonathan Evans (Brecon and Radnor) : As the hon. Gentleman has the advantage of having been a Member since 1987, may I ask him whether the groups to which he has referred had the opportunity to present evidence to two Select Committees which have met since the hon. Gentleman has been a Member? Did those Select Committees come to the view that a public inquiry was necessary?
Column 715
Mr. Murphy : The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs dealt with the matter in 1990. Evidence was given by those groups and by the local authorities to that Select Committee and, by way of petition, to the House.Never was there such solidarity across party boundaries. If this morning Conservative Members seem to think that they oppose the essence of the motion, they must realise that many supporters of the Conservative party in my constituency and across Wales believe that there should be a public inquiry into ReChem. Never was that more vividly illustrated than when the Canadian imports of toxic waste coming thousands of miles across the Atlantic were sent back. When a march and demonstration was held in New Inn around the ReChem plant, all the mayors and chairmen of the local authorities, wearing their chains of office, led the way. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), and for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), myself and many thousands of people joined the march and demonstration to show that all our civic leaders, almost all our Members of Parliament and the majority of people who live in Torfaen and beyond in Gwent and south-east Wales are deeply concerned about the import of toxic waste.
Why is it that for almost 20 years, the controversy has developed? The plant was given planning permission in 1972 by Monmouthshire county council and it opened in 1974 when the regulations governing such plants were in a vacuum and, more importantly, when the company said that all it would do would be to process industrial wastes from south Wales, from the south-west of England and from the midlands. The company never mentioned that it would deal with the most deadly poison known to mankind and it was not until later that the plant decided to process polychlorinated biphenyls. That is the main reason why people are concerned about what goes on at the plant and why there should be a public inquiry.
Everyone knows that PCBs are highly dangerous and how, if they are incorrectly incinerated, handled or stored, they present a risk to all forms of life, especially human life. We also know that to get rid of PCBs, they have to be incinerated at the highest possible temperature.
One of the Opposition's first concerns is about the nature of the incinerator. We believe that the incinerator does not achieve 100 per cent. success and we do not believe that the temperature capability is adequate. We also think that the ancillary processes involved in dealing with the waste, such as taking in large transformers, draining off the PCBs and cutting up the units for incineration, present difficulties and dangers because they are dealt with in buildings with no controlled ventilation system.
The incinerator was designed in the 1960s and was built almost 20 years ago. Since that time, technology has developed apace. The incinerator does not compare favourably with incinerators on the continent. Over the years, deep unease has been expressed by those whose job it is, in Torfaen borough council and elsewhere, to monitor the impact of the incinerator and to see whether the level of PCB contamination in the area immediately around the plant is bad.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although he is talking about the plant being many years old and as if no money has been invested in the plant since it was set up, massive sums have been invested in the plant to ensure its safety?
Column 716
Mr. Murphy : That is perfectly true. The Welsh Office spent about £1 million in grants to the company so that it could do something about the stack. It is a classic example of, instead of the polluter paying, the polluted paying because the taxpayer had to fork out money for so-called "improvements" which, far from improving the plant, as far as we can tell, meant that water vapour reached the ground far more quickly than it did before, sometimes causing a fog in the roads around the incinerator which was a nuisance to residents and to travellers.
Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West) : The hon. Gentleman has said that the ReChem plant in his constituency is not being operated correctly and he has even said that it is being operated in a way that is dangerous to the general public. That is a serious allegation and I should like the hon. Gentleman to produce some irrefutable evidence to support that allegation.
Mr. Murphy : I did not make that allegation ; I said that there was unease. I am no scientist and I have never pretended to be. However, I represent 90,000 constituents and I know that they have genuine fears which must be allayed. We are not calling for the plant to be closed down, but for an independent public inquiry. That is totally different.
Mr. Richards : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Murphy : No, because I must finish what I am saying. I do not see why it would be so bad for Conservative Members, the company or for the toxic waste industry to support such an inquiry. I will come to that matter later.
Many of us believe that the incinerator is well past its sell-by date and that it was wrongly sited in a valley near a residential area. There is always the possibility of technical and human error and there have been a number of incidents over the years which have caused great concern. I do not intend to go into all of them, but I shall mention a few that my local authority has had to investigate. There was an explosion which damaged the incinerator hearth and enveloped the neighbourhood in clouds of smoke. There were blow-backs through the furnace doors which resulted in PCB- contaminated aluminium foil strips being deposited in large numbers on nearby residential land. Quantities of contaminated foam from the plant's cooling towers were blown over nearby residential land. There are instances of chemical spillages in storage areas which, because the plant's management did not see fit to alert the local services, resulted in the widespread mobilisation of all emergency services as there was public disturbance about heavy odour which spread for distances of up to six miles from the ReChem incinerator. Finally, the breakdown of various elements of the gas cleaning section of the plant resulted in palls of black smoke and other chimney stack emissions.
One of the worst aspects of those incidents was that, except on one occasion, the company refused to give evidence or to hold discussions with the local authority. Yet at the same time, the company says that it wants to set up a liaison committee to smooth the path. Local residents and the local authority say--in my view, quite rightly--
Column 717
that they will not take part in such a committee because the company will give no undertaking that those taking part in the deliberations will be free from litigation in the courts.Mr. Roger Evans (Monmouth) : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Torfaen borough council is under a legal obligation to set up the liaison committee and that it is a most unhelpful way of proceeding for it to decline to do so?
Mr. Murphy : No. I certainly do not. I repeat that, as long as a sword of Damocles in the form of the threat of law suits hangs over the heads of the council and local residents, it is pointless for them to serve as members of a liaison committee. The company is trigger-happy when it comes to the courts. Let me list just some of those who have been sued by ReChem simply for speaking their minds on an issue of great significance to the people of Wales : David Powell of STEAM--that case is still under investigation ; the former Member of Parliament for Bootle, Mr. Allan Roberts, who was threatened with the law just months before he died ; Red Dragon Radio ; the Western Mail ; Greenpeace ; The Guardian ; The Daily Star ; the BBC. All of them have been taken to court for daring to express doubts about the incinerator and saying that there should be a public inquiry into what is happening at ReChem.
Mr. Roger Evans : Whereas comment in the press is open to the law of defamation simply and easily, those who participate in a properly constituted liaision committee, which it is the legal obligation of the borough council to establish under the Act, are protected properly by qualified privilege, and any litigant would have to prove actual malice. The threat of litigation is not an explanation or an excuse for Torfaen's failure.
Mr. Murphy : If ReChem could find a way of getting round qualified privilege, it would certainly do so.
All the nonsense in the courts does nothing to improve ReChem's public image. It has paralysed the media, created a climate of fear among my constituents and subverted local democracy.
Torfaen borough council is the local waste disposal authority and has within its area a plant which, over the years, has developed techniques for destroying PCBs from abroad. The authority has to spend thousands and thousands of pounds on monitoring the incinerator--at the last count, £25,000 a year. Yet the Welsh Office has given no extra help to Torfaen borough council. It has not even exempted it from the penalties to help it to monitor the plant. Gwent county council is the local authority whose duty it is to deal with emergency plans. We all know that, like other incinerators and plants, ReChem is exempt from such an emergency plan under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations. If fire broke out, as it did in Canada, it would lead to the wholesale contamination of land, housing and industry for years. Yet there are no emergency plan regulations to cover the area around ReChem. One of the borough councillors for the New Inn area--Councillor John Turner--has complained to the European Community with a view to ensuring that the Seveso directive, which covers similar matters, applies to the ReChem incinerator. When Gwent asked the Health
Column 718
and Safety Executive for help, the HSE would do nothing, even though the law governing emergency plans did not apply to ReChem. Another reason why there should be a public inquiry is that there is unease about the way in which the Government agencies charged with monitoring plants such as ReChem are simply not doing their job well enough.Mr. Nigel Evans : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the responsibility of the county council, in association with borough councils and the emergency services, to introduce an emergency plan for whatever emergencies may arise? I am sure that ReChem will have been taken into account by the county council ; if it has not, we are talking about a failure by the county council.
Mr. Murphy : The whole point is that that the council could not do that ; the law prevents it from doing so. Even when it tried to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests unofficially and draw up an emergency plan, it was given no help by the HSE.
Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution does not play a happy role in all this. I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We repeatedly pressed the Government to give extra resources, increased funding and more people to HMIP, but they refused. HMIP simply does not have enough people to cope with problems that arise from plants such as ReChem. Moreover, they operate only during office hours. If something happens at the plant outside HMIP's office hours, nothing can be done. My constituents are constantly complaining to me about HMIP. At best, they get an answering machine message and, at worst, nothing at all. The response times are wholly inadequate. No proper control measures are available for laying down standards of PCB emissions. And will HMIP ever demand more than the company is willing to pay?
Mr. Jonathan Evans : Has not HMIP served two notices on the company in the past 12 months?
Mr. Murphy : That is exactly what I intended to say. I was concerned about the openness surrounding the two notices recently served on ReChem. Neither the local authority, which is, after all, the waste disposal authority, nor I--the local Member of Parliament--knows anything at all about why those notices were served. Something must have gone wrong. Statutory regulations must have been broken. We are told that £2.5 million has been spent on improvements to the plant. But I know, and the world knows, that those so-called improvements have been made in response to requests from HMIP. I hope that the Minister will tell us what exactly went wrong to cause HMIP to serve two notices on ReChem in my constituency.
Mr. Jonathan Evans : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that notification has been given by both the company and HMIP of what the £2.5 million- worth of extra investment is intended to achieve? That is in accordance with notices served by HMIP and, I understand, sent to the hon. Gentleman on 27 May 1992.
Mr. Murphy : Certainly not. We have been told only that the notices have been served. We have been told none of the details. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the details later.
Column 719
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : Considering the nature of the debate, it is most interesting that one of the major discussions on the radio this morning concerned the lack of information that is available when notices are served. That underlines the need for an inquiry of the kind for which my hon. Friend argues.Mr. Murphy : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding to my case.
The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which has already been referred to by Conservative Members, met during 1989 and reported in June 1990. On this occasion, it was charged with dealing with toxic waste disposal in Wales in general, but so important did it consider the ReChem incinerator that it prepared a separate report on what was happening at Pontypool.
The Committee acknowledged--as did the Government in their response to the report--the public concern regarding the plant. It drew attention to the under-resourcing and under-staffing of HMIP and the serious problems of unpublicised emissions into our sewerage and water systems and--most significantly and quite rightly--recommended the monitoring of PCB levels, a fact for which the Opposition were grateful to the Government. The Government accepted that, and Professor Roberts of the University of East Anglia is currently engaged in that activity. At the end of that survey, the Secretary of State for Wales will determine whether a public inquiry should be held.
On many occasions my predecessor and I have raised the issue of a public inquiry in the House and the Government have consistently said no. But following a meeting of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, even the Government realised that the weight of opinion among local people was such that a public inquiry was more than possible. I go further and claim that, because of the overwhelming case that exists, such an inquiry is inevitable.
The Select Committee acknowledged the total unsuitability of the site where ReChem now stands. The incidents to which I have referred, the doubts about the incinerator, the inadequacy of proper control and monitoring and the total lack of confidence of the people of Torfaen, New Inn and Gwent about what goes on at ReChem prompted Mr. Justice Garland in 1987, in yet another court case, to say : "The plant should be the subject of further research or public inquiry. The company and the Government have nothing to lose if such an inquiry takes place."
What is there to hide ? If it is believed that the place is safe, why not hold a public inquiry ? If the inquiry finds that all is well, that will be the end of the story. But if it finds that all is not well, it will have been worth while from the start.
Public confidence in the plant is further eroded by the other matter that is before the House, which is the increasing number of PCBs and other toxic wastes that are imported into this country and particularly into my constituency. About 16 per cent. of all toxic wastes that come into the United Kingdom end up in Pontypool. That is possibly 500 tonnes of PCBs every month. About 95 per cent. of those toxic wastes that come to Pontypool to be dealt with originate in Europe. All the rubbish that we have been told about the way in which the incinerator deals with wastes from undeveloped countries is shown to be completely untrue by the figures and places from where the waste emanates.
Column 720
Spain and Italy top the list, and the others include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Iceland, Germany, Holland, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland and Austria. They are not undeveloped or third-world countries. Indeed, some are wealthier than Britain, and they are certainly capable--because they have the technology and wealth--of building their own incinerators.The toxic wastes come through 17 ports in the United Kingdom, including Immingham, Harwich, Newport, Felixstowe, Ramsgate, Holyhead, Seaforth, Liverpool and Hull. It all goes against the basic idea, which even the present Government accept, that every developed country should deal with the disposal of its own toxic waste. That is why the Basle convention preamble says that hazardous wastes should be disposed of in the states where they were generated.
The whole international trade in toxic waste is a disgrace to modern society and the brokers who engage in that murky and sinister trade must accept that, as a result of their activities, the poisons, the worst known to man, come to my constituency to be disposed of. Pontypool--indeed, Wales as a whole--is fast becoming the dustbin for the world's worst poisons.
Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan) : The hon. Gentleman said in his speech--
Mr. Murphy : I was giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I have more to say.
Mr. Sweeney : I thought that the hon. Gentleman was resuming his seat. Does he accept that over half the highly toxic waste produced in Wales goes to England? Is not it a fact that pollution is no respecter of national boundaries?
Mr. Murphy : That is not the point. I am talking about the import of PCBs and I have not mentioned industrial waste. Those PCBs come across the world to Wales. It is a totally different issue. I apologise if I gave the impression that I had concluded my speech, and I hope to continue to be as effective in the rest of my remarks as I have been so far.
The House should be aware that so many PCBs are coming to Wales--causing such controversy--to be generated that ReChem makes a great deal of money from processing PCBs. Most of ReChem's profits come from dealing with the waste that no other country is prepared to handle. So the company trawls the world, and in recent days reported profits down to just under £10 million. As a percentage of turnover, ReChem is one of the United Kingdom's most profitable businesses. The company was originally owned by British Electric Traction. There was a management buy-out in 1985 and it was taken over by Shanks and McEwan. At that time, the then chairman, Richard Biffa, and managing director, Malcolm Lee, jointly owned 42 per cent. of ReChem. When that merger took place, Mr. Biffa collected £10 million and Mr. Lee £24 million worth of shares. That gives the House an idea of the money that is to be made from processing poisons.
No wonder there has been a public outcry, as more and more imports flood into my valley. The latest, from Western Australia, the Government rightly stopped. So that did not come here. Canadian waste was sent back, and it is interesting to note that even the community concerned in Canada, which experienced the fire that received
Column 721
publicity at the time--was not responsible ; the Government of Quebec had forwarded the material and the mayor of the town, St. Basile-le-Grand, said :"In returning the waste to Canada, you gave us a gift--the gift of awareness."
The world is becoming impatient with threats to the environment and with thousands of tonnes of deadly poisons travelling by rail, sea and land. That is why Britain should use its presidency of the European Community to strengthen, not weaken, legislation on these issues. We must not agree to bilateral arrangements. We should give a lead to the world in the coming months. The British Government should work to achieve a total ban on toxic waste imports and an end to the commercial trade in those poisons. They should ask Belgium and Sweden why they are still sending wastes to us when they said that they would stop doing so. They should end the burning of chlorinated solids at the plant and extend the emergency plan regulations to plants such as ReChem.
The Government should compensate my local authority for the unique and enormous cost of monitoring ReChem, send in the Department of Health to survey the health of the local population, ensure that plants such as ReChem are never again built close to residential areas and, above all, have the courage today to announce a full-scale independent public inquiry into the ReChem plant at Pontypool, not just for the sake of the future of my constituents, but for the sake of the future.
10.7 am
Mr. Roger Evans (Monmouth) : The ReChem plant is in the portion of Torfaen represented by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), but it is just on the borders of his constituency, and that part of Torfaen which I represent, and the part of Monmouth borough which I represent, is at least as directly affected by the operations of the plant as is his constituency.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that I share wholeheartedly, and welcome, the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed. There is undoubtedly, as one speaks to constituents on the doorstep and at farm gates in the area--it is on the verge of an extremely beautiful tract of countryside--grave concern about the operations of the plant.
The difficulty that the hon. Member for Torfaen and I face is that hard evidence that the operations are dangerous has been extraordinarily difficult to come by. Indeed, we face in expressing concern on the issue a number of conclusions made by various bodies which are disbelieving of the concern which our constituents firmly express.
For example, the second report of the Environment Select Committee concluded that high temperature incineration was a safe and effective way of disposing of combustible wastes. The pollution inspectorate believes it to be the best and most practical way of dealing with these dangerous substances. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that David Wheeler, ReChem's operations director, can put it in an attractive way, on the face of it, that he and ReChem are on the side of the angels because they destroy these dangerous chemicals rather than permitting them to pollute the environment.
The problem facing the hon. Member for Torfaen and myself, and our constituents, is that a great body of opinion believes that the plant is safe, which is why Torfaen borough council has failed in litigation to have it
Column 722
closed down. It has been extremely difficult to prove the danger. No more than the hon. Member for Torfaen do I pretend to be a scientist. I have been around the plant. I do not pretend to be an expert in its operations, but the difficulty and doubt appear to arise from the lack of a method of continuously monitoring all the unburnt and newly formed chemicals and metals that emerge in the stack gases. In other words, no system is 100 per cent. accurate in identifying what goes out of the top of the stack.In fairness to ReChem, I should say that from my visit to the plant, I know that it has a sophisticated scientific system of monitoring what comes out, but it gives only a statistical sample. Like public opinion polls, the British public and my constituents are not necessarily impressed by such statistical analysis.
We want to know whether the process is safe or whether it is simply a scheme for defusing partly disposed of matter over the constituency of the hon. Member for Torfaen, over mine and no doubt further throughout south- east Wales. How will we find out? That is the issue that the hon. Gentleman's motion addresses, and I share and welcome his concern.
Forty years ago, scientists were perceived to be infallible and beyond criticism. I remember being taken to Mamhilad in the 1950s and shown what was then a wonder of the world--the British Nylon Spinners tower, which is now a monument of industrial archaeology as much as an 18th century shop tower in Southwark. It was placed there, Madam Speaker, because it was an area--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very kind in elevating me, but I am a Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Evans : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
British Nylon Spinners deliberately constructed its plant in the area because of the lack of pollution. Ever since, as we have seen in a number of respects, doubt has been expressed about whether scientists can be relied on to get these things right. The difficulty, as the hon. Member for Torfaen said, is that it is a matter of democracy. There is a great feeling in our area that, what was given planning permission in 1972 and began operations in 1974, has become very different from what everybody expected long ago. The feeling that there is somehow an absolute right to go on operating a plant unless and until somebody can close it down by hard evidence in a High Court action is not acceptable to our constituents, who want to be reassured now that it is safe to live close to the plant. The hon. Member for Torfaen and I are not scientists and neither are the bulk of our constituents, but we appreciate that these substances are highly dangerous. I suspect that he and I take the simple view, which is shared by our constituents, that the plant should not operate unless the evidence that it is safe is absolutely overwhelming. We are not prepared to take a risk. It may have been established, so far, that that risk, scientifically, is very small, but that argument is not attractive to our constituents, who take the view that there should be no risk at all.
Where do we go from here? The only part of the motion where I part company with the hon. Member for Torfaen is the call for a public inquiry now. There may be a powerful argument for one at the end of the year, but the Government, particularly the Welsh Office, have realised
Column 723
and appreciated the concern in this area of Wales and have acted. The first and most important matter is Professor Lewis Roberts's inquiries, with the University of East Anglia, into whether any PCBs can be found in the environment of the plant and around our constituencies. That inquiry is of the highest importance. It will be a full, independent scientific inquiry, in which I suspect we can all properly have great confidence. If that inquiry finds the hard evidence that has eluded Torfaen borough council, it will be a most important step forward. If it concludes that nothing is awry, it will be some assurance to our constituents. I am content for an independent body of scientific experts to report on those highly technical scientific matters and I welcome the Government's initiative. That is the first thing that the Government have done.Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why the present survey is being conducted is because many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed much disquiet about the operation of the plant? The initiative did not come from the Welsh Office. It responded to the protests and representations that were made in this place.
Mr. Evans : I respectfully agree that there has been a mounting accumulation of protest, to which, I am glad to say, the Welsh Office has responded. I gladly welcome the fact that Members representing a variety of constituencies have done their duty by raising the issue. The second thing that the Government have done that goes beyond the Welsh Office--this goes to the crux of the democratic argument that the hon. Member for Torfaen mentioned--is to introduce the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The tradition has been that a company can carry out any process if it has planning permission, unless and until somebody goes to the trouble and difficulty of proving that it is so dangerous that it should be closed down. That tradition prevailed in an era of high innocence, well before the development of highly dangerous industrial processes. The Environmental Protection Act reverses that burden.
The second reason why the call for a public inquiry may be premature is that from the end of this year ReChem will require a licence from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the 1990 Act to continue its operations. At the end of the year, it will be a matter of much concern whether that licence is granted or withheld. The House would be particularly grateful to know whether Professor Lewis Roberts's report is expected to become available to the Welsh Office before the decision is taken on whether to grant a licence under the 1990 Act. I see heads shaking. It is an important matter and we all want an answer on it.
In conclusion, there is concern that so far there has been precious little hard evidence that this process is dangerous. The plant is carefully monitored, but some of us worry whether that monitoring is acceptable to our constituents. That is not what we hear on the doorsteps. We want Professor Lewis Roberts's team to report as early as possible and the most careful consideration on the decision to grant or withhold the licence at the end of the year.
Madam Deputy Speaker : I call Mr. Llew Smith.
Column 724
10.20 amMr. Llew Smith (Blaenau, Gwent) : If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give you nine out of 10 for that pronunciation. It was an excellent attempt.
Madam Deputy Speaker : It is my pleasure to try and learn the correct pronunciation.
Mr. Smith : You have already shown, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are an excellent student.
First, I support the demand of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for an end to the commercial trade in toxic waste. Countries should stop using the United Kingdom as the toxic dustbin of the world. Each country should be responsible for its own waste. That is not a nationalistic demand ; it is a demand for responsible government. Governments should not allow goods to be produced if they do not have the willingness and capability to deal with those goods safely at the end of their natural life. Unfortunately, Governments and companies have abdicated that responsibility by dumping their waste problems on our communities. They have also been told that ReChem in the United Kingdom has the expertise to deal with the world's waste. I shall show in this debate that that is not so and that, indeed, ReChem has been involved in a massive cover-up to prevent the truth from being told. Today I will tell the truth because of evidence that has come into my possession in recent years. Much of the evidence will be technical and statistical. The House will appreciate that for the truth to be told and for previously unpublished statistics to be explained it is necessary to quote extensively from detailed information. On 13 September 1938 Alex Falconer, Member of the European Parliament, and I brought to the attention of the EP correspondence between Michael Sanger, head of ReChem's special operations unit, and the then managing director, Malcolm Lee. The correspondence showed that on 12 February 1987, Michael Sanger took a sample of dust from the window ledge of his office at the Pontypool site which was later analysed by the Harwell laboratories. The test showed levels of contamination by PCBs and even more toxic deliverants, dioxins and furans, which were high compared with the levels recommended by the established Californian guidelines.
I want to emphasise that I did not choose the so-called Californian guidelines ; they were chosen by ReChem as the most appropriate measuring rod of contamination. Surprise, surprise, after the Californian guidelines had proved high levels of contamination in the ReChem plant, Malcolm Lee all of a sudden began to question the extent to which those guidelines had been used elsewhere. Yet a further document that has come into my possession shows that the Californian guidelines continued to be used for work carried out in establishments, such as the Port of Bristol authority.
On 1 April 1987 the scientist, Michael Sanger, reported his findings to Malcolm Lee, who arranged for further samples to be taken at various locations on the Pontypool site. On 3 April 1987, 10 samples were taken and an 11th was taken at about the same time. They, too, were analysed by Harwell. Four months later, when Mr. Sanger requested the results of the tests, he received a trite, incomplete reply. No relevant test results were given in the reply, although there was an assurance that the checks showed that the position was entirely safe.
Column 725
During a flurry of media activity which followed the revelations of the memo to the European Parliament, ReChem's Dr. Peter Jones was asked on television about the high levels of contamination. When asked whether he had an answer at that stage, he replied, "Yes I do--faulty arithmetic." When asked about revealing the facts, he answered, "Certainly the data have been published," and during the same interview, he said, "I guess in Chemosphere." In a newspaper report, ReChem's defence of the allegations included the explanation that fundamental mistakes were made in that particular analysis and a second set of test results had cleared the plant. However, two days later ReChem admitted that there was some truth in the allegation of high levels of contamination, but dismissed its significance without stating the facts of the contamination.Furthermore, in conducting those inquiries it became obvious that the results had not been published in Chemosphere. In responding to my request for a copy of the article that was supposed to include those test results, ReChem deliberately tried to deceive me by providing me with another article and an entirely different set of test results. It was not until the intervention and on the insistence of Fred Higgs, the national officer of the Transport and General Workers Union, that I was provided with the test results. I pay tribute to him. Not only has he campaigned over the years for freedom of information but, unlike others, he insisted on this right although his own union members were involved.
I can now reveal to the House that those results had been leaked to me by another source some years earlier. That is why I knew that the information with which the company provided me was false. I knew that they were a completely different set of results. Nevertheless, I required that information from the company to confirm that the results leaked to me were correct and to highlight the extent to which ReChem would go to prevent the general public from knowing the true level of contamination at the Pontypool site.
Mr. Jonathan Evans : In view of the hon. Gentleman's revelations today, and bearing in mind his position as an MEP for this area when the Welsh Affairs Select Committee held its inquiry into ReChem, did he draw these facts to the attention of the Select Committee?
Mr. Smith : As the hon. Gentleman will find out, I did not receive confirmation of the results until after the Welsh Affairs Select Committee briefing.
The contamination of extremely toxic chemicals included dioxins, the very type of deadly poisons that caused the disastrous contamination at Seveso in Italy and by Agent Orange in Vietnam as a result of American action.
Before commenting on the 1987 test results, I shall briefly explain the significance of the Californian guidelines. When dealing with the disastrous contamination of a large building nine years ago, the California state authorities sought the advice of a team of scientists who studied all the data available to them on the toxicity of those chemicals. It derived maximum acceptable values or limits for surface contamination to take into account the risks of absorption and ingestion and, secondly, for airborne contamination to take into account the risk of breathing in contamination. It established standards for places where there was no restriction on who went there
| Next Section
| Home Page |