House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jul 1992

Column 726

and for how long, as well as for restricted access areas where only persons wearing protective gear were allowed for limited periods. Surprisingly, the Health and Safety Executive confirmed as recently as this week that it still has no standards for surface contamination by polychlorinated biphenyls or for other and more toxic chemicals associated with PCBs.

If I may comment on a few of the 1987 test results, on a window ledge near ReChem's incinerator there was dioxin contamination at a level more than 2,000 times higher than the Californian guidelines for regular exposure-- 2378 TCDD, at 8 micrograms/sq m. Another example was taken from above a door at the entrance to a reception area that is open to the general public.

Mr. Richards : The hon. Gentleman quotes statistics and seems to claim that they are significant, in which case will he please tell the House what the confidence intervals of those statistics are so that we may know exactly what their significance is?

Mr. Smith : The statistics were provided by ReChem, through the good offices of the full-time national officer, Fred Higgs. Secondly, the Californian guidelines can be seen in back copies of Chemosphere. If we relate one set of statistics to another, we can come to a conclusion as to the levels of contamination that are being exceeded.

Mr. Richards : Let me make myself clear, so that the hon. Gentleman understands the question. Are the statistics that you are quoting significant at a 95 per cent. confidence level or a 99 per cent. confidence level? How confident, statistically speaking, are you of the figure that you are quoting?

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order, I am sorry, but I am not involved in this. The hon. Gentleman needs the third person singular.

Mr. Richards : I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. My question to the hon. Gentleman is how confident, statistically speaking, is he of the figures that he is quoting? Can we have 95 per cent., 99 per cent. or 99.9 per cent. confidence in them? Unless the hon. Gentleman can give us the confidence interval of the figures and statistics that he quotes, they are worthless.

Mr. Smith : I was not trained as a scientist, but I suspect that there is no scientific measurement of confidence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now explain it. I shall be willing to sit back, relax and listen to his explanation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : One thing is certain. I am prepared to put more confidence in what my hon. Friend says about the pollution statistics in Wales than I am in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures. He gets them wrong almost every day of the week. My hon. Friend is on to a very important issue. When we said that the River Doe Lea in Bolsover was a thousand times above the safety level, they told us that we were wrong and that they had no confidence in our statistics. Coalite is now pouring out dioxin. It said the same about the farmers who complained. After 12 months, that dioxin has not been removed from the land. I will tell you what : you in Wales stick to your guns. You can bet you bottom dollar that you are on the right course.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be addressing me.

Column 727

Mr. Skinner : And I agree with your statistics as well. Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : We are used to hearing entirely new concepts from the Conservative party. The idea that confidence, which is very much a subjective matter, can be measured scientifically is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We heard something equally bizarre some time ago. In desperation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to optimism rising. When he was asked what sort of optimism it was, it was seasonally adjusted optimism--as big a nonsense as scientific confidence.

Mr. Smith : I have learnt many things this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of them being that you are both an expert linguist and a statistician. My congratulations.

Because the statistics are important, I shall repeat them. I am sure that hon. Members wish to sit back, relax and listen. The first set of statistics, I repeat, relates to a window ledge near ReChem's incinerator. There was dioxin contamination at a level more than 2, 000 times higher than the Californian guidelines for regular exposure. The 2378 TCDD alone was 8 micrograms/sq m. Another example relates to what was found above a door at the entrance to a reception area open to the general public. Dioxin contamination was found there, at a level more than 2,000 times higher than the Californian guidelines--again 2378 TCDD at 8.4 micrograms/sq m. Another example relates to the soil at the ReChem site. There was PCB contamination higher than the company itself had found elsewhere in Wales, at 3,800 parts per billion. That was adjacent to an area of free access. I repeat that those are just a few of the test results that I have in my possession.

Some people would say that one swallow does not make a summer and that one set of test results does not add up to a continuing problem, so enter the flight of swallows in the form of tests conducted by the Health and Safety Executive from samples taken in December 1989. Once again, the test results had been kept secret. Once again the company failed to provide me with this information, even though I had requested it over a long period. Once again it was Mr. Higgs who intervened and insisted that I received it.

If I may comment on the Health and Safety Executive results, those surface- wide tests were apparently not carried out in working areas where high contamination might be expected and where special clothing and other protective measures might be required. The following are typical examples. The kettle in the rest room, presumably used for brewing up during the shift break, was found to be 29 times above the recommended limit. On the telephone in the office, the dialling bottoms of the handset, hardly likely to be handled except with PVC gloves, were found to be PCB-contaminated 42 times above what the guidelines said was an acceptable level in any office. There is a door from the open air into a corridor that leads to the office and rest room. The handle on the outside of the door, exposed to the cleansing action of wind and rain, was contaminated by PCBs to a level 120 times above the figure recommended in the guidelines. The contamination on the sweatband of an operator's safety helmet was found to be 400 times above the limit

Column 728

recommended in the guidelines for office furniture. One can imagine the risk to an operator with a sweatband, in direct contact with his head throughout shift after shift, contaminated 400 times above the limit for a desk on which a typist may occasionally lean her bare elbows. Although the California guidelines were not intended to be applied to clothing, the fact that an operator's cotton overalls were contaminated to a level several times, perhaps more than 10 times, above the limit recommended for surfaces in a restricted area, must be a cause for concern.

Mr. Jonathan Evans : When did the hon. Gentleman become aware of the Health and Safety Executive's information? He mentioned earlier that he was not aware of it at the time that the Welsh Select Committee was sitting.

Mr. Smith : The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the general public have few rights when it comes to accessing information. I became aware that tests had been made by the Health and Safety Executive and approached the company for information. It failed to provide it, so I contacted the responsible national officer of the Transport and General Workers Union--who provided me with the information in question a little while back. We have since linked those test results to the California guidelines and reached the conclusion that I explained to the House earlier.

Mr. Evans : The hon. Gentleman used the words "a little while back". How long ago was "a little while back"? Given the unease that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) expressed on behalf of the local community, which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), perhaps the hon. Gentleman can be a little more specific.

Mr. Smith : Unfortunately, I cannot be more specific now--but when this debate ends, or in the days that follow, I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with the time and date on which I received the information from the TGWU national officer. There is no problem about that.

Lest anyone should suggest that the company will repent and claim that the problem is isolated to internal housekeeping, it ought to be realised that much of the contamination was free to move as airborne vapour or particles. The ReChem site is surrounded by a wire-mesh fence. PCBs and dioxins are not put off by a wire fence--in the same way that radiation from Chernobyl was not deterred by national borders marked on maps of Europe.

During the years in question, local soil, grass and duck eggs began to show high levels of contamination. Last year, another flock of swallows brought more knowledge. A study commissioned by the Welsh Office and undertaken by the university of East Anglia concluded : "PCB concentrations at Pontyfelin have on occasions been affected by on-site activity at ReChem."

Surprise, surprise--ReChem denies having anything to do with surrounding environmental contamination as vigorously as it denied the 1987 site contamination.

It requires little imagination to gain the impression that some of the foreign poisons of which Britain is said to be disposing at Pontypool are finding their way into our homes, our gardens, our bodies and the bodies of our children. The lesson is clear. We should no longer rely on the absence of evidence and on evidence of absence--especially when health and safety are involved.

Column 729

I ask the House to support demands that the test results that I mentioned and others in my possession form the basis of the first report of the Welsh Select Committee or the Select Committee on the Environment--before which people such as Michael Sanger and Malcolm Lee ought to be called to give evidence. Mr. Sanger should be asked, for example, why on 12 February 1987 he decided to take a dust sample. Was it because he had time to spare or because something had gone dramatically wrong with the plant's operation? I suspect that it was the latter. In my opinion, Mr. Sanger has behaved

honourably--unlike Mr. Lee, who should be asked why for many years he denied me access to the 1987 test results and provided only unrelated results.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen has tabled this motion not as part of a vendetta against the company but because he cares for the community that he represents and for the health and safety of the plant's employees. He also recognises that we do not own this Earth of ours but are merely guardians. As guardians, an obligation is placed on each and every one of us to ensure that we defend that which is good and that of which we are justifiably proud. We do that to ensure that our children can enjoy this planet as we have enjoyed and continue to enjoy it. That is the purpose of this debate and why the commercial trade in toxic waste must come to an end. It puts at risk so much that we cherish on this planet.

10.44 am

Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West) : The significance of environmental considerations and concerns in the 1990s is widely recognised on this side of the House--and has been for a long time. I am the first to accept that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and my hon. Friend for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) are concerned about the environment in and around their constituencies. I draw attention to a fundamental flaw in Labour's environmental policies, notwithstanding that I acknowledge the hon. Member for Torfaen's concern. That flaw is not so much the persecution of ReChem of which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) made mention, but that Labour's attitude to toxic waste is not altogether honest. I refer in particular to Labour's kith and kin in the eastern bloc, who have been polluting their environment for many years without a word of protest being heard from Labour. Suddenly, after a management takeover in 1985, the Opposition--

Dr. Kim Howells : This is supposed to be a serious debate concerning the lives of people in Wales. It should not be the target of cheap-crack attacks that have no basis in truth. Why not get on with it?

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that remark was not addressed to me.

Dr. Howells : I meant to say that the hon. Gentleman should get on with debating Wales.

Mr. Richards : I am perfectly entitled to make such observations. The hon. Member for Torfaen spoke about the profits made by ReChem and the operators of similar plants in other parts of the world. It occurs to me that environmental factors are not the only considerations that motivate Labour.

Mr. Michael : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Clwyd,

Column 730

North-West (Mr. Richards) to make the scurrilous attack that he did? Would we be in order if we made parallel remarks associating Conservative Members with fascism?

Madam Deputy Speaker : I have not heard anything scurrilous so far. If I were to find debates of this sort scurrilous, I doubt that they would continue.

Mr. Richards : The reference to profits appeared to be a philosophical socialist attack on companies that make them. The record of companies these days is far better than Labour is prepared to recognise. I draw the attention of the House to Hamilton Oil Company, which recently applied for permission to develop gas and oil reserves off the north Wales coast. Hamilton Oil is--

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been re-reading the motion and it is clear that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is filibustering. His speech has nothing whatsoever to do with the motion and it is clear that what I said in the point of order that I raised earlier--that Conservative Members have been organised by their Whip to make sure that we do not get on to the second motion--is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is up to. He should stick to the motion or shut up.

Madam Deputy Speaker : That is for me to decide. I usually allow a certain latitude if people want to make passing references or comparisons. What is not acceptable is when they go off the subject altogether. The hon. Member for Clywd, North-West (Mr. Richards) has not transgressed in that way yet.

Mr. Richards : The environment transcends the specific argument put by the hon. Member for Torfaen. What is important is the companies and the way that they approach the environment in this day and age. I have been greatly impressed by the way that companies such as Hamilton Oil have approached the environmental considerations and factors, where they wish to operate a plant. Let me briefly outline how a company such as Hamilton Oil approaches these matters and the policies that they adopt.

Mr. Michael : I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would pay attention to the reason why Opposition Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), have asked for a debate. It is because of the importance of the disposal of toxic waste in Wales. The way in which companies operate is not a matter for the debate. We are considering public policy, information for the public and the need for a public inquiry. It is outrageous of the hon. Gentleman to introduce extraneous topics into such a serious debate.

Mr. Richards : The hon. Member for Torfaen attacked the ReChem company because it made profits. The case, as presented by the Labour party thus far in the debate, is not entirely honest. It is an attack on companies generally.

Mr. Murphy : May I make it perfectly clear to the hon. Gentleman-- [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. We must have only one speaker at a time, because otherwise the debate becomes disorderly.

Mr. Murphy : I should like to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that when I referred to the

Column 731

profits of ReChem, I was merely pointing out that there had been a change in the way in which the company operated in that, because it has dealt with PCBs in recent years, it made a profit. I am neither for nor against the profit ; I am merely using it as an example of how the nature of the company has changed. It is more profitable with PCBs.

Mr. Richards : With respect, the hon. Gentleman referred not only to profits but to the remuneration of directors in the form of shares and so on. The implication was that companies such as ReChem have no concern for the environment. I wish to draw the attention of the House to a brief policy document issued by Hamilton Oil, just to give an example of how a company--

Mr. George Howarth : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hamilton Oil has nothing to do with toxic waste, and still less to do with Pontypool.

Madam Deputy Speaker : The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West must be allowed to go a little further so that I can see whether he makes points that relate to the motion.

Mr. Richards : I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Nigel Evans : Does my hon. Friend agree that our debate this morning is important not simply because we are discussing the ReChem plant in Pontypool, although most of the debate will concentrate on that? ReChem also has plants in Ellesmere Port and Southampton. The environment, which is what we are talking about, has implications for waste disposal units throughout Britain and Europe. The very fact that my hon. Friend--

Mr. George Howarth : Has the hon. Gentleman read the motion?

Mr. Nigel Evans : Yes I have. The very fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) spoke about eastern bloc countries is a recognition of the fact that there are no longer boundaries between Europe and the rest of the world or a boundary between--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman will know already that I look askance at interventions that become speeches. Will Mr. Richards please continue?

Mr. Richards : What I mean will become clear as I progress. The Hamilton Oil company says that it will :

"comply with all applicable laws, regulations and standards, uphold the spirit of the law ; and where laws do not adequately protect the environment, apply standards that minimise any adverse environmental impact resulting from its operations ;

communicate openly with government, the community and industry on environmental issues, and contribute to the development of policies, legislation and regulations that may effect Hamilton ;

ensure that its employees, suppliers and contractor services are informed about this policy and are aware of their environmental responsibilities in relation to Hamilton business ;

ensure that it has management systems to identify, control and monitor environmental risks arising from its operation."

The Government have an extremely good record on the environment. They have acted in a responsible manner and have been a world leader in environmental factors.

Column 732

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but he is now, rather than making a passing reference, going rather wide of the motion. Therefore, I must ask him to address his remarks more closely to it.

Mr. Richards : In that case, I will refer directly to what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside said on 15 May this year in response to a question by the hon. Member for Ceridigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). When asked about Government policy on hazardous waste, my hon. Friend said : "Negotiations are in progress on a draft regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. The regulations will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The Government believe that all developed countries should become self- sufficient in final disposal of waste, but that imports of hazardous wastes should continue from developing countries that are unable to deal safely with such wastes. The Government consider that international movements of waste for recovery should continue subject to appropriate environmental controls, such as those included in the recent decision by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the control of transfrontier movements of waste destined for recovery operations".--[ Official Report, 15 May 1992 ; Vol. 207. c. 234. ]

I wholeheartedly support that statement from my hon. Friend. It is worth reminding the Opposition what the principal features of the Basle convention are. I have a summary of the convention, which says :

"A signatory state cannot send hazardous waste to another signatory state that bans the import of it."

The summary also states :

"A signatory state cannot ship hazardous waste to any country that has not signed the treaty",

and says :

"Every country has the sovereign right to refuse to accept a shipment of hazardous waste",

and that

"Before an exporting country can start a shipment on its way, it must have the importing country's consent, in writing. The exporting country must first provide detailed information on the intended export to the importing country to allow it to assess the risks No signatory country may ship hazardous waste to another signatory state if the importing country does not have the facilities to dispose of the waste in an environmentally sound manner When an importing country proves unable to dispose of legally imported waste in an environmentally acceptable way, then the exporting state has a duty either to take it back or to find some other way of disposing of it in an environmentally sound manner".

The convention also states--

Mr. George Howarth : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 9.30 this morning, at the beginning of the debate, I drew the attention of Madam Speaker, who was in the Chair at the time, to the fact that the Government had arranged for a filibuster throughout the debate to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and myself from reaching the second and third motions on the order paper. My hon. Friend and I have secured the co-operation of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), and of our Front Bench, yet it is becoming increasingly obvious that Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) are simply reading out long conventions and bits of paper that have been put into their hands--the hon. Gentleman does

Column 733

not even understand what he is reading. This is more evidence that the Government are running away from the prospect of facing Merseyside.

Madam Deputy Speaker : I was present in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) made his original point of order, and it was clear from what Madam Speaker said that this is not a matter for the Chair unless the actual speeches made are not relevant or germane to the debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to be the judge of that.

Mr. Michael : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely, for the sake of the good reputation of the House, it should be publicly known that it is Conservative Members and their Whips who are orchestrating an attempt to stop a debate about Merseyside, and that there is no lack of co-operation for that debate among Labour Members.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. If these are points of order they can be made only on relevant matters for the Chair.

Mr. Richards : May I remind Labour Members what the motion actually says? It says that there is considerable

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker--

Mr. Richards : It says that there is considerable--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. When an hon. Member raises a point of order the hon. Member who is speaking must sit down.

Mr. Winnick : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I make my point of order with many apologies--it will take no more than a minute--and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will get his debate. I ask you for guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the latest news about the military involvement of the Western European Union, which includes Britain, in what was Yugoslavia. There is great anxiety about the prospect of Britain's becoming more involved in the civil war there, and as no statement has been made today, although the matter was raised yesterday by several hon. Members, could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, give me guidance as to how we can persuade a Minister to come to the House, if not today, at the earliest opportunity, so that we may debate the matter before the House rises for the long summer recess? I ask you to bear in mind that it would be most unfortunate if this country's involvement were to escalate during the recess without hon. Members being able to question Ministers, if the House were not recalled. Many of us are very concerned.

Madam Deputy Speaker : I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he will be aware that this is not a matter on which the Chair can intervene. He has made his point, and representatives of Ministers are here and will be aware of his anxiety. I am afraid that I cannot take the matter further than that.

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have waited until 11 o'clock, when it is traditional on a Friday for points of order and statements to be made, and I wonder whether you have had notice

Column 734

that the Home Secretary will make a statement about the decision of the European Court on Sunday trading. Since a statement was made in the press I have waited and hoped. Is there no way in which Members of Parliament can learn what the Government intend to do about the decision in Europe? Will a statement be forthcoming this morning? If not, will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, pursue through the channels that Madam Speaker would normally use, the question whether the Government intend to make a statement about their intention to change the law in any way--in particular the Shops Act 1950?

I declare a personal interest in that a private Member's Bill of mine was in the ballot and is due for its Second Reading on 26 January next year. One would expect that by now the Home Secretary would have declared his intentions to the House instead of feeding information to the press and the other media, whose record has been one of distorting the whole concept of the Shops Act--and, indeed, the proposals that I have presented to the House in my Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker : I have noticed an increasing number of inquiries as to whether the Government have asked to make a statement. Hon. Members can take it that if there is no announcement on the annunciator on the morning in question, no such request has been made. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has been in the House long enough and is ingenious enough to find a number of ways in which to raise the matter which interests him.

Mr. Richards : I remind Labour Members what the motion before the House actually says. It says that the House

"notes that there is considerable unease among the people of South East Wales".

There is unease among some people in Wales and elsewhere, and one reason for that is that irresponsible politicians quote statistics without sources and without confidence. I am trying, in quoting from the--

Mr. Llew Smith : Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what statistics I quoted without giving a source?

Mr. Richards : The hon. Gentleman said that the statistics that he cited were of Canadian origin, but I do not recall his saying specifically who had compiled, collated and analysed the figures to produce the statistics, which he could not support with any statistical degree of confidence.

Mr. Llew Smith : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Richards : No, I shall not give way.

I submit that those statistics are worthless. In order to reassure people who feel uneasy I am quoting briefly from the Basle convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. As I was saying :

"Shipments of hazardous waste must be packaged, labelled and transported in conformity with generally accepted and recognised international rules and standards

Bilateral agreements may be made by signatory states with each other and with a non-signatory country, but these agreements must conform to the terms of the Basel treaty and be no less environmentally sound

Since the authorities of many countries, especially developing ones, frequently do not have the trained specialists and technical know-how to assess information concerning hazardous waste and to handle it efficiently, the treaty calls

Next Section

Home Page