House of Commons Hansard Debates for 10 Jul 1992

Column 756

submitted would she support it with the enthusiasm with which she thinks we should accept the ReChem plant in our constituency?

Lady Olga Maitland : I have confidence in ReChem's safety programme and in the HMIP and its findings. If I did not, the problems would apply wherever the plant was situated. The hon. Gentleman is implying criticism of the HMIP. Does he think that it got it wrong? As far as I can see, it has got it right. There have been no instances of illnesses or destruction in the community, but I know that people have been concerned. Much of it is to do with fear of the unknown and lack of understanding of what is going on. Therefore, the independent inquiry being carried out by the university of East Anglia is appropriate.

The Murphy's law syndrome is based on a misunderstanding, on deliberate misinformation. ReChem has been under constant attack since 1980, but in all that time, its standards of safety have been in line with current knowledge and understanding. As I said, it has been working closely with HMIP. We have already heard that the company has spent £1 million on keeping in tune with current knowledge and understanding.

Mr. Llew Smith : Will the hon. Lady accept that if the ReChem plant in Torfaen is as efficient and its technology as adequate as she implies, HMIP would not have come to the conclusion that the incinerator design is inadequate and unless it is improved, it is unlikely to receive approval under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Lady Olga Maitland : The hon. Gentleman seems to be forgetting that we have announced a £2.5 million project on updating equipment. That is surely better news than doing nothing at all. The hon. Gentleman is being unfairly critical, for political purposes.

Mr. Michael : Surely the fact that a company like ReChem, which is not particularly generous with its capital investment, will have to spend £2.5 million to try to get in line with current environmental policy is proof that, in the past, its environmental policies were appalling?

Lady Olga Maitland : Absolute nonsense. It is proof that it has been willing to co-operate with HMIP and to provide the best possible service for the community, and not just for Wales but for the country as a whole.

Mr. Michael : Will the hon. Lady explain how she can say that with such confidence, in view of the fact that, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and myself, the salient point about the proposed investment is that information on the reasons for it, and on the way in which it will be directed, is not in the public arena? That is one reason why the inquiry is needed. The hon. Lady does not seem to understand the issue at stake.

Lady Olga Maitland : I think that the findings will come out in the report by the university of East Anglia. The Opposition have a dog-in-the- manger attitude, saying, "We do not want ReChem's plant to operate efficiently, or at all, in our area." I ask them what kind of alternatives they really want. Do they want countries such as those of eastern Europe where, without effective waste disposal systems, there are dying rivers, high rates of diseases, trees withering and children playing on untreated dangerous dumps? Why do they not go to eastern Europe, look at the

Column 757

damage there and accept that we have fulfilled a moral responsibility in permitting effective incineration of hazardous waste for the good of all mankind?

Mr. Simon Hughes : Will the hon. Lady answer a straightforward question? Does she support the import of toxic waste from developed countries into this country if those countries have the technological capacity to deal with that waste themselves? If she does not, she should support the argument that companies such as ReChem should not process imported wastes from developed countries.

Lady Olga Maitland : I support the import of hazardous waste from other countries until such time as they have their own plants to treat their waste.

Mr. Hughes : Even if those countries are developed?

Lady Olga Maitland : All developed countries do not necessarily have the mechanisms to deal effectively with hazardous waste.

Mr. Ainger : Is the hon. Lady not aware that Sweden, which has its own incinerator, decided that incineration was a not a safe way to dispose of PCBs, so it exported them to Pontypool? Is she not aware, also, that the 1,500 tonnes of waste from the St. Basile-le-Grand fire was destined for an incinerator at Swan Lake in Onatrio, but that the Quebec Government demanded earlier disposal of the PCBs, which is why there was an attempt to secure a contract with ReChem? Does the hon. Lady accept that although several developed countries already have incinerators, they still export waste to Pontypool because it is cheaper?

Lady Olga Maitland : I welcome the fact that Sweden decided to send its waste over here, because Sweden did not have the right facilities. ReChem is one of the few companies in the world which can deal with the high incineration of noxious wastes-- [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh at that, but it is true.

Mr. Nigel Evans : Does my hon. Friend agree that although much is being said today about massive imports of toxic wastes into this country, 95 per cent. of such waste treated is home produced?

Lady Olga Maitland : As I said earlier, that is true. What do the Opposition want to do? Do they want to export hazardous wastes elsewhere although we have an expert company in this country? The Opposition are carrying out excellent scaremongering tactics for their political ends. It is one thing to have a responsible concern for the environment, but it is another to start frightening people.

Mr. Michael : This is one of the most outrageous speeches that I have ever heard since I entered the House--and it is being made by a Member who seems not to understand the issues. Is the hon. Lady accusing her hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), all the elected representatives and all the community groups, of wanting simply to raise concerns for their own reasons? Clearly that is untrue, as anyone who has considered the issues knows. My hon. Friend introduced the debate because of the concern of people in his constituency, and his concern for them. I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that fact.

Column 758

Lady Olga Maitland : I do not consider that the Opposition have a monopoly of care and concern for the environment and for the treatment of hazardous waste. We all share their care and concern. Perhaps we take a more responsible attitude in ensuring that hazardous waste is dealt with properly and expertly.

Mr. Thomason : Does my hon. Friend agree that in terms of developing plant abroad and the spread of technology, ReChem should be congratulated on its joint venture in Italy to develop processing facilities there?

Lady Olga Maitland : I, too, congratulate ReChem on having the imagination to develop a joint project with the Italians. I understand that it is seeking to help other countries to develop their own incinerator plants. That means that even less hazardous waste will come into the United Kingdom.

Although ReChem has been so heavily criticised by the Opposition, it has recently been presented with three silver Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents health and safety awards. That hardly comes into tune with your own allegations that it is falling down on safety.

I move on to the next spurious line, where you are trying to suggest--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member may refer to the Opposition, to hon. Members or to hon. Gentlemen. "You" and "your" are not permissible words in the Chamber.

Lady Olga Maitland : I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fear that it is taking me some time to get the hang of these conventions. I move on to the arguments that the Opposition have been raising on PCBs. It strikes me that, again, they are scaremongering. It is true that PCBs are noxious materials. It is true also that they have been around since 1929. They have left good marks, as it were, as well as a residue. It is important to ensure that PCBs are handled properly. They can be disposed of only at a high incineration level.

Mr. Llew Smith : I accept the hon. Lady's argument that if we are to incinerate PCBs we must do so at the highest possible incineration level. Will she tell me whether ReChem can reach the destruction level which the European Commission is suggesting? Perhaps she can tell us what that level is.

Lady Olga Maitland : I am sure that the incineration levels which ReChem operates will appear in the report by the university of East Anglia.

Opposition Members give the impression that PCBs should be left untreated. Is that the alternative? That would mean indefinite storage, and that would present major problems. Included among them would be environmental contamination. I hardly believe that the Opposition would want that.

Mr. Llew Smith : We have a quaint tradition in south Wales. It is that when people pose questions we normally answer them. Will the hon. Lady follow that tradition and answer my question?

Lady Olga Maitland : I shall pass over that one.

Mr. Michael : That is in good Conservative tradition.

Lady Olga Maitland : Some Opposition arguments are good examples of scaremongering. Opposition Members

Column 759

referred to the Californian guidelines and suggested that various utensils at ReChem have been contaminated to a level that is 400 times over the limit. Reference was made to a kettle, a telephone, a sweat band and a door. If the guidelines are in such common use, why is it that they are not part of the reference material that will be considered by the university of East Anglia? The Opposition have selected guidelines that suit them.

A public inquiry is unnecessary. What possible purpose would it serve when a report is being compiled? Such inquiries are used to establish facts that are not already available, but on this issue the facts are available. The Opposition imply that there is a cover-up, but there is no evidence of that. Anyone can visit the ReChem establishment at any time, and the company has a free and relaxed relationship with the inspectorate of pollution. There is no question of the company's holding back.

We must retain a proper and responsible attitude to the disposal of hazardous waste. It is irresponsible to put our heads in the sand. Simply because we do not like noxious waste we cannot ignore it and it must be handled properly. ReChem can do that expertly with high incineration. It is irresponsible to try to knock ReChem. It provides a service not just for the people of Wales but for all the people of Britain.

I believe in looking after the interests of mankind. We have the benefits of the products that produce noxious waste but we must ensure that the waste is disposed of in a responsible manner. That is what is happening.

12.56 pm

Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd) : I am sure that many of us have experienced the problems of trying to get the facts about companies such as ReChem. The Minister and I are the only two people in the Chamber who served on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that examined ReChem. We were supplied with all the information that we asked for and we discovered that serious problems perceived by the community could not be addressed by the Committee. We felt it necessary to look for expert outside help and the Committee was split on whether to call for a public inquiry.

Mr. Colin Shepherd : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recommendation in the Select Committee report for a survey was agreed by all its members? I do not see a minority report.

Mr. Howells : That is correct. The Minister will recall that there was a vigorous discussion about whether to issue a minority report and in the end a compromise was accepted.

Mr. Jonathan Evans : Paragraph 16 of the reports says that the evidence so far gathered about environmental pollution caused by the ReChem incinerator does not prove that the plant is a serious public health risk, although there are grounds for concern. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that conclusion was unanimous?

Dr. Howell : That is correct. We all agreed to that report. I shall try to put the matter in context. We have had flights of fantasy and comparisons with eastern Europe. Many of us in Wales are worried not simply about

Column 760

ReChem but about incinerators everywhere. We found that ReChem was by no means the worst offender in polluting and that many other companies performed rather less well. For example, hospital incinerators, with which serious problems still exist, are immune from the examination to which ReChem was subjected.

However, that does not mean that we should simply say that, compared to some hospital managements, ReChem has had a reasonably responsible attitude, so we should not investigate it further. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) agree with that, because I should hope that as most hon. Members who have spoken in this debate represent Welsh constituencies, we would all be concerned about the health of people in Wales.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, Wales has processed difficult materials. The smelter plants in the Swansea valley poison an entire environment. The coke ovens such as those in my constituency now cause serious environmental problems, as do many chemical plants. They blight people's lives and the days are long gone when local authorities should be allowed to grant planning permission with impunity. Although the applications may conform to the HMIP criteria on emissions, because of the stench and noise emitted from the plant and many other factors--even a community's fear about a plant--planning committees must look much more carefully than they have in the past before granting planning permission in those circumstances.

It was clear to the Select Committee and many other bodies that have examined ReChem that the company suffered from the old Welsh planning disease. It was allowed to set up in a totally unsuitable environment. That has happened time and time again. It happened in the Curm-Beddau plant in the Aberdare valley and in the Purolite plant in my constituency.

It has been said that no political party has a monopoly on care. No political party has a monopoly on good planning decisions either. I have had many battles with Labour-controlled authorities about appalling planning decisions. A few more will be conducted in this House over a famous Bill that is now under discussion--

Mr. Jonathan Evans : The barrage.

Dr. Howells : Yes, the barrage.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Monmouth and my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) have similar experiences to mine in representing constituents, in the maze that constitutes the environmental inspectorates. I tramped from office to office in an attempt to get some sense out of the authorities about the problems associated with the chemical plants in my constituency. I went through the same processes as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen did in trying to get at the truth behind ReChem. I went to the HMIP, which told me that it was responsible for emissions as far as the factory gates, but, once they went beyond the factory fence, they were no longer its responsibility.

Mr. Thomason : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's introduction of the Environmental Protection Agency will deal with many of the problems to which he has referred and will introduce a more unified approach to the difficulties?

Column 761

Dr. Howells : Yes, it constituted almost two pages of the Conservative party manifesto, but we have still seen nothing come out of it. The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been an interesting and fierce interdepartmental row because the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is trying to steal part of the responsibility that is currently held by the Department of the Environment through the National Rivers Authority. I should like to see HMIP certificates issued with impunity, as that cannot be done at present.

As I am sure that the Minister, who was a member of the Committee, will agree that if anything came out of the examination, it was a sense of bewilderment at the incompetence of HMIP. There was such chaos that the poor man who headed HMIP at the time committed suicide. It is a dreadful state of affairs and it has taken the Government far too long to come to terms with it and to put it right.

When will the integrated policy take effect? At present it has not taken effect. If one wants to find out how to clean up ReChem, one goes first to HMIP. It says that it has certain responsibilities. One then goes to the National Rivers Authority, which says that it has responsibility for aqueous discharges and is very worried about them. One goes to the local authority environmental health department which says, "Sorry, we cannot do much about this because we do not have the funding. We do not have time to put people on to things like this." The environmental health departments have responsibility for ensuring that the general level of environmental health is secure. All too often, they are the most disappointing departments of all. They should be the motor department in ensuring that all environmental matters are brought together, but they are not. One then goes to the county council, but its ability to influence matters is even more limited than that of the district authorities.

Finally, one can turn up at the Minister's door, as I have done. One can write endless letters to the Minister. The Minister refers people back to the myriad agencies to which they have tramped in the past couple of months trying to find an answer. It is a maze and a disgrace.

I will not bother to address the nonsense spoken by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). She said that we were all on the level of some apparatchik in Warsaw. I have seen the results of the destruction in eastern Europe and it is not a matter which should be approached trivially or made fun of, or compared with the position in south Wales. We care very much for our constituents in south Wales and we will fight as hard as any other right hon. or hon. Members to ensure that the mess we have had to put up with over the years in which our fair country has been raped and continues to be raped by corporations that have not cared one iota about pollution will not happen again.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen on his speech and I hope that he continues with his valiant defence of his constituency.

Mr. Colin Shepherd : I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's peroration, but I feared that if I did not move quickly, I should not get the point in. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) talked about the liaison committee and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) talked about his difficulties in getting answers. A key element is the company itself. Has the hon. Gentleman been able to address himself to the concept of the liaison

Column 762

committee, which appears not to be functioning? Similar liaison committees function in Fawley and Essex. The natures of the waste may not be identical, but one case may be used as leverage in another if one can discuss the matter openly and frankly.

Dr. Howells : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it is important. In my constituency I try to encourage the liaison committees even though there has been long and terrible hostility. Sometimes such committees work ; sometimes they do not. At the last count, there were 15 action committees in my constituency and most of them were not involved in liaison committees. Where there is sufficient trust to build up a liaison relationship, such committees can be important and constructive in helping to resolve matters. They cannot always happen and that is why we are debating the issue in the House. A liaison committee has not happened because there is not sufficient trust. Perhaps as a result of the company's reluctance to indulge in open debate in the past, it will not take part in such a committee.

I made a rather flippant intervention in which I said that ReChem would sue a woodpile on the chance that there was a snake in it. ReChem is extremely litigious so it can be dangerous for ordinary people to try to debate the issue outside. I know that good work has been done by, for example, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) in environmental matters. I hope that he will not associate himself with what sounds like a series of apologies for ReChem. I hope that the messages which are even now travelling back and forth between civil servants and the Minister do not suggest to anyone watching our proceedings that the Welsh Office is seeking to provide some kind of statistical apology for ReChem.

We want the answers and we want what is happening to be in the open. The best way of ensuring that it is in the open is by a proper public inquiry. What on earth do the company or the Welsh Office have to lose by that ? The Welsh people, at any rate, have a great deal to gain.

1.9 pm

Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan) : The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke eloquently of the concerns felt by many of his constituents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) has said that his constituents are similarly concerned. We must not, however, allow our objectivity to be clouded by our emotions on this issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for the way in which she expressed herself today.

If the hon. Member for Torfaen had opposed rather than supported or condoned the failure of Torfaen borough council to set up a liaison committee, many of the public's fears might have been allayed by now. We are dealing with a very dangerous substance indeed and, so far as scientific knowledge is aware, the best way of disposing of it is through properly controlled and monitored high-temperature incineration. That is what is happening at the ReChem plant and the efficiency of the plant in destroying the material is more than 99.9999 per cent.

Mr. Flynn : If the incinerator is working efficiently, how was it possible for "Newsnight" to discover on the tip used by ReChem capacitors that had been imperfectly burned and contained large quantities of PCBs and dioxins? There

Column 763

is only one firm in the whole of Britain that burns capacitors contaminated with PCBs. If its incinerator was working efficiently, how on earth could that happen ?

Mr. Sweeney : The hon. Gentleman should view such specific fears in the context of the history of the plant at Pontypool. The plant was commissioned in 1974, and, as is often the case with plants dealing with dangerous chemicals--

Mr. Llew Smith : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if ReChem's destruction efficiency is 99.9999 per cent., that still does not bring it up to the levels that the European Commission will be proposing?

Mr. Sweeney : I do not know what the European Commission will be proposing. I only know that 99.9999 per cent. is a very high percentage indeed.

The plant was commissioned in 1974 and, as is normally the case with such plants, there were public concerns from the outset. In 1979, following allegations from residents about alleged atmospheric discharges Torfaen borough council commissioned the Porton Down chemical defence establishment to carry out an atmospheric pollution survey. That was done, and the results showed no particular cause for concern. In 1985, following similar allegations at the ReChem plant in Bonnybridge in Scotland, reports were published, for both Scotland and Wales, showing that nothing abnormal had been detected. Further work was commissioned from Professor Lawrence on the incidence of neural tube defect

Mr. Ainger : I understand that the Bonnybridge plant, formerly run by ReChem, was closed down before a public inquiry could be held into the operations of the plant and the pollution that it has caused. The hon. Gentleman should not cite Bonnybridge as an example.

Mr. Sweeney : I referred to it because the inquiry showed that there was nothing abnormal at the plant.

In 1985, there were new demands for a public inquiry into the plant at Pontypool--

Mr. Ainger : I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman again because I am at a loss to understand his argument. He refers to an inquiry into Bonnybridge not finding anything. There was no inquiry. The plant closed because it was polluting the glems and valleys of Scotland.

Mr. Sweeney : I am not talking about a public inquiry but about a report that was presented in 1985.

In 1987, new flue gas technology was introduced at the ReChem plant and that resulted in a significant improvement in pollution control. In 1987, there was a Crown court case in which Torfaen borough took ReChem to court, and it was ruled that there was no case to answer on charges of smell and fume nuisance. Perhaps predictably, demands for a public inquiry continued to be made.

Mr. Murphy : The hon. Gentleman will recall my earlier remarks about the learned judge at the end of that case saying that, in his view, there could be a public inquiry.

Mr. Sweeney : There could still be a public inquiry, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr.

Column 764

Evans) pointed out, such an inquiry would be premature now. It might be appropriate at the end of the year, if evidence appeared to justify an inquiry but this debate is taking place today. Between 1989 and 1990, there was a special inquiry by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and in August 1990 the Secretary of State for Wales commissioned an independent study by the university of East Anglia into PCB levels in the Panteg area of Pontypool. An improvement notice was served in May 1991 and further improvement notices were served in April of this year. When those notices have been complied with, the plant will be the safest and most efficient of its kind in Britain.

Mr. Flynn : Those who have been following the issue for years and have read all the reports will recognise the phrase that the hon. Gentleman just used, about it being the safest and most efficient plant. The phrase was used in 1975, 1979, 1981 and in 1987. It has always been claimed to be the safest. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect that his information about, and knowledge of, the plant does not even extend to pronouncing the name of the plant correctly? He keeps referring to it as "Recam." He might reconsider his speech and decide to finish it now.

Mr. Sweeney : I apologise for my poor Welsh pronunciation-- [Interruption.] The motion is inappropriate and I shall oppose it. 1.19 pm

Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke) : I shall try to confine my remarks to the issue, especially to the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988, which are relevant to the part of the motion on the importation of toxic waste into Wales for so-called disposal at ReChem in Pontypool.

The debate could be described as a curate's egg. Excellent speeches were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and-- unfortunately, he is not present to hear my compliment--the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). The speeches of the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) were probably the worst that I have heard since becoming a Member a few months ago. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West was deliberately filibustering on an issue that is important to Wales. The fact that he is now a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs made that even more appalling.

The major issue of the importation of toxic waste into Wales came to a head in 1989. The previous August, at St. Basile-le-Grand on the St. Lawrence seaway, 1,500 tonnes of PCBs that had been stored in a warehouse went up in smoke and, unfortunately, came down in a form of dioxin. The town had to be evacuated for up to three weeks ; 3,200 people had to be evacuated ; and an area of 14 sq km was covered in dioxins.

That prompted the Canadian Government to act. Unfortunately, the only incinerator in Canada, at Swan Lake, was chock-a-block with PCBs from North America generally. Therefore the Quebec Government, in an election year, decided to get rid of the PCBs that were stored in the warehouse.

At the time, I was a county councillor representing Pembroke Dock. There was a possibility of those 1,500 tonnes of PCBs, which were destined for ReChem, being

Column 765

imported through Pembroke. We formed an action committee and believed that we had successfully persuaded the port operator and his customers not to sign any contract with the Quebec Government or ReChem.

The problem that we encountered in Pembroke Dock highlighted for us, and now for the whole country, the inadequacy of the transfrontier shipment regulations. A consigner will find a company--in our case, ReChem--that is willing to dispose of PCBs or other toxic waste. The company signs the form saying, "Yes, I am willing to accept a consignment of toxic waste" and the local disposal authority signs to show that it is willing to accept the shipment. Under the regulations, the only other authority that must be informed is the waste disposal authority at the port of import. The documents must travel with the shipment from, in this instance, Canada to Pontypool.

I discussed with the harbour master and general manager of Milford Haven port authority their fears and concerns about the beginning of the trade in the importation of toxic waste. I also had discussions with the fire brigade and the local district council in its capacity as the waste disposal authority. All expressed grave concern and believed that the facilities then available at the port were not suitable for handling toxic waste. However, under the regulations they could not oppose the importation. The harbour master could stop the shipment coming in only if the ship or its cargo would provide a safety hazard to shipping in the harbour. The waste disposal authority, South Pembrokeshire district council, could not object because it was merely on the route to the ultimate point of disposal at ReChem.

What staggered me was that only 12 months previously the same toxic product had caused the evacuation of a town of 3,200 people and had contaminated 14 sq km of land, yet there was not a requirement to inform the fire brigade, the police or the health authority that such a consignment would be passing through the pretty district of South Pembrokeshire. It was then to travel along the A477, meeting up with the A40 in the district of Carmarthen, yet neither the fire brigade nor the local police had to be informed. It would then have proceeded along the M4, passing through Llanelli. Again, the authorities there would not be aware of it. It would go on to Lliw valley, Swansea and all along the M4 to Pontypool. The only people who would have been aware that it was on its way would have been the waste authority in Pontypool, Torfaen district council and ReChem. What nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) told us how Cardiff city council discovered by mistake that PCBs were travelling through Cardiff and being held in a siding. Surely if we are concerned about transport safety-- we all know from driving on our motorways that lorries catch fire and accidents happen--the Government should first insist that each of the 17 ports that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen mentioned were importing toxic wastes and directing it down to Pontypool should inform district, health, police and fire brigade authorities on the route that at a certain time on a certain day PCBs will be travelling through their area, in case an accident happens or a fire breaks out. Surely that would be the first step that a sensible, reasonable Government would take.

Torfaen district council as a receiving waste authority could not inform Carmarthen district council, Dyfed

Column 766

Powys police, Dyfed fire brigade or any of the other relevant authorities on the route to Pontypool because of commercial confidentiality. Mr. David Thomas, who is responsible for environmental health, and therefore ultimately responsible in law for the transfrontier shipment regulations, was prevented from informing even his own members. He would have faced an injunction if he so much as told the chief constable of Dyfed Powys police or the chief fire officer of the Dyfed county council.

Mr. Nigel Evans : I was a county councillor for six years before coming to the House. To my knowledge the county councillor operating with the emergency services, whether the ambulance service or the fire brigade, and with the district council had to have emergency plans ready for every eventuality. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps he is creating fear where there should be none?

Mr. Ainger : No. I am suggesting that emergency plans should be made available. That is what the chief fire officer, the chief constable and health authority officials have told me. They cannot plan for something if they do not know that they will have to deal with it. PCBs are carried on our motorways and railways through areas where no emergency plans have been made to deal with an accident. Those areas have been given no opportunity to make plans. The reason is that the law does not require that information to be given to the relevant authorities. It may be slightly remiss of the regulations that they do not provide for that information to be given to the relevant authorities, but with common sense and good will the problem could be overcome--that is, if the final disposal authority informed all the other relevant authorities on the route to be taken by the waste that it would be coming through their areas on a certain day. They cannot do so, however, because of commercial confidentiality. ReChem says, "If you give prior notice that a shipment of PCBs is coming from Canada, Sweden, Germany or Italy it will give our competitors the chance to come in and undercut us." That argument was put to Mr. David Thomas.

Mr. Llew Smith : Does my hon. Friend accept that information that is refused to the general public in Britain about the incineration industry is readily available in the United States? If one goes to any library in the United States one can obtain that information from the computer. Unlike Britain, the United States has a freedom of information Act.

Mr. Ainger : I agree. That is another reason why we import PCBs from the United States. The freedom of information Act in the United States and all its other environmental controls mean that it is more expensive for American companies to dispose of PCBs in the United States than to ship them 3,000 miles and transport them by road into Pontypool. That is why there has been a significant increase in imports of PCBs.

Mr. Nigel Evans : I am perplexed by the hon. Gentleman's point about emergency plans. A county council is obliged to make plans to deal with emergencies. The hon. Gentleman would like specific details to be given about shipments, or lorry or train journeys, but is he suggesting that Gwent county council has no emergency plans to deal with any incident?

Next Section

Home Page