---

Column 234

Streeter, Gary

Sykes, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thomason, Roy

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Tyler, Paul

Viggers, Peter

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Waterson, Nigel

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Willetts, David

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Mr. James Arbuthnot.

NOES

Barnes, Harry

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Cryer, Bob

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Nigel Spearing and

Mr. Ted Rowlands.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment negatived.

Committee report progress ; to sit again this day.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Ordered,

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved. -- [Mr. Greg Knight.]

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That in the course of its consideration of the Matter of Local Government Reform in Scotland, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 1st February at half-past Ten o'clock.-- [Mr. Greg Knight.]

CONSOLIDATION &c., BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,

That Mr. Peter Ainsworth, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Estelle Morris, Mr. Richard Tracey and Mr. John Whittingdale be members of the Joint Committee on Consolidation &c., Bills.-- [Mr. Greg Knight.]

---

Column 235

Water Incidents (Lowermoor)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Greg Knight.]

7.2 am

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) : I do not think that I have occupied my seat in the Chamber for quite so long as you during the night, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am delighted to reach this stage, as I am sure you are.

In raising the sad saga of the Lowermoor water treatment works, my purpose is threefold. First, I seek an assurance from the Government--I am delighted to see that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has arrived, having been summoned by his bleeper--that they will meet their residual responsibility for the actions of what was then a public organisation, the South West water authority. Secondly, I wish to impress on the privatised water company the folly of procrastination when meeting realistic compension claims. Thirdly, I wish to urge immediate attention to a number of lessons of national significance to be learnt from the incident.

I wish to make it clear to the House and anyone who may read our proceedings that the water in north Cornwall is now the best-monitored drinking water in the United Kingdom. Anyone who might have any doubts on that score can rest assured that it is a wonderful place for a holiday and in no way a health risk.

It is a long time since the incident occurred so I hope that I shall be forgiven for briefly reminding the Minister and the House of what happened. On Wednesday 6 July 1988 at about 4.30 pm, 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate were mistakenly discharged into the wrong tank at the Lowermoor treatment works in north Cornwall by a relief driver. Within a matter of hours, 20,000 people, from Crackington in the north to the Camel estuary further west, were receiving poisoned drinking water.

However, the water company responded with confusion and complacency, partly because of a previous pump failure and partly because of obsessive concern to minimise bad publicity. Hon. Members will recall that this took place during the run-up to privatisation.

I quote an extract from the Lawrence report, commissioned by the authority itself :

"On Friday 8 July it was finally discovered that the incident was the result of the misdelivery of aluminium sulphate. Some of the staff were clearer about the implications but, on the evidence given to me by the public, information given out by different individuals in the Fowey District, in Exeter, and through the media continued to be confusing and contradictory".

Referring to the lack of information, he continues :

"I have observed two reasons why this was not done. No manager took charge in the way implied and there seems to be a culture in which the public are told as little as possible and expected to trust the authority to look after their interests."

These criticisms applied not just to the first two days after the incident but to the next two months. Misleading advice on the extent of the problem and its likely health effects, and on sensible precautions, was given out. During this period residents at the extremities of the network were never even told that they could be affected by the incident or that their supply was part of the system fed by Lowermoor.

Not surprisingly, when those residents began to experience the same inexplicable symptoms, they could not

---

Column 236

understand what had happened. The symptoms were often exacerbated by the flushing of the mains which continued for many weeks, dislodging both chemicals and metals.

The Lawrence report went on :

"A general statement about the problem having been aluminium sulphate was published by the Authority on 22 July. Amongst the contradictory advice that was given was the opinion that the water was safe. At the time data on toxicity had not been checked. Advice should have been given on what was known on the basis of the monitoring that was by then being done. But it is obvious that for a long time there would be contaminated water in the byways of the system and in such places as the tanks of holiday homes. Precautions should always have been advised."

They were not. It was only on 5 November 1991, three years later, that the then Minister at the Department of Health sent a letter to all households in the whole area of the Lowermoor water distribution system, in which, speaking of the Clayton report, he said : "The report concludes : We do not expect lasting physical harm from the toxicity of the contaminated water itself We still have no doubt that the accident itself and subsequent events have led to real mental and physical suffering in the community."

In my contention the original incident was a terrible failure, but the failure to explain, inform and warn was worse. The confusion, contradictions and cover-up were despicable and deplorable. We are approaching the fifth anniversary of this regrettable incident and still South West Water has not settled the majority of major claims. It has settled a large number of minor claims with what many regard as derisory sums, but the big claims are still outstanding. The company's claims to have achieved great benefits for the community are belied by the evidence from many of my constituents. Yesterday I received a letter from a couple to whom, for obvious reasons, I shall refer as Mr. and Mrs. M :

"The truth is that they have been settled solely for the reason that the large numbers of persons involved did not have the funds to carry on the very just fight, were not eligible for legal aid by only a slight margin or were so tired, frustrated and worried by the amount of legal bumpf that was being presented to them, a lot of which they were unable to understand, that they decided to take the pittance they were offered and continue to suffer."

From meeting them, I know that that was all too often the experience of those who suffered in the incident. That is confirmed by one of the solicitors who has been acting on behalf of many of the claimants. In the past few days he has written :

"One of the interesting features about the cases is the enormous number of people suffering from anxiety and stress. I have arranged for approximately two thirds of my clients to be examined for anxiety and stress and every report confirms that they are suffering from such symptoms. The general conclusion of the reports is that people have suffered from a threatening event for which no adequate explanation was given at the time nor has any adequate explanation been given since The anxiety and stress of the claimants is being compounded by the litigation itself which is taking a considerable length of time. This is particularly because of what I see as the obstructive attitude of the solicitors acting for South West Water and also because the case itself is unique which means that a considerable amount of additional work needs to be undertaken before the cases can be brought before the court."

The same solicitor demonstrates all too clearly the pettifogging attitude of the water company when he writes :

"in the light of the comments by South West Water that they are anxious to settle cases, it does seem rather odd that their solicitors should appear to be taking the opposite point of

---

Column 237

view. As an example, only last week, South West Water's solicitors wrote to say that they were not prepared to accept medical reports from GPs in support of clients' claims and were insisting that there had to be reports from consultants. Obviously while this is not a problem so far as those people who are legally aided are concerned, it does present a problem for people who are not legally aided because then they have to fund the costs of further medical reports."

Another firm of solicitors acting on behalf of 170

plaintiffs--there are upwards of 200 in all--writes :

"Many of the Plaintiffs suffered short term acute symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhoea, mouth and skin ulcers and nausea. In addition, many of them have developed long term problems such as aching in their joints, poor concentration and lack of judgment. Understandably, many of the Plaintiffs have felt extreme anxiety about the pollution incident itself and their subsequent poor health."

The letter explains the legal process that has taken place and states :

"the Defendants formally admitted that they were liable in damages but only for short term acute symptoms proven to be caused by exposure to the water and in respect of which they accepted damages should be payable. However, the Defendants disputed, and continue to dispute, that the pollution incident could have given rise to any longer term health problems and insist that the Plaintiffs establish the link between the contamination and the alleged long term symptoms."

All that is greatly at variance with repeated assurances in the press and elsewhere by the directors of the company that they are seeking an early settlement of all liabilities. On 16 November 1992, no less a person than the Master of the Rolls said in the Court of Appeal :

"The defendants having admitted liability, the parties wish to settle but cannot do so while they continue to differ on the appropriate measure of damage. It is desirable that they should be guided on the appropriate measure to facilitate the negotiation of early settlements Both cost and delay are better avoided." I say, "Hear, hear" to that.

I shall give a tiny sample from the shoal of letters, notes and interviews that I have had. Mr. A, a salesman, who used to drive 50, 000 miles a year on business, found that because of memory loss he simply could not do that. He found himself driving on the wrong side of the road, he could not remember whether he had stopped at traffic lights, he cannot remember where he is and he sometimes forgot to charge his customers.

Ms C was off work for 18 months and, after many hospital tests, including two bone biopsies, has had so much time off work that her employment is now under review.

Perhaps the most significant example is Mr. G whose personality has completely changed. His business has declined, he has lost his motivation, and the business is now in serious trouble. His grandchildren have gone from calling him Gramps to calling him Grumps. I could refer to others, but I wish to make progress and allow the Minister as much time as possible.

The interesting point about so many of the examples is that the sufferers are able to quantify the effect of health deterioration in terms of employment, their businesses or direct financial consequences. However, the company still says that it is not prepared to entertain what it calls "pure economic loss." The legal adviser says that this is not recoverable as a matter of law.

There are a number of questions. First and foremost, the Government having refused a public inquiry, despite requests from all parties and a huge number of residents, when they could have dissolved uncertainty and suspicion once and for all, we must ask what they are doing now to

---

Column 238

ensure that their citizens are receiving redress. There does not seem to be a citizens charter for those who are poisoned by the public water supply.

Secondly, given the sorry saga of lack of information, and the fact that the Departments of the Environment and of Health never explained what had happened, what steps have been taken to prevent a repetition ?

Thirdly, the drinking water inspectorate, which, in the Conan Doyle phrase, was the dog that did not bark in the night, is shown up by the incident to be a toothless watchdog. The fish in the river are better protected by the National Rivers Authority than we poor human consumers.

Fourthly, what about compensation claims ? The whole legal process--the gladiatorial contest ; the adversarial system--is inadequate in such circumstances. Wealthy institutions can grind down the individual citizen over years of expensive litigation. There must be a better way. Would not payment into court of an agreed minimum amount at the outset be more acceptable ? Perhaps something along the lines of the industrial tribunal would be a better forum for such discussions. Does the Minister believe that this could ever have happened while the water industry was still publicly accountable, and could it happen again now ? Now that it is in private hands, such an incident would be even worse. It is alarming that there is even less control of the industry than there was when the accident happened. Those of us who lived through the incident and now see the way in which the company is wriggling believes that its lawyers, insurers and directors are as slippery as eels. It is time that the Government pinned them down.

7.17 am

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean) : The incident that occurred at the Lowermoor water treatment works on 6 July 1988 has given rise to a great deal of public concern, and attracted considerable media attention. It continues to do so four and a half years after it took place. It is noticeable that as well as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is here. Initially, concern centred on how the mistake could have been allowed to happen, and the speed and accuracy with which information was communicated to the public. I think that all agreed--and indeed the then South West water authority accepted--that the incident should not have occurred. However when it did, it would have been sensible to provide the best information to the public as quickly as possible. Following any such incident, consumers must know that the problem is being rectified and that their interests and safety are considered paramount. Such information will help to restore that vital ingredient--confidence--in the quality of their water supply. This was one of the lessons of Lowermoor, to which I will return.

I start by saying a few words about responsibilities, and how they have changed considerably following Lowermoor and privatisation. Before privatisation and the Water Act 1989, the regional water authorities in England and Wales were the main bodies responsible for water supply. Local authorities ascertained the sufficiency and wholesomeness of that water, but it was not a criminal

---

Column 239

offence to supply water unfit for consumption and any dispute about the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of supplies was determined by the Secretary of State.

The Lowermoor incident occurred in 1988, but the case against the South West water authority did not come to court until December 1990, after privatisation. Thus it was the residuary water authority which was charged with the common law offence of causing nuisance by supplying, without warning, water liable to endanger public health or comfort, and also for causing poisonous matter to enter the River Camel. The prosecution was undertaken by the Director of Public Prosecutions after investigation by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary. The residuary water authority was found guilty of causing nuisance, but not guilty of causing poisonous matters to enter controlled waters. The judge made it clear that the authority was not answerable for the act of putting aluminium sulphate into the wrong tank.

Responsibilities are different today. There is a parallel in that the Water Act 1989 put a duty on the Secretary of State to take enforcement action against a water company that fails to supply wholesome water. And local authorities are still required to keep themselves informed about the supply situation in their area and liaise with the water company if they suspect something is wrong. But for the first time, the 1989 Act made it a criminal offence to supply water that is unfit for humans to drink. Regulations made under the Act set strict standards for drinking water quality and a new and active drinking water inspectorate has been created. That dog did not bark, as it was not even conceived in 1988.

The inspectorate has since been created. It ensures that companies are complying with regulatory requirements and checks that they have proper procedures in place for dealing with all types of incident or emergency.

If a water contamination incident should occur now, the enforcement bodies that would undertake any prosecution would be either the drinking water inspectorate, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, or the National Rivers Authority. But I consider that, following the steps that the water companies and Government have taken, which I shall be describing, an incident like the one in 1988 at Lowermoor is most unlikely to recur.

If, nevertheless, a similar type of incident were to occur now, the water company concerned would be under an obligation to inform the Secretary of State as soon as possible, and in writing within 72 hours, of any significant drinking water health risks or matters of national importance or consumer concern. When the Secretary of State is notified of an incident, the company is required to include details of the event and its cause, an assessment of the effect, the action taken, the persons notified and any press notice. Within one month a full report must be provided, giving details of the results of water sampling and an assessment of action already taken or proposed. The company must provide copies of reports and advice in support, for example from its medical advisers.

Acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, the drinking water inspectorate would consider whether a breach of the water quality regulations had occurred and in particular whether it appeared that water unfit for human consumption had been supplied. The inspectorate would

---