---

Column 240

take into account the quality of the water supplied, whether any illness resulted and whether the company had acted with due diligence and taken all reasonable steps to prevent the supply of unfit water. It would then advise the Secretary of State whether to prosecute the company.

The drinking water inspectorate may also decide to disseminate information about the lessons learnt, so that all water companies--not only those directly concerned--can make the changes that seem to be necessary in the light of experience.

Of course, the companies have duties and responsibilities immediately an incident happens. These have been set out clearly in the regulations and in guidance published by my Department and the Welsh Office. Water companies must take all reasonable steps to restore the supply of wholesome water, and they must advise customers quickly and appropriately if water is unsuitable for consumption, or whether it should be boiled if that would make it safe, or whatever. If necessary, action must be taken to supply potable water by tanker or other means, paying particular attention to the needs of special groups such as kidney dialysis patients and bottle-fed babies. I started by mentioning that one effect of the Lowermoor incident was to highlight the importance of good communications between those responsible for supply and the local and district health authorities. So now, under our current regulations, companies must notify local authorities and district health authorities as soon as possible of any event that gives rise, or is likely to give rise, to a significant health risk to the community in those authorities' areas. That is an important provision which is now enforceable by the Secretary of State.

Various inquiries and investigations have taken place since the Lowermoor incident. They are well known, so I shall refer to them only briefly. First, the South West water authority commissioned Dr. John Lawrence, director of ICI's Brixham laboratory and non-executive director of the water authority, to investigate the circumstances surrounding the incident. Dr. Lawrence identified a number of management and systems failures and his criticisms were accepted by the water authority. His report was published a month after the incident in August 1988.

In the light of the Lawrence report, the then Secretary of State asked all water utilities to carry out a thorough review of their management and operating procedures at water treatment works, especially unmanned installations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), then Minister of State, reported to the House in April 1989 that a number of improvements had been made to procedures in the water industry following the Lowermoor incident. Those improvements covered such matters as waterworks site security, procedures for receiving chemicals at works, remote monitoring of the final treated water, internal reporting arrangements for incidents, and emergency procedures including liaison with all those concerned with public health issues.

Following continuing public concern, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health established the Lowermoor incident heath advisory committee, headed by Dame Barbara Clayton, to inquire into the public health implications of the incident and to advise the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly district health authority. That group was staffed by acknowledged and independent experts in the areas of pathology, the health effects of aluminium, epidemiology and water quality.

---

Column 241

The group has produced two reports. In July 1989, it found that it was not possible to attribute the very real health complaints to the toxic effect of the incident, except as a consequence of people's anxiety. It concluded that much of that anxiety was attributable to the press prominence given to alarmist statements for which there was no scientific evidence.

The group made a number of recommendations regarding management and communications to the public in the event of any such incidents. Those have been taken on board by the companies as standard procedures and, where appropriate, incorporated into regulations. A further important recommendation was to set up an expert organisation to provide directors of public health with authoritative medical and toxicological advice. As a result, the formation of the independent health advisory group on chemical contamination incidents, under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Eric Stroud, was announced in October 1990.

The second report of the reconvened Clayton group in November 1991 followed up on complaints by residents of the Lowermoor area that their health had suffered as a result of the incident. The group concluded :

"The research reported to us does not provide convincing evidence that harmful accumulation of aluminium has occurred, nor that there is a greater prevalence of ill-health due to toxic effects of the water in the exposed population".

It continued :

"We still have no doubt that the accident itself and subsequent events have led to real mental and physical suffering in the community. We emphasise that we do not believe that people in the Lowermoor area are imagining symptoms. The physical problems associated with all the worry and concern and the psychological harm could last for a long time for some people. Such a situation is well recognised following major accidents".

As a result of that concern, the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly district health authority will continue to monitor the general health of people in the area.

The Government welcomed the second report of the Lowermoor incident health advisory group and everyone with an interest in the consequences of the incident has

---

Column 242

reason to be grateful to Professor Dame Barbara Clayton and the members of the group for producing such a thorough and authoritative report.

As a result of the Lowermoor incident, civil claims have been made by some 700 people. The Water Act 1989 made the privatised water companies responsible for any residual civil liabilities of the old regional water authorities. In consequence, those claims are against South West Water. I was pleased to learn that the majority of them have been settled, but about 170 are left outstanding.

In respect of the outstanding claims, I understand that South West Water has made payments into court calculated on the basis of short-term symptoms that have been substantiated. However, there are those who claim damages for not only short-term symptoms but long-term symptoms such as loss of memory and for aggravated and exemplary damages. They are pursuing their claims together, through their solicitors, as a class action. I feel sure that the hon. Member shares South West Water's concern that those outstanding claims should be resolved as soon as possible--although he has been sceptical about its claims in that regard. However, I stress that those matters are for the parties and the courts to decide. A legal case is in progress, and neither the Government nor I have any locus in those matters.

In summary and conclusion, the investigations, reviews and reports that I described amply demonstrate that both the South West water authority and the Government treated the incident very seriously indeed. My Department, including the drinking water inspectorate, and the Department of Health are satisfied that appropriate action has been taken in the light of the independent reports of experts to ensure that the lessons of Lowermoor have been learnt. Moreover, legislation has been framed to ensure that if incidents nevertheless occur, all parties are in a position to react quickly and effectively.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

---