House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jun 1995

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is important that local residents are reassured that monitoring will continue during a breakdown, even if that breakdown lasts for only a few seconds? What is important to residents is not the high temperatures in the cement kilns, but what comes out of the kilns. If monitoring is not done during a breakdown, it is impossible for local residents to know whether what is coming out of a kiln is damaging.

Mr. Duncan: I repeat that the heat retained in the cement kiln is such that, even though there has been a slight breakdown, the fuel is destroyed and rendered inert. The hon. Lady should be aware that the regime involves constant monitoring. As a result of the improvements that my right hon. Friend the Minister and HMIP have put in place, my constituents' concerns have been allayed and they are happy to accept HMIP's explanation. About 700 constituents came to an initial public meeting. All of them have learnt what has been put in place to deal with their concerns.

Mrs. Campbell indicated dissent .

Mr. Duncan: The hon. Lady may well shake her head, but I know what my constituents think. HMIP and many

Column 754

other experts have addressed them directly. I must advise her that her concern is misplaced. HMIP and the Minister deserve great credit for what they have done to improve the monitoring regime for cement kilns.

Mr. Bennett: I support the new clauses, particularly new clause 17.

The speech of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) suggested a certain measure of complacency. The Select Committee on the Environment was lobbied very hard by the various interest groups concerned about the burning of secondary liquid fuels and the House wants to be clear exactly who is involved.

There are the traditional companies that have built incinerators at considerable expense and are burning a great deal of waste material to the highest standards. To make the incinerators work as efficiently as possible, they are keen to get waste solvents, which improve the combustion process. They are obviously extremely worried that they might lose the solvents to the cement industry. Those companies--especially Shanks McEwan and Cleanaway--are concerned that they might lose some of the best fuel for their incinerators. The traditional companies thus have a clear and substantial financial interest.

The cement companies clearly believe that, if they can use the fuel, they can dramatically reduce their costs. They suggested to the Select Committee that they might be able to reduce their fuel costs by as much as 35 per cent. They did not totally convince me because they were very coy about how much that would mean on the price of a bag of cement. My inquiries suggest that marketing seems to have more influence on the price of a bag of cement than does the possibility of using such fuels. I understand the problem that they face, however. They do not want to find that they have competition from Europe, where it might be possible to use such fuel and, therefore, to produce cement more cheaply. Two big commercial interests are involved.

There are also the people who live close to cement kilns, for whom I have every sympathy. I am afraid that the cement industry has not had a particularly good record. On many occasions, kilns have broken down and people suffer because of the dust particles that are emitted, so I have a great deal of sympathy for them.

Finally, all people who are concerned about the environment must judge whether, if the fuel is not available to the companies that use it in their incinerators, some of the material that is being incinerated might well have to go to landfill sites, which might be far less satisfactory than getting rid of it in incinerators. There is also the question of emissions from cement kilns. It was difficult for the Select Committee to get an accurate picture. It certainly seemed that nothing like enough monitoring was done during breakdowns, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) explained. It appears that, for safety reasons in the plant, trips take place when gas reaches a certain level in the kiln. There is considerable doubt about the effectiveness of combustion at that point.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton implied that the kilns stay very hot for a long time, which is true, but they must stay at the highest temperatures to guarantee that no dioxins are emitted, so some questions remain.

We must also remember that, at the moment, these are only experiments. It is easy to get a specification for the fuel when doing an experiment and using relatively small

Column 755

quantities, but it is quite another matter in large-scale production to ensure that the wastes are in just the right quantities to guarantee that the material reaches the same standard. That is another important area for concern.

The Select Committee wanted the Minister to say that the fuel would be treated as a waste and that, when burnt in cement kilns, exactly the same standards would apply as if it were being burnt in incinerators. That seemed a fair proposal. It would also have meant that, when the material was transported by road, it would have to be treated according to the highest standards--as a waste--rather than the lower ones required for a fuel.

7.45 pm

I hope that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside can clear up the doubt about how long the material will be treated as waste. He seems to be saying that the Government are happy to classify it as waste to start with, but that as soon as it is to be used as a fuel they will change the classification. It would be to the satisfaction of a large number of people who live close to the kilns if the Government were to make it clear beyond all doubt that the material is to be treated as waste throughout its use in the kilns and that it is to be treated in exactly the same way as it would be if it was burnt in an incinerator.

I know that it is a corny phrase, but that would give us a level playing field. It would be fair to all involved--the big incinerator companies, the cement companies and the people who live close to the plant. It would also be the best way forward for an environmental policy.

I hope that the Minister will either accept new clause 17 or make it clear beyond all doubt that the material is seen as a waste rather than a fuel.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): Hon. Members who start by saying that they will make a short speech invariably speak at length, so I will not do that, but just get on with it.

I have made many representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. He was delighted to see me on the train from Preston on Monday and knew exactly what I wanted to talk to him about. Castle Cement in my constituency is burning a substitute fuel, called cemfuel, in its kiln. While I am extremely pleased to have the kiln in my constituency, as it employs a lot of people, if the economics of it had to be weighed against the health of my constituents, I would always go for the latter. It would be ridiculous to do otherwise. That is why I have made representations on the subject to my right hon. Friend.

It would be great if we could reduce the amount of waste that is produced. Incineration is probably one of the most environmentally friendly ways of getting rid of it--it is preferable to landfill or dumping--but it has to be done in the right way.

There is no doubt that when Castle Cement started to burn cemfuel in Clitheroe, it made several mistakes. It did not consult people in the area properly. They were not given the right amount of information. Because of that lack of knowledge, the public were immediately concerned. They did not know what was being done and their questions were not answered properly. They also got very suspicious when they discovered that Castle Cement

Column 756

was being paid to burn the fuel, as opposed to paying for it in the traditional manner. They had many concerns, therefore.

Some residents living around the cement kiln formed the Residents Against Toxic Substances action group.

Mr. Atkins: That spells rats.

Mr. Evans: Yes, RATS. The group has held two public meetings on the issue in my constituency and both were well attended, which shows the amount of concern felt by members of the public who live around the kiln.

Several people have complained that they have felt ill since the burning of the substitute fuel, cemfuel, began. I am not an expert or a doctor, and although the doctor in the area has been consulted about whether there has been an increase in asthma or other such complaints since the burning of cemfuel started, it is difficult to get any precise answers one way or the other. I am certain that, as doubt exists, some people are so concerned that illness can be caused by the stress of worrying about the burning of the substitute fuel. That problem, too, must be addressed.

That is why I wrote to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to ask whether the Select Committee would investigate the burning of secondary fuels in cement kilns. I am delighted to say that he agreed, and my only reservation is that there was only one sitting on the subject, although I am sure that, because of all the representations that were made and all the people who wanted their voices to be heard, there could have been three or four.

Nevertheless, a good report resulted. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has read it, so I shall not read out any of its recommendations now. I have already said that I accept its main thrust, and I hope that HMIP will take it on board when it makes its recommendations, which I hope it will do soon.

My right hon. Friend also knows that I have another problem connected with the cement kiln.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury): Does my hon. Friend accept that perhaps the greatest reassurance that his constituents could have is the fact that all the evidence submitted to the Select Committee inquiry suggested that there was no significant difference between what came out of the cement kiln when it was burning secondary liquid fuel and when it was burning conventional fuel? Would my hon. Friend's constituents be further reassured if the constituent components of that secondary liquid fuel could be further redefined? Surely what goes in at the beginning determines what comes out at the end.

Mr. Evans: I understand that, because of commercial

confidentiality, the composition of the fuel is not made known to the wider public. I know that HMIP will examine the matter. If it was known what constituted the secondary liquid fuel--in this case, cemfuel--I am sure that people would be delighted to know. That would reassure them, so I hope the investigation will be made.

Mr. Ainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans: No, my speech is coming to an end. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to make his own speech.

Column 757

The plume grounding in Clitheroe is a problem, but it would exist even if cemfuel were not burnt. It must be addressed as a separate issue. Coal, for example, is a dirty fuel, and if the plume were grounding early that, too, would cause its own distinct problems. May I, through my right hon. Friend, express my thanks to HMIP for the way in which it has treated my constituents' representations? Every time I have asked the inspectorate to come to my constituency, its staff have done so. They have been present at two of the public meetings, and met separately the residents who formed the pressure group. I am grateful for the time that they have given, and I appreciate the pressure to which they are subjected when the residents continually ask questions. I hope that the response is coming through.

A precedent is being established here. People are worried, and ask who is to say what other wastes will go into cement kilns in future if nothing is said about the present problem. We want to be certain that we get it absolutely right this time, so I hope that HMIP will take on board the Select Committee report and the representations that have been made to it by my constituents and by me. I hope that the inspectorate will soon make its own recommendations and that they will reassure not only me but the people who live in Clitheroe.

Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), especially the latter, because he is my next-door neighbour and the other hon. Member for Ribble. There is a danger that, with the constant mention of rats at the Dispatch Box, I may begin to get a bit of a complex--but I know that this time RATS is an organisation that has addressed itself both to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley and to me.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton about Opposition Members. My hon. Friends have been concerned about the issue for a considerable time and have pressed me and come to see me. I have also been to visit the kiln in my hon. Friend's constituency, so I am fully aware of what has been going on. I want to reassure the House that it can be confident that part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is well able to control pollution from the burning of secondary liquid fuel-- SLF--in cement kilns. The Environment Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is Chairman, produced a good, albeit briefly investigated, report on the subject, which I mentioned in Committee and on which I congratulated the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Select Committee. I said that we would act on the recommendations of the report and consider carefully the implications of what it suggested.

Several points have been raised in the debate. Although the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has been told certain facts many times, she continues to reiterate her charges in the face of the reassurances that I offer on behalf of HMIP. Monitoring continues during upsets. The hon. Lady says that it does not, but it does. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley rightly raised the question of health. The Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are now seeking views on questions related to health and to agriculture--the latter must involve food, I suppose--and HMIP and the Government will take into account anything that might be said there.

Column 758

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish asked about the definition of waste. It is the view of the Government and of HMIP that SLF is a waste, so the duty of care requirements in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 wil apply to it. As I said, all the Select Committee's recommendations will be carefully considered. I repeat briefly that the existing legislation allows HMIP to regulate and monitor the SLF trials closely. That is being carried out to HMIP's usual high standards. I am grateful to both my hon. Friends for putting on the record their thanks to the inspectorate not only for its work on the evaluation of the trials but for the way in which it has assisted my hon. Friends' constituents. All the results of the trials will be placed on HMIP's public registers, and I know that the House in general will accept that that body is carrying out its regulatory responsibilities in a highly professional way.

Permanent burning of SLF in cement kilns will not be authorised if there is a net adverse environmental effect. New clause 17 would amend the definition of waste to provide that

"waste material shall continue to be deemed to be waste notwithstanding that it is used or intended to be used in an industrial process".

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister be a little more specific about the precise meaning of "net adverse environmental effect"? Is the situation when secondary liquid fuel is burnt in cement kilns being compared with the situation when the same fuel is burnt in hazardous waste incinerators, or is the Minister instead drawing a comparison between secondary liquid fuel in cement kilns and the solid waste--coal and other fuels--that is also burnt in cement kilns? I am not clear which of the options is being used as a comparison.

Mr. Atkins: I have made it clear on this occasion and on previous occasions, and I shall continue to do so, that HMIP operates trials to standards that would suggest that if something were not at least as good as what we have now, the trials would be stopped. That is the meaning of the phrase "net adverse environmental effect". If the hon. Lady cannot understand that, there is not much point in pursuing the explanation. I have made it crystal clear many times, and she persists in deliberately misunderstanding or ignoring what I say. I cannot spell it out any more clearly. Before we are much older we shall be entitled to conclude that the hon. Lady is being mischievous and does not really care about the issue.

HMIP is a renowned international organisation operating to the highest possible standards, regardless of anything other than environmental criteria. For anyone on either side of the House, or outside the House, to suggest that it is not doing the job properly is mischievous, and I will not have it.

Mr. Bennett: Before the Minister gets too excited about this matter, and while he might be right to praise HMIP, will he explain whether it will consider whether some of the components of that secondary fuel could be better used by being recycled as solvents, which could continue to be used by companies that use solvents, rather than bought to bring fuel up to the standard necessary for it to be burnt in kilns?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The economic background is what provoked the cement companies to look into this matter. Equally, however, the

Column 759

fuel's make-up, how and whether it should be used, and all the other issues, including the fair question the hon. Gentleman asked, must be considered. HMIP will look independently at a wide range of environmental improvements that could follow if it decides that SLF is acceptable or, if not, what should replace it. All those issues will be taken into consideration, which is why the Select Committee report was so important.

8 pm

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Surely all the issues that have been raised on both sides of the House tonight could be addressed if either HMIP or the Minister's Department were to designate the change from burning coal in cement kilns to burning SLF as a "substantial change". That would trigger a full environmental impact assessment of all the issues and the concerns of people who live around the kilns would be addressed because it would all be on the public register. Why does not the Minister take that road and resolve many of the problems that have been presented to him tonight?

Mr. Atkins: There is no great difference across the Floor of the House about the appreciation of the importance of this issue. That is why I said that the Select Committee--an all-party Committee--has done wise work in examining this issue. However, the point which I get slightly aerated about is the implication that HMIP is not doing its job properly.

Mr. Jones indicated dissent .

Mr. Atkins: I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman said that, but it has been implied. If I am being obtuse, I may have misunderstood that to be the case. In any case, HMIP carries out its task to the best of its ability, which is a pretty high ability. As a non-scientific person in this regard, I am content to take its advice, as I must as the Minister responsible.

All the considerations that have been discussed across the Floor of the House in this brief debate tonight, with the considerations discussed in Committee, will be considered carefully as a result of what HMIP may decide to do. As the hon. Member for Cambridge knows, and as I have said on other occasions, we do not think that new clause 17 is the way to proceed. In the circumstances, I hope that she will consider withdrawing it.

Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister for the considered way in which he has replied to the debate, although his remarks contained some implied criticism of some of my hon. Friends. When an hon. Member begins to raise an issue in the House, it often means that it is the first occasion on which that hon. Member, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), has had to do so and it does not mean that she has not been interested in the issue for some time, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) suggested at the opening of his remarks.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton may have an advantage over my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. After all, he owns Harcourt Consultants, which trades as an oil broker and adviser on energy matters. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman declare an interest when he began his speech, but those interests might relate to the secondary liquid fuels that we are discussing.

Column 760

Mr. Duncan: I assure the hon. Lady and the House that they do not and it is scurrilous of her to suggest that they do.

Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. He will know, as I know, of connections between secondary liquid fuels, the oil industry and energy matters and I thought that it was reasonable to ask him to clarify that for the House. We all have access to the Register of Members' Interests, and the matter is important. The hon. Gentleman made some unpleasant remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and it is reasonable that we should redress the balance-- [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman deserved that.

On the new clause and the Minister's questions to us, what I take most seriously is my understanding that the Minister has an open mind on these matters. That is absolutely essential. The Opposition believe that some of the materials that go into secondary liquid fuels should be more properly recycled. We heard him say that economics drove companies to burn what we consider to be a noxious material.

In the circumstances and in the light of the Minister's remarks tonight-- the Opposition will follow through those remarks in due course--I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8

Coal authority responsibility in relation to water from abandoned mines

`. (1) It shall be the responsibility of the Coal Authority to prevent water from abandoned coal mines by means of the control and/or treatment of such water from causing significant harm or from polluting controlled waters.

(2) "Harm" has the same meaning as in Part II of this Act. (3) It shall be determined in accordance with guidance issued for the purpose by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (4) below as to--

(a) what harm is to be regarded as "significant",

(b) whether the possibility of harm being caused is "significant", and

(4) Any power of the Secretary of State to issue guidance under this Part shall only be exercisable after consultation with the appropriate Agency and such other bodies or persons as he may consider it appropriate to consult in relation to the guidance in question.

(5) A draft of any guidance proposed to be issued under subsection (1) above shall be laid before each House of Parliament and the guidance shall not be issued until after the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft was so laid or, if the draft is laid on different days, the later of the two days. (6) If, within the period mentioned in subsection (2) above, either House resolves that the guidance, the draft of which was laid before it, should not be issued, the Secretary of State shall not issue that guidance.

(7) In reckoning any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) above, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

(8) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any guidance issued by him under this section to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.'.-- [Ms Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Column 761

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 9-- Review of minewater pollution from abandoned mines --

`.--(1) The Agency shall, from time to time, prepare a report to the Secretary of State on the environmental effects of pollution of controlled waters from an abandoned mine.

(2) In any report under subsection (1) above the Agency shall make a recommendation as to whether subsections 59(1) and 59(2) should be brought into force.

(3) The Agency shall publish any report produced under subsection (1) above.

(4) Not more than three months after publication of a report under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall consider whether to exercise his power to specify a date under sections 59(1) and 59(2) above and shall publish his decision.'.

Amendment No. 4, in clause 59, page 80, line 24, after `1999', insert

`or such earlier date as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State'.

Amendment No. 5, in clause 59, page 81, line 14, after `1999', insert

`or such earlier date as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State'.

Ms Ruddock: The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that the responsibilities of the Coal Authority in relation to polluting minewater are laid down in statute.

Under the privatisation proposals, the Coal Authority acquired some restoration obligations and, arguably, over time we may see some of our beautiful landscapes and areas that have been ravaged by mining activities restored to their proper splendour. Yet no statutory mechanism is in place to deal with an often less obvious and more insidious legacy: polluting minewater emanating from closed mines. The Coalfield Communities Campaign has won the respect of many hon. Members on both sides of the House for its persistent and imaginative campaigns highlighting the disaster of polluting minewater in its communities. It leads an extremely impressive list of organisations that back the new clause. The scale of the problem is considerable. The serious pollution of 340 km of rivers and streams was reported in 1994 as a result of minewater escapes.

Since nationalisation, almost 1,000 mines have been abandoned. The Coal Authority is the successor body to the National Coal Board and British Coal and, as such, owns all those abandoned mines. Ministers have sought to reassure the Coalfield Communities Campaign and many hon. Members. The noble Lord Strathclyde said that the Government expected the Coal Authority

"to go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility which are set out by its legal duties in these areas".--[ Official Report, House of Lords , 26 April 1994; Vol. 554, c. 541.]

That is a fine promise and it was quoted again in Committee.

Mr. Atkins: I shall probably quote it again.

Ms Ruddock: It will still be but an opinion. It is not the same as legislation and it has failed to satisfy all those to whom it was addressed.

The new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance. Such guidance could remove any ambiguity about the action which the Government expect of the Coal Authority and could define precisely how the Coal Authority is to go beyond the minimum standards of

Column 762

environmental responsibility set out by its legal duties. No one knows what the noble Lord Strathclyde's comment means and we shall know no more if the Minister repeats it again tonight, and again and again.

Mr. Gareth Wardell (Gower): He will have to do better than that.

Ms Ruddock: Indeed.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): As someone who represents the Taff and Merthyr valleys, which have suffered industrial vandalism with the closure of all our pits, but are seeing the revival of our rivers to good clean water where trout and other life can exist, may I tell my hon. Friend that the passion with which she presents this new clause is very much supported by those Labour Back Benchers who are not willing to accept just promises? I represent a community that has suffered enough from disasters in the mining industry, and we are no longer willing to accept mere assurances; we want legislative certainty.

Ms Ruddock: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. As someone who was born and bred in the south Wales valleys, I can pay testimony to everything that he said and to the passion which the people of those valleys and other abandoned coalfield communities feel about the issue.

No one knows what the promises mean. Lest the Minister thinks that I exaggerate, let me give him proof, chapter and verse. Neville Washington, the chief executive of the Coal Authority, was reported in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle of 26 April as saying: "The Coal Authority is not responsible for water that emerges from pits".

On 8 May, Albert Schofield, the director of contracts at the Coal Authority, was interviewed on the "Report Back" programme broadcast on BBC Radio Nottingham, when he said that the Bill was not clear in assigning responsibility for minewater pollution from abandoned coal mines to the Coal Authority. We concur; we have made that point again and again to the Minister in Committee--the Bill does not provide for that.

Clarification is absolutely essential. Our new clause provides an opportunity for that. If the Minister is not minded to accept it, I can assure him that behind me, and probably in front of me as well, there are hon. Members who will press him with further questions, because many hon. Members represent mining communities. Those communities have seen pits abandoned and they now live with their legacy. Those local communities want to have a better environment, but they continue to feel great anxiety about the ever-present threat of pollution from minewater. Unless the Government act more decisively, among those communities the suspicion will remain that the Coal Authority cannot be relied upon to continue pumping the mines and to continue to take responsibility for minewater and the pollution that it causes.

I made a much longer speech about this matter in Committee, but I promised to be brief tonight because I am sure that many hon. Members want to make their own speeches. The Minister had better produce some more satisfactory answers than he has done hitherto, or he will suffer a further barrage of questions. Nothing that he has said to date satisfies us or the coalfield communities, which are so oppressed by the problem of minewater pollution.

Next Section

Home Page