| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.44 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I am grateful for the opportunity to join my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in this debate and I congratulate him on raising an important issue.
I speak tonight basically on behalf of the Select Committee on the Environment. This time last year, the Committee was lobbied hard by some of the companies concerned with reprocessing and incinerating waste. They argued that they were being unfairly treated as a result of the Government allowing the cement manufacturers to use secondary waste fuel in their plants. As soon as the cement manufacturers discovered that we were being lobbied in one direction, they started to lobby us in the other direction.
Last summer, the Select Committee decided to hold a short inquiry into the issue. It was an effective inquiry and we produced a useful report. As a result, the Government gave us a short response because at that stage, the Environment Bill was going through the House and we had an effective debate. However, the Government then promised that there would be a more substantive answer to our report. I am afraid to say that we are still waiting for it. I hope that the Minister can make it clear tonight when the report will be produced and that it will not be a matter of "on the one hand" and "on the other hand". I hope that it will come up with some recommendations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle has made the case for his plant. There are nine other places where secondary fuel is being burnt so the matter is of considerable concern in many places.
I turn first to the case made by the waste processors--companies such as Shanks and McEwan, Cleanaway and Leigh Environmental. They argue that they have had to install high-quality waste reprocessing plant and incinerators. They argue that they have to install that plant--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
Order. The Adjournment debate is pretty specific. It is concerned with the burning of Cemfuel at Castle Cement, Clitheroe. We cannot have a debate that spreads through the whole Select Committee report. The hon. Gentleman has asked a fair question in relation to the ninth recommendation, but we cannot go through all the others.
Mr. Bennett:
I appreciate the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I am sure that you appreciate that if the fuel is not being burnt at Clitheroe, it is available for burning in the other incinerators which have been purpose built--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Whether I appreciate that point or not is irrelevant. All that I am interested in is protecting the business of the House, which at this time is exclusively concerned with the burning of Cemfuel at Castle Cement, Clitheroe. That is the sole subject for debate.
Mr. Bennett:
I appreciate that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I make the point that if the fuel is not being burnt in Clitheroe, it is available to be burnt elsewhere. If the fuel is burnt at Castle Cement in Clitheroe, it reduces the viability of the waste processing industry. It also makes it difficult for that industry to regain its capital investment in extremely expensive plant. Like many others, the waste processing companies are concerned about what goes on at Castle Cement in Clitheroe.
Equally, the cement manufacturers, including Castle Cement, made the point that if they have to pay for coal or other fuels, the price of cement goes up. If the price of cement goes up in this country, it is possible that people will start to buy cement from abroad, which would not be in the best interests of jobs in this country. I do not have too much sympathy with the cement manufacturers on that point because when the Select Committee asked them whether they could tell us what difference allowing them to use secondary fuels made to the price of a bag of cement, they could not tell us the figure. They said that it was commercially sensitive. I should have thought that, if there were a difference between the cost of using that fuel and the cost of importing it from France or from anywhere else where cement is made, it would be in their interest to make that information available.
There are two sides to the argument--that of the cement industry and that of the waste processors. There are also the interests of the local community in Clitheroe.
If I had to live close to a cement factory, I should not be very happy, whatever it burnt. At Clitheroe there is considerable concern about the plumes, especially when the plant has to be stopped due to a malfunction, because
that is when the plumes descend. It appears that there is a high concentration of nasty particles in the descending plumes. There is the suspicion that whereas if the plant is operating at its highest efficiency, all the toxic material is burnt and there is no problem, as the plant cools down there may not be complete combustion of some dioxins and other material. That causes local people considerable anxiety.
That poses the question, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle did, if the plant closed, would local people be pleased? Obviously, some would be; others would lose their jobs and be unhappy. It is extremely expensive for an elderly plant such as the one at Clitheroe to be brought up to modern standards.
I shall be brief because the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) wants to speak, but I urge the Minister to tell us what will happen about the medical inquiry.
It was unfortunate that Earl Ferrers, the Minister of State in the Department of the Environment, wrote to me as Chairman of the Select Committee, more or less giving me some assurances and then Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution took no notice of those assurances. I know that if one reads the Minister's letter carefully, one can just about wriggle out of it and say that HMIP did not go totally contrary to the words in the Minister's letter, but it certainly went against the spirit of that letter.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley):
I am usually happy to speak in debates in the House, as you know,Mr. Deputy Speaker, but not tonight. This is a subject that is very dear to me, with which I have been involved since 1992. In my opinion, there has been gross misconduct and a gross infringement of etiquette by the very fact that the debate is taking place. If the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) believes that he can simply drop me a line to say that I would be able to speak if I so wished in a debate on the subject of a cement kiln in my constituency, affecting my constituents, he has another think coming.
I shall write to Madam Speaker on that matter, as the hon. Member for Pendle has admitted at least twice that he visited my constituency before this debate, without contacting me, and has raised the issue.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
Did the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) not visit my constituency and look at Padiham power station and make comments without notifying me?
Mr. Evans:
I accept that, and I am extremely grateful that the hon. Gentleman is here. What I did not then do
As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) knows, when we were discussing the issue of the burning of orimulsion--an issue in which all our local authorities were involved--I went to Padiham because Read and Simonstone neighbour Padiham power station. The boundary could not be any closer. One might stand in Simonstone and see the towers of Padiham power station, with the smoke coming across the boundary. It could not be any closer than that.
Mr. Evans:
No, I will not give way again because I want to deal with a number of issues.
Mr. Evans:
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he has already grossly infringed the etiquette of the House by raising the issue in this way.I want to make a few points tonight, so perhaps he can intervene on someone else. I am extremely angry about what he has done. I am sure that the people of Pendle will be more than interested in this. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can play politics in this issue, he has another think coming.
The people of Pendle probably have a lot of issues--perhaps even with the local authority--that they want the hon. Gentleman to investigate and would be amazed that he has taken so much time involving himself in an issue in my constituency, in which he knows that I am intensely and closely involved. He should involve himself with issues that solely affect his constituency.
I will not go into the specifics of the issue. I have written to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on several occasions--in fact, we have had a massive amount of correspondence on the issue--and I have sought a meeting with him and with Earl Ferrers on this issue. I have held and chaired two public meetings in my constituency which were attended by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and a number of local bodies. The first meeting was absolutely packed and the second was not so packed, but the interest was certainly there from the people of Clitheroe and the surrounding area.
There has been great anxiety over the way that Cemfuel has been introduced into Castle Cement, and I cannot say that I have been happy with that. I certainly have not been happy with the way in which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has handled this issue from the beginning.I was not happy with the delays that seemed to take place over whether Cemfuel was going to be fully authorised--that process seemed to take ages. I understand that they would wish to ensure that the investigation was done fully and properly, that they wished to go into the full ins and outs of the issue, and that they wished to consider it carefully before coming to a conclusion. However, it seemed to take for ever. The anxiety in the area was further fuelled by that delay.
There are a number of issues in relation to the burning of Cemfuel at Castle Cement. The first is the burning of Cemfuel and the second is plume grounding. Testing was carried out last summer as to the effects of the plume grounding, and I believe that we have made some advances towards eradicating those problems. We have had the testing and, if it had not been for the burning of Cemfuel, this problem may have carried on for quite some time--it certainly had been going on for a long time in Clitheroe, as I learnt when I first became a Member of Parliament in 1992.
I am grateful to Mary Horner, one of my constituents, who has seen me several times in my surgery. I have also met her when I have met the Residents Against Toxic Substances. I have been in receipt of various videos that have proved that the plumes ground in Clitheroe.I understand, from my talks with Castle Cement--even as late as last Sunday when I met Peter del Strother, the works manager at the Clitheroe base--that it has to put forward plans by next month that show how they will prevent the plumes from grounding. Although work has been done by Castle Cement--15 m was added to one of the chimneys--it has not solved the problem; it has only ensured that the plume that grounds is dispersed further on. It is still a problem for the area.
I pay tribute to Residents Against Toxic Substances for taking an on-going interest in the subject. They have kept me fully informed. I have been to several of its meetings at Lynda England's house--indeed, I have taken questions back for the Minister and I have ensured that I passed on the results.
Residents Against Toxic Substances is an extremely reasonable body. The vast majority of its members do not want Castle Cement to close because it is so important to the local economy. It provides several hundred jobs.I suspect that some of them live in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Pendle and for Burnley.
The money that comes into the local economy is important to all our constituencies, but when it comes to making a choice between health and the economy, as I said in a previous debate when Cemfuel was being burnt elsewhere, I would always choose health. It would be ridiculous to put economic considerations before the health of our youngsters and everyone else who lives in the area. I would welcome much fuller health analysis of the effects not just of burning Cemfuel in a particular area--
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Wells.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |