TREATMENT AND DUMPING OF TOXIC WASTES BILL (Hansard, 18 July 1973)

§ Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd)

I beg to move, That leave be given, to bring in a Bill to make statutory provision as to the sites upon which and the conditions subject to which toxic wastes may be deposited in, under or upon land, water or sea, and as to the treatment of such toxic wastes after or before such deposit. The growing sophistication of chemicals in industry means that so long as we remain an industrial and technological society, and therefore an affluent society, such wastes will inevitably fall to be dealt with. We need a statutory code whereby they can be dealt with without damage to the environment. The tragedy is that before that need was appreciated too many raw toxic wastes were dumped in too many unsuitable places, thus causing potential danger which must be dealt with comprehensively by the Government. We must defuse the time bombs in our tips.

The Bill would, as its primary provision, insist that unless it was absolutely unavoidable, no toxic waste could be dumped in a raw or untreated state. Such treatment would eliminate the fire hazard in many tips and otherwise remove or reduce the toxicity of these chemicals. Incineration is the most obvious way of doing so although it is not a universal panacea. Adequate research must continue into the most suitable way of treating each chemical.

Further, only sites which are environmentally safe should be used for the dumping of toxic wastes. The present situation, in which the vast majority of sites are privately owned, the firms concerned and only a few are municipally owned calls for the following. measures.

First, all planning permissions for dumping must be referred to the relevant Government Department. I say that because although local authorities know much more than they did about toxic chemicals, they have nothing like the expertise which is available to the Government. Therefore, the Government should scrutinise all applications.

Secondly, a firm seeking planning permission should not only provide its own 496 geological survey but should bear the cost of an independent survey commissioned on behalf of the local community in order to protect that community against the risks of dumping on watersheds, water courses or in porous conditions, where the danger of seeping chemicals is evident.

If there is any question of unsuitable ground—this requirement would be automatic if untreated chemicals are dumped—the Bill would require the lining of sites with an impervious layer and, as percolation owing to rainfall is obviously a prime danger, the covering of the top of the sites.

If chemicals are further degradable by organisms, that would ensure that instead of dumping as much toxic waste as possible in a small space, such dumping could be conducted in such a way as further to assist the robbery of the chemicals of their toxicity.

One of the causes of anxiety is the lack of stringent and regular testing of all sites and the lack of publicity as to the results of such tests. It is only when things are wrong that we seem to hear about the results of testing. The Bill would propose that tests for the water and the soil at sites, the health of animals grazing nearby and the fitness of produce from such animals should be regularly carried out and the results made known.

Continuing thorough research is vital to enable us to render harmless existing and new chemical waste. Powers must be taken to compel those marketing new chemicals to notify the Government of their intention to market such chemicals and of their formulae so that safe dumping of the wastes can be ensured. That can be done by further research upon the chemicals.

Too many have suffered from the irresponsibility of manufacturers who are anxious only to divest themselves of unwanted chemicals and of dumping firms who are anxious only to keep rates cheap and profits high and who have no thought of the social consequences. Loads have not always been what they were said to be. Therefore, the only way to reassure the public is to provide a local authority attendant at each site to check contents against manifest, and spot checks to ensure that the contents of drums correspond with the outer description.

497 This measure is not the final answer. A public corporation with monopoly powers of waste disposal would be both simpler and safer, but in the interim a code is urgently necessary. Such a code will not cheaper the disposal of toxic waste and it will make such disposal more complex. I do not apologise for that. The simplicity of our past approach has signified negligence and indifference to the consequences. That is no longer acceptable. We welcome the fruits of modern industry but we shall no longer be its helpless slaves. A measure of this kind will be a small step towards a Britain which shows more social responsibility. I hope that the House will accept this measure.