§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjorn. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
11.45 pm§ Mr. Robert Litherland (Manchester, Central)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of considerable concern to the Greater Manchester area. What prompted me to apply for the debate was anxiety at increased imports of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom and into the Greater Manchester area in particular. Concern has been expressed by the general public, by the media and by the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority, which has taken the trouble to write to 30 Members of Parliament expressing its anxiety.
Also of concern is the air of mystery and mystique that surrounds so many aspects of the disposal of the materials, where they originate, what is in the sealed containers, the routes designated for transporting hazardous waste, and the lack of communication with the local authority and the general public. A report and correspondence from the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority points out emphatically the difficulties of policing the increasing levels of hazardous waste coming from Europe. Imports of material into the Greater Manchester area have increased from 5,000 tonnes in 1981 to at least 170,000 tonnes in 1986. Some estimates suggest an even higher figure.
What is the reason for that increase? The Greater Manchester authority explains the reason and draws attention to the restrictive practices of other European countries and local authorities towards hazardous waste disposal within their own boundaries. It draws attention also to the use of an international brokerage system which allocates the movement of waste. It is also the job of the brokers to identify countries willing to import hazardous waste material. The United Kingdom falls into that category. In other words, other European countries are refusing to import such waste and are using brokers to dump the material in other people's backyards.
The trend towards more imports and fewer exports is placing great stress on the United Kingdom's internal system for waste control. At present, the system can cope with home-produced waste, but it is grossly inadequate in respect of imported material. The system is also vulnerable to abuse because of the complexity of commercial arrangements for handling waste produced on the continent. There is also growing worry that fringe operators, or cowboys, who are not always known to the waste disposal authority and whose equipment and practices leave much to be desired, are undertaking hazardous waste disposal.
That leads me to the air of mystique and mystery that shrouds all waste disposal. The report of the chief officer of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority refers to the transport of hazardous or scheduled waste throughout the area and advises that only the originating production point and the receiving waste disposal authority are provided with any information. No details of movements are given to authorities through whose areas the material passes. The chief officer states that such information would be relatively simple to provide, but he recognises that it would place a great volume of extra work 325 on their resources. It is not really the information that is required; the real answer is control of that extra traffic of waste material which is now prevalent.
It can also be appreciated that a large volume of potentially hazardous material, such as industrial materials, petroleum products and so on, is transported by our road and rail network, and that fairly stringent controls are in being. We also know, however, that there can be no guarantee of absolute safety. At least in the event of accidents, the material that I have mentioned can be identified by the emergency services. The fire brigade can use the correct equipment, and apply the necessary means to deal with the problem. However, with waste coming from abroad, there appears to be little knowledge of how much and what type of material is being transported. It prompts the question: how would emergency services know just what they were dealing with if there was a serious accident? They could be dealing with an unknown substance.
My information is that, after arriving in the United Kingdom, the waste falls within the scope of the special waste regulations, under which it is deemed that the waste is produced at the point of entry, normally by an importing agent. Whereas the home-produced waste can be checked fairly easily, the imported waste handler has to rely on information that may not be accurate, and may have been dealt with by any number of agencies. In other words, the handler does not know what is inside the containers. The waste disposal authority can object if it wishes. However, the chief officer of Greater Manchester authority points out the flaw in the procedure.
First, the hazardous waste is shipped in sealed containers. There is considerable risk in opening the containers. In practice, they are sealed at the point of production abroad, and not opened until they reach the intended site in Greater Manchester. Only at that point can any discrepancy be detected. The chief officer's report tells us:
It is not until that stage has been reached that there is any possibility of detecting any mis-description, whether wilful or not, of the material. It is at this stage that problems can start to arise. First, if the receiving WDA has not received its copy of the consignment note (this is a fairly common occurrence) it is unaware of the situation and cannot, therefore, take any preventative action. Secondly, it is possible that the site operator will not check the composition of the waste actually received against the information given on his copy of the consignment note and improper and perhaps even dangerous disposal of the material can follow. Thirdly, if the material is actually examined (and this does happen in the majority of cases, although there is no strict legal requirement to do so), and found not to conform with its description, or not to be a type for which the disposal site is licensed, then the site operator has considerable problems. The obvious course of action would be to return the material to its producer but, it is reported, there seem to be considerable difficulties in doing this and the United Kingdom waste disposal operator is therefore under considerable commercial and financial pressure to resort to some improper and inappropriate form of disposal. It is not suggested that improper disposal, arising from the reasons briefly described above, has assumed serious proportions but, from a number of reported cases, there is cause for serious concern and, because of the expanding nature of this traffic and its very considerable financial implications it is unlikely that the position will improve in the near future.The chief officer does not assume that improper disposal has reached serious proportions. However, the worrying thing is that he does warn that there is cause for serious concern. All this waste, including aqueous acids, 326 alkalis, inorganic and organic materials and asbestos, is processed by three privately owned firms in Greater Manchester before its final disposal.The Government's policy to discourage imports of hazardous waste into Britain to be used for such things as landfilling may be welcome, but it has not been supported so far by legislation. It is difficult to estimate what effect the Government's policies have had. However, taking into consideration the ever-increasing quantities that are now arriving on our shores, it would appear to be very little indeed. It is getting to serious proportions, and that is why the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority is calling for urgent action to tackle the problem of imported waste into the county.
It would appear that the Government have taken a rather neutral attitude and have even been complacent about what is happening. The Government must be made aware that their judgment is now being questioned. Their opinions on the matter are being regarded with concern by the public. The Government should start addressing the seriousness of the situation, realise the extent of today's traffic in hazardous waste and cease to have a blinkered approach.
The Government must realise that safety controls and the notification procedure need tightening up. The Government must also address themselves to the proper licensing of waste hauliers and bring in the necessary legislation.
The February edition of "ENDS" says:
There is a growing gap between public and ministerial opinion on this matter which should be the subject of general concern. Ministers continue to use the same language as they did a few years ago when waste imports into Britain were tiny by comparison with today's traffic: no objection could possibly be raised, they insist, to the 'legitimate' trade in waste.Meanwhile, the public are naturally becoming sensitive to suggestions that Britain is becoming a dumping ground for other people's filth. Industrialists, who rely on landfills, are relatively cheap disposal outlets, and disposal contractors who make a living from them should be taking note, because it might take only an incident or a consignment or two to disrupt those established relationships.The Government should recognise above all that we are rapidly becoming a dumping ground for other people's filth, and urgent action is now called for.
Doing little or nothing could have far-reaching consequences for future generations. We have witnessed complacency relating to hazardous material and the effects on the health of people who have become contaminated. It is for the future that I urge the Government to take action now.
§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), for giving me the opportunity to intervene to ask the Minister whether he is aware that I have urged the Secretary of State for the Environment to close down the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority's tip at Hypatia street in my constituency which I visited on Friday and which I can only describe as a stinking volcano threatening the health and well-being of the neighbouring residents.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan)I begin by responding to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). I have asked my officials to look into the issue of the Hypatia street quarry tip as a matter of urgency and to report back to me by the end of the week.
I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed on behalf of his constituents, particularly Mrs. Hardman and Mrs. Williams, and the 350 signatories to the petition that was brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend on that specific point in writing by Monday evening of next week at the latest.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) for drawing the attention of the House to the general question of the need for improvements to the system for dealing with imports of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom. From the general, the hon. Gentleman moved to the specific and to his serious concern about the problems of hazardous waste being brought into Greater Manchester.
I appreciate the conviction that lies behind the hon. Gentleman's wish to see the introduction of tougher controls and his wish to see the concerns and fears of his constituents allayed—a view which receives a sympathetic response from the Government, who are reviewing methods of improving controls, for example, by extending the specific waste regulations to cover all pollution risks, thus bringing a much wider range of wastes within the documentary pre-notification requirements, improving the consignment note procedure, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and introducing a statutory code of practice to place greater responsibilities on the producers of waste to ensure its safe disposal. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that we are examining the possibility of registering waste carriers and extending the powers of licensing authorities.
Those issues pose complex problems requiring appropriate solutions in the near future, but I accept that it is no longer satisfactory simply to answer hon. Members' worries by pointing to the long history of waste control as opposed to the rash of short-term reactive measures which have characterised the response of some of our trading partners to their domestic disposal practices.
However high the standards we rightly boast for our treatment and disposal operators, we cannot shirk understandable public anxiety which has led to calls for tougher controls over what is already an effective, well-managed and highly proficient domestic industry.
Before dealing with the specific problems referred to by the hon. Gentleman about hazardous waste disposal in the Greater Manchester area, I want to set the debate in context. All imported wastes are subject to precisely the same controls as wastes generated within the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has the right facilities and capacity to handle hazardous wastes and is geologically better suited to safer disposal than many of our European colleagues.
The maxim that waste is better safely disposed of here than dangerously elsewhere remains valid in many cases. As with the release of CFCs and halons into the atmosphere, the central point is not whence these ozone-depleting chemicals come; their effect on the ozone 328 layer is equally significant. In one respect the same applies to waste. There is only one environment and it is better that disposal and treatment should take place where the highest standards required are practised.
However, the debate should not conclude on that point. While we can rightly argue that imports are, once within the United Kingdom, subject to the same controls as United Kingdom-generated waste, it is the Government's view that if the United Kingdom can safely landfill the material, there is a corresponding duty on exporting countries wherever possible to develop an expertise to do the same.
We recognise that there exists increased environmental awareness. Public opinion throughout the western world is more conscious of the risks and environmental hazards that can arise if waste is not dealt with properly. In a number of countries there are legacies of thousands of sites where wastes have been dumped in an uncontrolled manner for many years, causing major pollution problems.
Only since the early 1970s have countries such as the United States, Denmark, Netherlands, West Germany and France begun to regulate and control landfill. The United States has a super fund of $8.5 billion to clean up old sites, and in the Netherlands and Denmark large sums have also been earmarked for that purpose. The result has been widespread public reaction in those countries against waste disposal in general, and landfill for hazardous wastes in particular, even though in practical terms there is very little alternative for the vast majority of these wastes. Governments have responded by denouncing landfill and many have constructed high-tech incinerators, which of course still require landfill for disposal of ash.
Placed in context, the United Kingdom imports some 53,000 tonnes per annum of special wastes, compared to about 3 million tonnes per annum in international trade within Europe. In total, waste imports comprise about 0.5 per cent. of the total waste disposal in the United Kingdom. Disposal facilities for special wastes in the Greater Manchester area comprise three private sector chemical and physical treatment plants whose purpose is to detoxify special wastes so that the resultant treatment residues may be safely landfilled.
Currently there is not a landfill site within the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority area that is licensed to take special wastes. In 1986, 155,000 tonnes of special waste were treated in the Greater Manchester area, including 12,000 tonnes that were brought from Europe. Of the 78,000 tonnes of special waste that was generated in the Greater Manchester area, 46,000 tonnes were disposed of elsewhere in Britain.
These treatment and disposal facilities are regulated by the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority. The facilities are licensed and pre-notification requirements of the special waste regulations apply to all movement of special wastes.
I can well understand the concern of those living in the area at the suggestion that their locality and area should be a focus for the disposal of special waste that comes from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, let alone from overseas. Waste disposal is rarely regarded as an attractive neighbour, particularly when special wastes are involved.
However, two points have to be borne in mind. First, waste disposal is a necessary industry. The many products that modern technology demand and that we demand as consumers unfortunately produce difficult wastes as a 329 by-product. We have to recognise that the disposal of these wastes is part of the price that we have to pay for our high standard of living.
Secondly, it follows that we must have increasingly sophisticated methods and techniques for dealing with these wastes. This means that we must have, among other things, chemical and physical treatment plants that can detoxify wastes so that they can be disposed of without risk to the environment. It would be unrealistic and a misuse of resources to expect every area and locality to provide such sophisticated facilities. It makes economic and environmental sense to make full use of the three facilities that are available in the Greater Manchester area.
I can understand, indeed I sympathise with, those who ask, "But why in my backyard?" The most that any Government can do is to ensure that the necessary treatment and disposal processes, wherever they are carried out, are done safely with a minimum effect on the local population and without risk to the environment.
Towards that objective, the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority has recently taken steps, in co-opera-tion with the three private sector companies involved, to improve control over imported waste by modifying the licences so that all imports of waste, whether special or not, are notified to the authority. Movement of waste to other countries for disposal is a well established phenomenon in western Europe. Figures are not collected on a regular basis, but as long ago as 1983 the OECD estimated that 2.2 million tonnes was traded in Europe, and in that year only 5,000 tonnes came to the United Kingdom.
We believe that trade has increased substantially worldwide since then, but the United Kingdom continues to accept rather less than many of our neighbours, and certainly less than might be expected for our relative size. Waste can move between countries to benefit from the use of specialised disposal facilities. All the special waste that is accepted by firms in the United Kingdom falls into this category. Three of these specialised facilities are those alluded to in this debate and are in the Greater Manchester area.
I am informed by the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority that these three firms took 24,000 tonnes of imported waste last year, in comparison with the capacity of more than 150,000 tonnes per annum. I do not believe, therefore, that the additional amount of imported waste places a strain on these facilities, or in any way endangers the availability of capacity for United Kingdom waste arisings.
Nevertheless, I am aware of the concern caused by waste imports. Therefore I am pleased to have this opportunity to emphasise firmly that the United Kingdom's disposal methods bear comparison with those of any other country. Our system of control—licensing of the facilities and extra attention to the movement of special waste—is similar to the systems employed in most industrialised countries.
All industrialised countries landfill special waste, but where we differ from some countries is that we do not entomb special waste, storing the problems of disposal for future generations, that is, rightly, of great concern to the 330 hon. Gentleman and the House. A significant proportion of our special wastes are treated at facilities such as those in Manchester. A greater proportion are landfilled together with putrescible wastes, so that natural biological processes work on the waste to make it safe. This is a method of disposal preferable to entombment, not inferior, which in no way warrants any description of the United Kingdom as anyone's dustbin.
The Government have recognised the importance of responding to the lack of information about trans-frontier shipment of waste. For that reason we were instrumental in promoting the implementation of the EC trans-frontier directive. We are committed to it because it will provide waste handlers and regulatory authorities with more opportunities to obtain the detailed information on process origin and the nature of the waste proposed for import since they will be in receipt of 28 days' notification of intent to import specific waste for disposal.
That will go a long way towards overcoming the present doubts about the lack of information about imported special waste. I accept that several aspects of that are not specifically covered in the directive, however welcome and important a step in the right direction it is. For that reason, I emphasise the importance that we attach to considering other points raised and additional points which I highlighted as priorities at the beginning of my speech.
The Department's hazardous waste inspectorate has drawn attention to the scope for improvement in waste disposal licensing, monitoring and enforcement. the measures I have outlined are designed to redress these deficiencies. In addition, the Department is preparing a radical revision of the waste management paper concerned with disposal site licensing: this is intended for publication this summer, and will provide Greater Manchester waste disposal authority with clear and unequivocal guidance on the licensing of facilities handling all controlled wastes, including those imported for disposal.
I strongly reject any argument that the Government are in any way complacent. I am confident that at present volumes, imports of waste for disposal in the United Kingdom do not compromise the capacity available for waste generated by United Kingdom industry. Neither do I believe that they offer any technical or environmental problem different from that presented by the United Kingdom waste. Our system of control by disposal site licensing ensures that only wastes suited to a particular disposal regime can be accepted. We are not complacent. and I am keeping closely in touch with this issue, and pursuing the programme of action which I have outlined. I shall be considering whether any further controls are necessary.
I hope that having had this opportunity to place on record those points, I can keep all hon. Members closely in touch with developments as we make progress on the specific issue of how best we can move forward with more effective controls, should the Government feel that these are necessary.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.