§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
12.11 am§ Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)My purpose in speaking in this Adjournment debate is to make the House aware of the deep sense of grievance felt by my constituents in Hillingdon about the pollution of their environment caused by the operation of the Hillingdon hospital incinerator plant. It is also to call on my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to use his considerable influence and powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to protect the people whom I represent from the emission of noxious substances into the atmosphere, the noise caused by the operation of the incinerator and the disturbance caused by the delivery of clinical waste at all hours in large vehicles in a residential area.
I also call upon my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the people who sent me to the House to represent them can enjoy the peace and quiet of their homes and gardens—which is surely every Englishman's right—and to see that the statutory body established by Parliament to license the proper disposal of waste puts the interests of residents first, not last, and that it cracks down on the illegal activities of those who seek to avoid responsibility for their actions. Above all, I want the existing operation of the incinerator plant in a residential area brought to an end as quickly as possible.
This is a classic example of the kind of case that a Member of Parliament brings to the House in his representative capacity. The background is that an application was submitted by Hillingdon area health authority to Hillingdon council in July 1990 for an extension to the incinerator plant at Hillingdon hospital. It was made at a time when the authority had the benefit of Crown immunity. Subsequently the incinerator plant was extended to include a condenser unit and a gas plant. It was not a planning application in the accepted sense because the area health authority enjoyed the benefit of Crown immunity. It was, therefore, required only to consult the local planning authority before proceeding with a development that would otherwise have required planning permission in the normal way.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, that immunity was removed from health authorities on 1 April 1991, but still existed when the proposals were considered. Local residents were consulted by Hillingdon council's planning department, and six residents responded. In November 1990, the council's environment sub-committee decided that, had this been an application for normal planning permission, approval would have been granted subject to conditions. However, it was not, and still is not, possible for the council to attach conditions in respect of consultations. Consequently, the council states that there are no conditions to fulfil. As far as I can tell, the only body able to attach conditions was, and is, the London Waste Regulatory Authority, which is responsible for licensing the operation of the disposal of waste.
Having said that, I should add that it is important to put the proposed extension into perspective. I understand that, at the time when residents were consulted by the local planning authority, the original incinerator burnt 10 to 15 tonnes of clinical waste each week; it was burnt during the 743 daytime only. The waste originated from three local hospitals in the health authority's jurisdiction. The only annoyance to local residents was the occasional emission of smuts which spoilt the washing on local washing lines, and minor damage to the paintwork of cars parked in the area. Even those difficulties had been minimised following representations that I had made, over a number of years, on behalf of my constituents.
It was against that background that local residents were advised that the proposed extension to the original incinerator was needed to facilitate the installation of a cleaner burning plant to enable compliance with legislation governing emissions to the atmosphere. Local people also believed that the extension was to cater for local needs alone. It was therefore not surprising that only six residents responded to the consultative process, and that the planning authority would have recommended acceptance had this been a normal planning application. In fact, the position has turned out to be very different from what was expected.
A number of local residents consider that the local planning authority misjudged, or was not properly informed about, the scale of the development and the impact that it would have on a residential area. They also tell me that they consider that the use of Crown immunity was inappropiate, and that the local health authority's proposals should have been subjected to statutory "bad neighbour" development procedures. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on that when he replies.
Let me now describe the reality of the situation that faces my constituents. It is not a comparatively minor extension to the incinerator plant, or just an improvement in measures to control emissions to the atmosphere adopted by a benevolent health authority; in fact, it has turned out to be a fairly substantial clinical waste incineration operation, run by Basic Energy (UK) Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Blue Circle Industries. In other words, it is a commercial waste disposal industry, operating 24 hours a day in the middle of a residential area and burning not 10 to 15 tonnes—as happened previously —but 300 tonnes of waste each week.
It appears that to achieve that massive increase in throughput, the old incinerator plant was virtually demolished, and has been replaced with a new and larger building. At the outset, the operators began burning rubber tyres, and stopped only as a result of local opposition. Moreover, it started to operate before a certificate of registration had been obtained from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Although an application was made on 21 March, it was not granted until 27 November 1991. Despite requests by local residents to Basic Energy to see the licence and the authorisation by HMIP, they were not granted.
Another aspect of the matter that infuriates my constituents is that clinical waste is being delivered to the plant from all over the country—from places as far away as Durham and Newcastle. There are inadequate storage facilities for the waste. I am talking about dressings, disposable syringes and similar material that one would expect would have to be disposed of by hospitals carrying out surgical operations and the like.
For this and other reasons, large vehicles are being unloaded throughout the night, with all the associated 744 noise that that causes. I am told that there is no ash facility under cover and that ash was stored in open containers adjacent to the hospital swimming pool. This ash contained unburnt clinical dressings and syringes. Consequently, my constituents maintained that Basic Energy was not observing the conditions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's registration, although that was subsequently remedied. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution also issued an eight-point improvement notice on this operator, but unfortunately the problems persist.
I come now to the responsibilities of the London Waste Regulatory Authority. What action has it taken to deal with the problems faced by local residents who are unable to use their gardens in the summer because of noise, smells and other similar manifestations? The London Waste Regulatory Authority does not seem to have acted promptly, and it was not until comparatively recently that it took action and insisted that the plant should be run properly.
Why did the LWRA apparently permit an unauthorised incinerator plant to continue in operation without a licence? Why did it take so long to act, following alleged breaches of conditions of its licence? It was, after all, at a meeting of the authority's licensing and registration sub-committee on 21 July 1992 that the licence was eventually granted. At that meeting, the officers were instructed to
take further appropriate enforcement action in consultation with the Chief Solicitor, should operations at the facility not be in full compliance with the licence, including the working plan, within one week of its issue, save that no enforcement action shall be taken if the facility has ceased to operate by the end of that week and remains non-operational until such time as full compliance with the terms of the licence can be achieved.Subsequently, following the alleged breaches of the conditions, LWRA officers visited the site. A prosecution is now pending at Uxbridge magistrates court. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot comment on the prosecution. However, I ask him to tell me how the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can and will be activated to protect my constituents. Following a meeting with my hon. Friend, I understand that it is necessary for the operator of this incinerator plant to reapply for a new licence. As I understand the position, it must be applied for between 1 October 1992 and the spring of this year.I believe that the views of HMIP will be of the utmost importance in considering whether a new licence should be granted. I believe that it should not be granted. I consider it to be unacceptable to permit the storage and burning of clinical waste from all over Britain in an incinerator plant located in the middle of a residential area. There are other commercial incineration facilities well away from people's homes that could be utilised for this purpose. That is where hospitals from all round the country should send bandages, syringes, low-level radioactive waste material and other material which needs to be disposed of. Surely, if the Environmental Protection Act 1990 means anything, we should insist on the closure of this plant now.
This is an important test case. If the incinerator continues as it is at present, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be shown to be wanting. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to act and to show that he and HMIP are determined to stop this pollution without delay.
§ The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean)I am well aware of the public complaint surrounding the Hillingdon hospital incinerator. I have corresponded with my hon. Friend several times, and met him to discuss this distressing matter. I am sorry to hear that his constituents are still unhappy with the situation. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for vigorously pursuing the matter in the interests of his constituents.
It might be helpful to the House if I were to set out some of the background to this matter because it is slightly complicated. In July 1990, Hillingdon health authority referred a proposal to the London borough of Hillingdon, as the local planning authority, to replace its existing incinerator, which was a very rudimentary affair, and could not possibly have met present day standards for pollution control. That was done under the arrangements then in force for Crown development as set out in circular 18/84. By this procedure, the developing department, although benefiting from Crown immunity, notifies the planning authority of its proposal either in outline or in full detail. If the planning authority objects and the dispute cannot be resolved, the developing department may refer the case to the Secretary of State. Although the new incinerator was considerably larger than the old one, the local authority raised no objections, and the proposal was not referred to the Department.
The new incinerator was subsequently built during 1991 and is owned and operated by Basic Energy (UK) Ltd., a member of the Blue Circle group of companies. The incinerator built by Basic Energy has up-to-date pollution abatement equipment and monitoring and control systems, and was designed to achieve present day standards. In principle, that is surely a most beneficial way of disposing of waste of this kind, both rendering the waste biologically and chemically harmless and reducing the emission of combustion products from the hospital's own heavy oil-fired boilers. In addition, the heat generated from the incinerator of the clinical waste is used to raise steam to heat the hospital.
Under current legislation releases to the air from the incinerator are regulated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The London Waste Regulatory Authority regulates the waste disposal operation. Both bodies are obliged to register or licence a proposed activity unless they believe that harm will be done to the environment or that there is a danger to public health.
HMIP registered the incinerator in November 1991 under the legislation current at the time, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. As required by statutory instrument 318 of 1989, the public was consulted, but no responses were received from local residents.
The regulation of the delivery, handling and storage of clinical waste, and the disposal of the ash from the incinerator, fell to the LWRA. Initially, there was some uncertainty in the LWRA about whether the site required a waste disposal licence under the Control of Pollution Act because of the imminent application of integrated pollution control under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
At the end of 1991, the LWRA advised Basic Energy that a licence would be required. A licence was granted in July 1992 after extensive public consultation, although under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 the only statutory consultees are the National Rivers Authority and the local 746 waste collection authority. However, since the plant has come into operation over the last year I am aware that there have been problems and that many complaints have been received from the public and routed through to my hon. Friend.
The LWRA considers that the site is being operated in breach of its licence conditions, but the company is disputing the interpretation of some of the conditions and the matter is to go to court on 25 January. I understand that the company has notified the Department of its intention to appeal to the Secretary of State against the licence conditions. In view of these developments, it would be inappropraite for me to comment any further on this matter because my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are in a quasi-judicial position.
Since the operation started, HMIP for its part has not been fully satisfied with the management of the releases to the atmosphere. Inspectors visited the site 34 times in 1992—far more than is usual for plants of this type and size—and met representatives of the local community on a number of occasions to hear their complaints at first hand. They have considered prosecution on specific occasions, but there has never been sufficient evidence to support this. However, they have served two improvement notices which have secured specific improvements over and above those obtained by the constant pressure exerted by inspectors.
HMIP has arranged for independent tests on emissions to air on a number of occasions as well as requiring more tests from the company. The most recent tests done on behalf of HMIP show that the incinerator emissions are within the current standards set by the conditions of the certificate of registration.
I also know that offensive odours have occasioned complaints and HMIP has arranged for Warren Spring laboratory to carry out an odour assessment. The results are due shortly and I will let my hon. Friend have a copy of them in due course.
HMIP has also received complaints about the frequency with which the incinerator dump stack operates. The dump stack is necessary for safety reasons and HMIP is satisfied that its operation does not harm the environment. None the less, it has called for a programme, which is shortly to be completed, to reduce the number of times that the dump stack is used and to improve the standards of maintenance of the dump stack and its control system.
As well as releases to the atmosphere, I understand that local residents have complained about noise pollution and my hon. Friend mentioned it tonight. This is primarily a matter for the local authority. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 now provides environmental health officers with extensive powers to control noise which they consider to be a statutory nuisance.
For completeness, the House may want to know that the operation of the incinerator is also authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to continue the disposal of small quantities of radioactive waste from patient care. This is a common practice at hospitals and HMIP has reassessed the emissions and remains fully satisfied that the public are properly protected.
Under the legislation operating at the time the new incinerator was commissioned, the regulation of the site was split between HMIP and LWRA. On 31 October 1992, the incinerator fell to regulation under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That is powerful new legislation 747 which applies integrated pollution control to air, water and land. Basic Energy has submitted an application for authorisation as required by the Act and this will be placed on the public registers held by HMIP, the local authority and the National Rivers Authority.
I can assure my hon. Friend that HMIP will scrutinise the application closely and, before determining it, will take into account all comments from members of the public and the statutory consultees. The company will have to demonstrate that it can meet the new plant standards laid down by the chief inspector's guidance notes for clinical waste incinerators. In anticipation of that, and under pressure from the LWRA, I understand that the company has already applied for planning permission to extend the incinerator building to improve its waste handling practices, and I presume that that is an attempt to deal with the problem of bins being loaded, as shown by the photos that my hon. Friend kindly sent me.
I do not wish to say anything tonight about the conditions to be set in any authorisation as that could prejudice the position of the Secretary of State as regards appeals against decisions by Her Majesty's chief inspector of pollution. Indeed I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend that in this matter there are a number of things which I cannot say because of legal reasons and which prevent me from appearing as sympathetic as I would like to be to the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised and to his constituents. I cannot discuss any appeal against the licence condition, nor any matter which is to come before the courts. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also understand that I cannot discuss any matter relating to the 748 planning permission currently being sought nor, as I have just said, any condition to be set under integrated pollution-control legislation.
Although I cannot go into those issues now, I am very well aware of local public concern about the plant. I can assure my hon. Friend that laws against pollution will be firmly upheld. HMIP, the LWRA and the local authority have, I know, all been doing what they can, within the powers that they have, and have secured improvements in the operation of the plant, which will be consolidated in any authorisation issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I am confident that they will continue to keep the operation under close supervision so as properly to protect the environment for us all.
But it is only fair to my hon. Friend that I should make it clear to the House that I will not permit pollution control legislation to be used to close an industrial site which local residents feel is sited in the wrong place. That would be a misuse of pollution control law to deal with a matter which is properly for planning law. Therefore, I cannot—to use my hon. Friend's words—bring its operation to an end, as he asks, merely because it is sited in a residential area, even though I have every sympathy for him and for his constituents. I repeat my assurance that, now that the incinerator is under the control of the integrated pollution control provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, its tough provisions will be fairly applied—but applied they will be. I hope that that will improve the local environment and that my hon. Friend's constituents will see that the law is adequate to protect them.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.