North-East Derbyshire

HC Deb 20 July 1994 vol 247 cc533-41

7.9 am

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

My debate moves us towards the north, but it deals with problems similar to those that we have been discussing for London. The Minister may be interested to know that I introduced this topic in 1989 and that the Minister who replied for the Government on that occasion is now the Secretary of State for Health. I shall wait five years to see what position the current Minister has moved to.

Pollution knows no boundaries, as was obvious internationally when the Chernobyl incident occurred. Nationally, the figures from the Department of the Environment for ozone pollution during hot weather show that often the higher levels are not necessarily in counties with the largest towns but are sometimes in neighbouring areas. Oxfordshire is in the top list and Derbyshire is fourth in that set of figures. It may be that some of the problems resulting in the high ozone level in Derbyshire derive from neighbouring areas such as Sheffield, with the pollution drifting to Derbyshire. Locally, the crossing of boundaries is illustrated by the fact that the River Doe Lea, which starts in Bolsover district and constituency and is the worst polluted river in Europe, forms part of the border between the districts and constituencies of Derbyshire, North-East and Bolsover.

Individualism may help to create certain pollution problems, but it offers no solution to handling those problems. Action to tackle pollution has to be planned, co-ordinated and shared and, therefore, must be social in content. In tackling pollution, there is no such thing as isolated individualism.

Pollution controls do not need to destroy production and jobs. In fact, if pollution controls are operated correctly they should work in the opposite direction. Job opportunities and production should go along with improved pollution control techniques. An example of that developed in north-east Derbyshire. Biwaters of Clay Cross in north-east Derbyshire produces pipes which are often sold internationally. The company was a polluter, producing old-fashioned muck and dirt, and was under considerable pressure to clean up its act. Pressures were being applied by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

The firm obtained new markets in a peculiar way. When Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister, she went to Malaysia and became involved in trade and aid discussions. That opened up new markets and led to a development of rural piping throughout Malaysia. The great bulk of that production came from the Bywaters plant in Clay Cross. In order to increase production, the company agreed to instigate investment which would control the pollution problems in the area as well as helping with the expansion. So we have more jobs, greater production and less pollution as a result of that investment.

We have sometimes missed out on those opportunities. For instance, Avenue coke works at Wingerworth is now closed. More than 300 people were made redundant; yet the product was desirable for pollution control. The plant, however, was aging and produced pollutants itself. Investment and improvements were needed to maintain jobs and to make a product that would sell; the product being produced became inferior because of the conditions prevailing at the plant. We need policies that would allow an organisation such as Avenue coke works to continue its production without creating pollution.

Much has already been said about the need for an integrated social transport system at the national and international level. Although perhaps not yet in a very developed form, such systems are offered through the European Community. Plans to develop a common transport policy throughout the EC were discussed recently in Standing Committee A.

To highlight the extent of the pollution problem, I shall use north-east Derbyshire, and the Staveley area in particular, as an example. The northern part of Staveley falls within the constituency of Derbyshire, North-East while the southern part falls within the constituency of Chesterfield. That shows that boundaries are meaningless when we are debating pollution.

Mr. Wareing, a farmer of Barrow Hill, keeps elaborate records of the pollution that he encounters. He has recorded high levels of sulphur, molybdenum and fluoride in herbage and silage. Since 1971, 25 per cent. of calves born there have had eye defects, and some have been blind. He once showed me a photosensitive cow that had to be kept in the dark. He is pursuing cases in the courts against local firms. The value of what he is doing lies in the fact that the details will be placed in the public domain. There were also problems recently when travellers arrived in a nearby area that suffers similar problems. The travellers were therefore in considerable danger.

Asthma was mentioned in our previous debate. It is a considerable problem in the Staveley area. Many instances have been recorded at schools there; at Barrow Hill primary school, the figure is 23 per cent., which is at least twice the national average. That says something about the nature of the problems in the area. Pollution caused by transport may drift: Barrow Hill is not an area with high car use, so many other factors could come into play—some may be related to the problems recorded by the farmer to whom I referred.

Great attention was paid to Staveley's problems because of a scare about high levels of dioxins. There had been an incident at Coalite, and an examination was undertaken. Three farms in the Bolsover area were taken out of production—two produced milk and the one that sold meat supplies reared suckling cows. What happened there has been stressed a great deal by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Because of the problems at Coalite, investigations were started over a somewhat wider area in Staveley and it was discovered that there was another strain of dioxin, different from the Coalite pollution. That was traced to Stanton plc. In 1993, eight farms in the area were taken out of milk production and had their milk tested. According to current standards, the levels were found acceptable, so the farms went back into milk production.

Although the dioxin problems were discovered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Department of the Environment, the work of cleaning them up had to be pursued by Chesterfield borough council and North-East Derbyshire district council, mainly through their environmental health officers. That produced a problem in terms of the availability of resources to tackle such tasks, but at least when we found out what the levels were we could begin to take action.

Other problems in the area include river pollution and the difficulty of containing consent levels in what goes into the River Rother, into which the Doe Lea eventually flows. We also have problems involving sewage treatment and the death of the river. The National Rivers Authority has tried to turn the river back into a waterway that can support fish.

Another problem connected with sewage is the overflow from drains, caused by the inadequacy of the provision, which is in the hands of Yorkshire Water Services. There is a great need to encourage the company to extend its improvements in the area to help districts in Hollingwood where there is serious flooding, involving overflows of sewage in residential areas and in an area where there is a working men's club.

The traffic problems that were discussed in the previous debate also exist in my area.

There was a particular problem at Rhône-Poulenc—generally known as Staveley Chemicals—which has an elaborate warning system for local residents. A siren sounds when there is held to be danger in the area. Unfortunately, it sounded accidentally recently and there was no system for telling people that the danger was over. Luckily, because of the lesson that it learned, the company has now moved to establish a new system. The action card, which is quite elaborate, has to be distributed in the Staveley area. It tells people in great detail about going indoors and staying there, about tuning to local radio and so on, about what they have to do to assist the police and fire services, and about waiting for the all-clear. Unfortunately, within that area there are several other firms —such as Coalite, which is not too far away—and they all operate similar systems. What is required is an understanding that the signalling system is different in different areas. When the accident took place, people rang up Coalite instead of Staveley Chemicals to ask what was wrong in the area.

Staveley's problems must be tackled in a co-ordinated way. I do not think that we have the provisions to do that. We have a junior Minister for the Environment and Countryside within the Department of the Environment who has some overall responsibilities for these matters, but who does not have the status or the wherewithal to be able to operate fully. We have environmental protection legislation which throws tasks on to local government, as I mentioned, but local government is fantastically underfunded in the areas with which I am dealing. In terms of standard spending assessment and the grants related to it, North-East Derbyshire district council is 275th out of 296 English councils. Chesterfield borough council is only a little ahead of that.

Then there is the problem of co-ordinating the areas to which I have referred. It was interesting that in the previous debate the Minister frequently said, "That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Department of Transport or for the Department of Health." A great difficulty in pollution control is drawing the threads together and getting hold of all the information required. In terms of handling a problem such as the one in Staveley, there are Department of Health investigations and the Department of the Environment is involved. The Department of Trade and Industry is also involved because we are talking about industries in the area, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is involved because we are talking about farms in the area. The Department of Employment, too, is involved because jobs are at stake. A whole set of agencies are involved, including Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the National Rivers Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. Local government bodies then come into it because Chesterfield borough and North-East Derbyshire district council have environmental health responsibilities. Planning arrangements, which are sometimes overridden by the Department of the Environment on appeal, are in the hands of the district and county councils. Then there are the private bodies. There is Rhône-Poulenc—traditionally known as Staveley Chemicals—and Yorkshire Water.

The start of a solution to tackle the problems in an area such as Staveley is a full environmental survey in the area drawing the many threads together. Once we know the facts, as we eventually discovered the facts about dioxin, we can take the appropriate action to deal with the problem. But we need an agency that is able to do that. We need a new Department of Environmental Protection which will be able to co-ordinate investigations and to offer the facilities required. Such a Department could also facilitate solutions for the area.

Staveley is by no means unique in its problems. When it was discovered that Stanton plc was responsible for the dioxin in the area, the Stanton works at Stanton, in Erewash, were investigated and it was found that a similar problem existed there. I imagine that the problem exists wherever there are large industrial complexes. However, there are hopes in the Staveley area that there will be improvements. There is even a faint hope in the Department of the Environment.

In a letter to me dated 29 April, the Secretary of State for the Environment, when calls had beem made to him for the type of environmental survey about which I am talking, stated: You will appreciate that, until the current work being undertaken by HMIP and the NRA has been completed and the results published, and the question of the prosecutions has been decided, it would not be appropriate for me to take up your invitation to visit your constituency. As soon as the additional work that HMIP is taking forward has been completed and assessed, I will write to you again about whether anything further needs to be done in response to your request for a full investigation of environmental problems in the area concerned. There are things which we await, unless a message arrives this morning about those possibilities.

There is the possibility of action being taken in the Staveley area. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is due to visit us and the areas that I am describing on 15 September. That closely follows the publication of Labour's document "In Trust for Tomorrow", which was mentioned in a debate earlier today. I was keen to seek the position of chair of the Labour Back-Bench environment committee because of my experiences especially in north-east Derbyshire, often on a wider basis than the ones that I have stressed so far in terms of the Staveley area.

There are more problems than the ones relating to Staveley. We have been involved in a pit closure programme and privatisation. No mines are left in Derbyshire. We have one National Union of Mineworkers branch at Highmoor which is associated with the Kiveton combine, but it is due to close in September. We have the problem of mine water discharges which has been stressed by the National Rivers Authority. We also have opencast problems in the area. Despite strong objection, the most recent development was that at Spinkhill, which is not too far from some of the pits that have been closed. We have areas of considerable opencast potential in rural areas which have not had anything to do with mining since possibly the 17th and 18th centuries. We also have the areas where there have been recent closures. Moves should be made to come in and opencast an area where a pit has closed. We also have the residual problem of mining subsidence, and inadequate means to deal with that in various areas.

The river pollution associated with the River Rother moves into other areas, apart from Staveley, to the north of the constituency through Killamarsh, where it goes close to a Leigh Environmental plant, a subject on which I had a previous Adjournment debate. We had a lengthy discussion on the matter because it was an extended Adjournment debate. Across the border in Rother Valley country park, which is in a neighbouring constituency, the water for the lake had to be imported: the water in the River Rother could not be used as it was too polluted. We also have other sewerage problems. The town in Dronfield has developed considerably and the River Drone, which passes close to a school in neighbouring Unstone, is sometimes something of an open sewer.

Obviously, such problems are not confined within the boundaries of north-east Derbyshire. The wider northeastern corner of Derbyshire has the same problems as those at Coalite—the massive opencast development taking place at Arkwright, and the general lack of investment throughout the whole area which would enable the type of environmental improvement that I have described in relation to Biwater to take place more generally.

The Government's failures need stressing, as does Labour's policy. For instance, the Minister and I and others have already clashed over the Energy Conservation Bill, which in many ways was a mild measure involving audit and conservation plans. From what was said at an earlier meeting of the European Standing Committee, I expected that before the end of this week we would have a statement in the House on transport and safety policies. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. We have discovered from a Court of Auditors report on environmental matters that many of the projects in which the European Community is involved are counterproductive environmentally.

A large jump must be made to produce the right policy for the environment. To that end, I will summarise briefly some of the Labour party's proposals. We have advocated a green industrial strategy, in which new jobs and reductions in pollution go hand in hand, as I have suggested. Our sustainable transport policy shifts the emphasis to public transport, which offers many of the benefits that I described in the previous debate on this issue. Under our energy efficiency programme, no new nuclear power stations would be commissioned and the presumption is against opencast mining. That is of particular importance to north-east Derbyshire. Our proposals to democratise planning systems would also benefit my area. We have also advocated global institutional provisions and provisions about individual rights.

Those policies represent the way forward. The problem is that we cannot wait for some of those initiatives to be introduced; the Government need to pick them up and run with them now. That is the way to tackle the problems I have outlined.

7.35 am

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on his good fortune to have a debate at this cheerful hour of the morning and on the manner in which he introduced it.

It is interesting to note that, five years ago, my hon. Friend had the good fortune, yet again, to debate the problems of pollution in north-east Derbyshire. The then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who replied to the debate is now the Secretary of State for Health. Is she still Secretary of State?

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins)

indicated assent.

Mr. Howarth

That is the case.

On that occasion, the then hon. Lady said: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has outlined a number of environmental concerns in his constituency. They are all subjects to which the Government are giving detailed consideration."—[Official Report, 13 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 245.] It is interesting that, five years on, my hon. Friend has raised exactly the same concerns, which the Government are still subjecting to detailed consideration. Insufficient progress has been made and my hon. Friend is right to outline those concerns, once again, in some detail.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that just as pollution knows no international boundaries, equally it knows no regional boundaries. The problems of the Rivers Doe Lea and Rother, which my hon. Friend has outlined, have a regional significance and should be considered further by the Government. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is a keen angler, would like to be able to fish in that river, but, at the moment, it has no fish worth catching. The problems caused by pollution extend beyond regions and even counties.

My hon. Friend also drew attention to the scale of pollution confronted in his constituency, for example, at Staveley. I know that, over the years, my hon. Friend for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has campaigned against dioxin contamination in the area. The Minister will appreciate that great concern has been expressed about the impact of the incineration of various materials on public health. The burning temperatures in that process must be monitored constantly and kept up to right level, so that dioxins are not created. It is important that the problem is kept under constant review and that action is taken where necessary to try to reduce it.

We must, as my hon. Friend said, have a properly co-ordinated strategy not only in his constituency but throughout the country. The House will be aware that there was a proposal in the Queen's Speech to introduce paving legislation for an environment agency. Sadly, that idea has sunk without trace. It seems that no such Bill exists. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Labour party—he is well aware of this—has a clear blueprint of what an environment agency should do. Indeed, the agency was our idea. I think that the Minister will concede that.

Mr. Atkins

Certainly not.

Mr. Howarth

If he examines the record, the Minister will find that the Labour party was talking about creating an environment agency when he was worrying about the problems of Northern Ireland. I am sure that he still worries about those problems at length.

An environment agency would provide the coordination that my hon. Friend rightly thinks is lacking. It would focus also on bringing together the responsible statutory bodies and other agencies so that all resources and concerns could be handled in a proper manner. Local authorities would be involved as well.

Some time ago, my hon. Friend issued an invitation to the Secretary of State for the Environment to visit his constituency. He received what might be described as a holding letter. It told my hon. Friend that certain developments were under way and, as a result, the Secretary of State might later consider visiting Derbyshire, North-East. I understand that it might be important that investigations should be made and completed before a visit takes place.

I have undertaken to visit my hon. Friend's constituency on 15 September. If the Minister is free on that day, I am sure that he would like to join me. I realise that he will not have his diary with him now. I am sure that my hon. Friend would make it an interesting and constructive day. Perhaps between us we could start to resolve some of the problems that my hon. Friend has been talking about for the past five years and beyond.

I think that it is generally accepted that reform of the planning system is long overdue. That forms part of the Labour party document which was published the other day, "In Trust for Tomorrow". That reform would be helpful to our efforts to resolve some of the problems that my hon. Friend has outlined. My hon. Friend talked about the presumption against opencast mining. That, too, forms part of "In Trust for Tomorrow" and would be a helpful policy.

It has taken five years for my hon. Friend to move from one debate to another. The problems that he referred to five years ago still face us. It is time that pollution generally, and especially in my hon. Friend's constituency, received a proper and co-ordinated response from the Government. If the Minister is not willing so to respond, the quicker we get a Government who are—that is a Labour Government —the better.

7.43 am

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins)

As is customary, and I have no difficulty in doing so, I congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on securing this debate. He has, by all accounts—past correspondence and contributions—been signally effective in stimulating debate on environmental issues of concern to his constituents. I prepared a speech in anticipation of some of the points that he would make, but if I do not deal with all the issues that he has raised, I will write to him with such further comments as are necessary.

I have noted the House's past interest in problems in Derbyshire and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with an opportunity to underline the Government's continued concern to protect the health of our people and the state of the environment in the country and particularly in Derbyshire, as highlighted in this debate.

Incidentally, I visited part of the national forest, which covers areas of Derbyshire, and saw for myself some of the activities that have been going on as a result of the successful project there. The benefits of the Government's strategy can be seen in many parts of the country. I shall take this opportunity to describe examples of the successes in and around north-east Derbyshire, which are contributing to the environmental regeneration of the area.

At Leigh Environmental, Killamarsh, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has required a major refurbishment of the incineration plant, which is expected to come on line later this year, allowing the company to meet new plant standards in advance of the specified date. Improvements already carried out in response to improvement conditions, particularly those related to improved control of incinerator temperature and waste feed, have resulted in a substantial reduction in complaints from people living and working close to the site.

At Rhône-Poulenc, near Staveley, part of the site is already under HMIP control. A number of improvement conditions have already been complied with. New plant standards will be achieved progressively by 1998, resulting in the virtual elimination of benzene releases. The quality of releases to the River Rother from the site have improved since the issue of the authorisation. Other processes on site are due to be controlled by HMIP soon, resulting in further reductions in mercury releases into the environment. The company is pursuing pioneering development work on reed bed technology with the active encouragement of HMIP.

GKN Sheepbridge, near Chesterfield, has been the source of recent complaints, and agreement has been reached for improvements to be undertaken.

At Coalite Fuels, Bolsover, some 25 improvement conditions were imposed and all the short-term conditions have now been complied with. Discharges to the River Doe Lea have improved considerably following the installation of improved settling facilities called for by HMIP.

At Coalite Products, nine processes have come under HMIP control between October 1992 and June 1994. Many of the improvement conditions have already been completed, but a number more remain. Those improvement conditions are all aimed at the achievement of new plant standards within defined timescales.

A close liaison is being developed between HMIP, the National Rivers Authority and the waste regulatory authorities in north-east Derbyshire in advance of the environment agency, on which good progress is being made and about which we hope to hear more later this year. Meetings are being held and matters of mutual concern discussed and progressed in an integrated fashion. There is also close liaison between the regulators, including the local authorities and regional health authority. Joint meetings have been held and initiatives established to collect environmental data. The aim is to undertake a modelling exercise studying the interaction of pollutants from various sources in the area.

The regulatory authorities continue to attend liaison committees, which act as a forum for discussion and an information conduit between process operators and local pressure groups and members of the public.

In May, a new rivers ecosystems scheme for classifying water quality was introduced. It will enable statutory water quality objectives to be set for the first time for individual stretches of water. Objectives will normally be set to reflect improvements expected to result from existing obligations under EC and domestic legislation and from discretionary spending. The NRA will shortly prepare proposals for a limited number of pilot catchments. There will be full consultation informally by the NRA and formally by the Secretary of State.

The River Doe Lea has been the subject of considerable attention by the NRA as it has sought to identify the problems and find solutions. I understand that the NRA is taking civil action against Coalite Chemicals to recover the costs of removing dioxins from the Doe Lea and Rother rivers. That civil action has taken some time to prepare because analysis of dioxin contamination is very complex, time consuming and costly.

The Government have funded derelict land reclamation in north-east Derbyshire for many years. In the three years to April 1994, 20 schemes were completed and 12 more were in the pipeline. Those will reclaim 380 hectares and produce 30 hectares of industrial land, about 1,000 to 1,500 jobs and up to £40 million of private sector investment. English Partnerships has a continuing commitment to reclamation work in the area and the Government are also providing £250,000 for the reclamation work of the Cresswell groundwork trust in the area.

An extensive and co-ordinated programme of environmental research and monitoring has already been carried out in north-east Derbyshire. Several reports detailing results of those studies have already been published, and the Government have given assurances that all the data will be made public. From the strategy that I have outlined, and from the examples that I have given, I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is reassured that all the agencies are committed to environmental protection and environmental regeneration, and to working closely with representatives of the local community.

Successful environmental protection is dependent on a co-ordinated approach by all parties, to ensure that the maximum benefit is achieved, commensurate with the state of knowledge, technology and costs to the product, process and the environment.

Mr. Barnes

Does the Minister feel that the developments that he has spoken about begin to match up to the full environmental survey that it is increasingly obvious is required in the area? Out of the bits and pieces that begin to develop, a story may be built up. We need to put together all the resources and sectors that I was speaking about, and to investigate the matter completely. Once we do that, we shall begin to know the answers that should be implemented. The Minister was also invited to join us in investigations into the area, because sometimes the equivalent of site visits are useful in helping to determine people's positions.

Mr. Atkins

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Like any politician or Minister, I would never say "never". We believe that much work is being done in the area, although obviously there is more yet to be done. As for the offer of a visit, I shall look at the diary and if I can accept that offer, I will.