HC Deb 20 March 1996 vol 274 cc457-76

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

9.8 pm

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

I welcome the opportunity to raise the important issue of the burning of Cemfuel by Castle Cement at its works in Clitheroe. I have invited the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who chairs the Environment Select Committee, to speak in the debate, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it is right that they should.

We have the benefit, of course, of the Government's strategy document, "Making Waste Work", but unfortunately in this debate we do not have the benefit of the Government's considered response to the Environment Select Committee's report on the burning of secondary liquid fuels in cement kilns, which was published about 10 months ago, on 7 June 1995. Perhaps I should explain my interests, as Clitheroe is not in my constituency; it is in Ribble Valley, which lies alongside Pendle, and the two constituencies are separated by the vast bulk of Pendle hill. But, of course, smoke and dust, like the wind and the rain, do not respect lines on maps. I have an interest, as the Member of Parliament next door, for environmental reasons. Indeed, on 10 January this year, Pendle's services committee, in my local authority, considered a report on the issue, so people's concerns about the burning of Cemfuel extend well beyond Ribble Valley.

The Library of the House tells me that the exact composition of Cemfuel—the generic name is secondary liquid fuel—is commercially confidential. However, it is chiefly based on distillation residues from the solvent recovery business, Solrec, blended with solid and liquid waste from the paint, plastics, chemical and car industries, with old solvents that are no longer in use. It can contain metals such as mercury and thallium and chlorine compounds, which may generate dioxins when burnt, although there is a limit, I am told, on the metal content that can go into cement kilns.

It is clear that we are talking about a real witches' brew in Cemfuel. I have no idea what else may or may not be in it, but I have a list of the substances that are present in the recycled liquid fuel that is burnt at Blue Circle's Weardale works. They include methanol, which is found in windscreen cleaners; acetone, a varnish remover; propyl acetate, commonly found in adhesives; nitrobenzines, dyestuffs; dichloroethane, in anti-knock petrol; styrene, in plastics, and so on. It is a terrible cocktail of ingredients. The issue that is at the centre of this is whether all that can be burnt safely.

Secondary liquid fuels are used by the cement industry because they are cheap. Instead of paying for coal or coke, the producers of hazardous waste pay the cement industry to take their waste away for burning. That makes tremendous economic sense for the cement industry, which tells me that it is struggling very hard to fend off competition from other countries in the European Union—from the Greeks, for example, who apparently have a highly developed cement industry—and from all corners of the globe. That infuriates the companies that run and operate purpose-built incinerators. They have told me that the burning of hazardous waste in cement kilns is banned in Denmark, Finland and, in effect, the Netherlands. Castle Cement is partly owned by the Swedes, and in Sweden, mercury, thallium, bromine, iodine and fluorine are all banned from combustion in cement kilns. But not here, apparently. The Minister will want to come back on that point.

In this country, secondary liquid fuels are burnt at Cambridge by Rugby Cement, and at Ketton in Leicester and at Clitheroe by Castle Cement. Other plants are giving it a trial. What is happening in the nation's cement kilns will be the first real test of the new Environment Agency, which opens for business on 1 April.

According to Fred Pearce, writing in tomorrow's edition of New Scientist, chemical wastes are now being burnt permanently, or are on trial, in about half the country's cement works. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which is to become part of the new Environment Agency, is constantly reviewing what it may or may not be acceptable to burn in cement kilns. It is constantly reviewing national and international guidelines. Apparently, it is a moving target. It is feared that not just Cemfuel—secondary liquid fuel—will be going up the chimneys. In due course it may be joined by sewage sludge, shredded tyres, oil sludge and PCBs, although Castle Cement has told me that there is no question of polychlorinated biphenyls being burnt at Clitheroe.

Last September I travelled from my constituency to Ribble Valley, having been invited to tour the cement plant by the plant manager, Peter del Strother.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

I do not recall receiving a letter from the hon. Gentleman saying that he would be visiting my constituency.

Mr. Prentice

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not observing the parliamentary proprieties on that occasion. It was my mistake.

The plant manager and his colleagues were very courteous and helpful, and showed me the cement kiln. It was the first time that I had been in a cement plant. The kiln was an enormous metal structure, 100 or more yards long. It revolved slowly, generating a tremendous amount of heat: if I got too close, I had to back off. Inside the kiln, the temperature reached about 1500 deg C. I was taken to a viewing platform and invited to look through the spyhole just behind the lower part of the kiln, where the flame was. It was like the fires of hell. I thought that nothing could survive such an inferno—that everything would be vaporised, neutralised and made safe. Subsequently, however, I bumped into scientifically qualified people who knew much more about the subject than I did, and what they said gave me pause for thought.

I have raised this issue not just because of my own concerns, but because constituents have pressed me to secure answers to the questions that they have raised, so far without success. Judy Yacoub and her colleagues in the Pendle branch of Friends of the Earth have taken a close interest, and people in Clitheroe have also been in touch with me, although I have always made it clear that I should not be regarded as a surrogate Member of Parliament for Ribble Valley.

I should also mention Mary Homer, who seems to have lived and breathed the issue for years—literally, in fact, because her house is in the path of the plume from Castle Cement's chimney and is regularly enveloped in it. People in Clitheroe are worried about the plume "grounding", and about its effect on health. The main group of campaigners is known by the acronym RATS, which stands for Residents Against Toxic Substances. Its members are concerned about the fact that Cemfuel is being burnt without proper regard to the health of people living in the vicinity. Their January newsletter records that Ribble Valley council's environment committee passed a vote of no confidence in HMIP in November last year. The council did that because of HMIP' s alleged lack of commitment to stop pollution from Castle Cement". It beggars belief that a responsible local authority could pass such a resolution about another public authority, HMIP.

In March 1995, Ribble Valley council's environment and social services committee recommended that HMIP be told that the council could not support the continuation of the burning of Cemfuel at Clitheroe until the following measures were put in place: there must be reductions to below the 'permitted levels' for all elements which are discharged from the stacks and to landfill there must be research and urgent action taken to prevent the regular grounding of the plumes from both chimney stacks there must be a rigorous analytical system in place to undertake specified analysis every 3 months in order to obtain more data on the burning of Cemfuel, and there must be a properly planned programme of environmental impact analysis set up by HMIP in the area surrounding the Castle Cement works. The committee took that view because of the information that had appeared on the public register. That information compared stack emissions and increases in emissions following the burning of Cemfuel, with emissions from the combustion of coal. There was a 72 per cent. increase in ammonia, a 54 per cent. increase in particulates, which are sooty particles—I am not entirely sure what these things do to the human body, but they do not sound attractive—a 534 per cent. increase in chromium, a 54 per cent. increase in lead, an 819 per cent. increase in nickel, and so it goes on. Ribble Valley council was obviously concerned that that stuff was spewing out of chimney stacks at Castle Cement and that council tax payers would be breathing it all in.

The RATS January newsletter quoted two scientists, Dr. Vyvyan Howard from Liverpool university and Professor Paul Connett. I do not know how wide its distribution was, but the newsletter said: These two eminent scientists both say that burning hazardous waste in cement kilns is a very dangerous practice and cannot be justified under any circumstances. When I read that newsletter, I thought that it was a bit alarmist and that, if I lived in the Clitheroe region, I would feel uncomfortable and anxious. I wanted to dampen anxieties and try to reassure people, but with such newsletters circulating in the Clitheroe region, it is clear that people are hyped up about the threat to their health and to that of their children.

On 10 January, the Minister told me that, over the preceding 21 months, HMIP had received approximately 440 complaints against Castle Cement, some of which allege ill-effects". On the same day, he told me that HMIP had sought advice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, from East Lancashire health authority and from the Department of Health. After seeking that advice, HMIP concluded that it was satisfied that there does not appear to be any evidence that the use of cemfuel is any more harmful to health than the use of coal"— except perhaps the smell.

I have a clipping from the Clitheroe Advertiser and Times of 22 February. The banner headline reads: Demand to stop 'plume' nuisance". The strapline says: Children experience a 'bad egg' smell". The story goes on: As a thick plume dipped over Chatburn, a village resident demanded immediate action to 'stop the nuisance'. Mrs. Elizabeth Gardner was reported as saying: The plume was so severe and lasted so long that I was concerned about the children playing in Chatbum Primary School yard". She goes on: I accept that Castle Cement is trying to deal with the problem of plume-grounding long-term, but at the end of the day nobody was able to prevent or alleviate the effect of the plume-grounding on our own health and our children's health". Later in the article, she says: My daughter, who had been playing out in the yard at Chatbum Primary School, told me the children had been discussing what the `bad egg' smell was all day". The article goes on: Castle Cement's works manager, Mr. Peter del Strother, said it had been a gusty day and that he had seen occasional plume-grounding incidences. 'In high winds the frequency is higher than it normally would be. It obviously was possible that there were incidents of plume-grounding … it is perfectly safe.' Then he added: February was always a difficult month due to the turbulent wind conditions. Tough luck for anyone playing in the playground at Chatburn primary school in February, because of the turbulent wind conditions. The article goes on to talk about the authorisation.

I have the minutes of the meeting that took place between RATS, the borough council, HMIP and Castle Cement on 4 December 1995. It quotes Donald Boardman and his colleagues from RATS. I quote it because we are talking about ordinary people, living in the area, breathing this stuff and experiencing it, who are concerned about their children. The minutes of that meeting say: It is generally thought that the plume grounds far too often and this is felt across the Ribble Valley Community. People also believe there are adverse effects on their health, such as sore throats, headaches and dizziness. People think Castle Cement is trying to hide something by not publishing the formula of the fuel. The minute goes on: We feel there has been inconclusive monitoring. Cemfuel constitutes advanced technology energy production but has monitoring been equally advanced? The inconsistent monitoring has damaged trust with the public and the credibility of Castle Cement. Is the equipment working at less than optimum? How do we know the kilns can burn cemfuel efficiently? Those are all the questions that come cascading out of the mouths of people who live in the area.

There were problems with the monitoring. An earlier newsletter from the same organisation in September, when the National Physical Laboratory was monitoring air quality in the area, referred to the two worst incidents that occurred in September, when the monitoring equipment was never where it was meant to be. The two worst incidents during the first week of the monitoring appeared to be in Park avenue, when the lab was at Moorlands school, and at Worston, when the lab van was at Chatburn, and on both occasions the hotline did not work. That was the monitoring carried out by the National Physical Laboratory, which will inform the decisions that the Government and HMIP will take about whether Cemfuel should continue to be burnt.

The RATS people also complained about the role of the East Lancashire health authority, which covers that area. They refer to Dr. Stephen Morton, who has been complaining that the health authority does not have the resources to monitor public health in the Ribble Valley.

For this Adjournment debate, Castle Cement produced a briefing note. It helpfully sent a copy to me and to other hon. Members who are interested in the matter. That briefing note says: the local health authority give cemfuel 'a clean bill of health' and the Department of Health also give cetnfuel a clean bill of health. That may be the case, but I should like to see the evidence to justify the health authority and the Department of Health giving Cemfuel a clean bill of health.

On 6 November last year, I asked the Secretary of State for Health whether he would commission studies into the health effects of burning Cemfuel. On that occasion, I was told by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), that the Department of Health would contribute to the Government's response to the Environment Committee's report—the one that 10 months later we do not yet have—but that the Department had no plans to commission any studies on the subject. That is absolutely astonishing. On 30 November last year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told me that HMIP had yet to complete its consultation on health issues. Presumably it was waiting for the results of the investigative monitoring of the National Physical Laboratory, to which I have already referred.

One Clitheroe resident, who is an active member of RATS, Linda England, wrote to Dr. Stephen Morton because she was concerned about the incidence of asthma. He replied on 31 January, saying that he was not in a position to release raw data on asthma incidence in the Clitheroe area of Ribble Valley, because the number of hospital admissions was small and patient confidentiality might be compromised. He also said that the health authority might be breaching the Data Protection Act. For good measure, he added that data relating to general practice are the property of the general practitioner.

It is astonishing that, as far as I am aware, East Lancashire health authority seems to have made no serious attempt to collect data from GPs in the area. One would have thought that it would have been simple to contact GPs and ask them about the number of prescriptions for inhalers and so on, and whether the incidence of asthma had increased, but it did not happen. Indeed, Dr. Morton said in his letter to Ms England: The evidence available to the health authority does not indicate that the current use of Cemfuel leads to any greater health risks than there were previously when coal alone was used at Castle Cement. He went on, however, to add the caveat: We have never said that the processes at Castle Cement do not carry health risks, and we certainly recognise the discomfort which poor dispersal of the plume may cause especially to people with chronic ill health. He concluded by saying: only a major national study is likely to give meaningful data on the degree of the health risks associated with fuels used in the cement making process. To conduct such a study requires a political decision to commit resources from the Department of the Environment and/or the Department of Health. That is what we have never had, although thousands of people living in the Ribble Valley area are crying out for someone in authority, someone with responsibility—the Government or one of the other public bodies—to commission a study on the alleged effects on health, but it has not happened.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish chaired the Environment Committee when it published its report on 7 June last year. Of its nine recommendations, the ninth—and I would say the most important—was that the Government should commission research to establish one way or the other whether there is any causal connection between burning Cemfuel and any rise in ill health. It has not been acted on. Without that study, people are relying on anecdotal evidence, some of which is fairly alarmist.

I was at another public meeting in Clitheroe—again, I apologise if I did not inform the hon. Member for Ribble Valley—in September, at which Dr. Van Steenis, a retired GP who used to practise in south Wales, spoke. Many people, including those from Castle Cement, feel that Dr. Van Steenis is a discredited witness because he is so emotive about the issue. In fact, at that public meeting, what he said was so over the top and alarmist that the people who came up to me afterwards were very nervous after listening to him. I take what he says with a pinch of salt—we do not intend to alarm people, but we simply want to get at the facts. He said that asthma rates in villages down wind of Castle Cement had risen from zero in 1991 to 9 per cent. last year, and he found as many as 15 per cent. of asthma cases close to the plant. I do not know whether his figures are right or wrong, but I pass them on for what they are worth.

I mentioned Blue Circle Cement. If I may be allowed to digress for a moment, I should like to mention Dr. Irving Spur, whose general practice covers three surgeries in the upper valley, close to the cement works. He looked retrospectively through patients' records, selecting those with a diagnosis of asthma. He found a correlation between asthma incidence in children between the ages of five and 12 and their postcodes. Two per cent. of such children living west of the cement plant had asthma, and 7.1 per cent. of those living to the east of the site had asthma. The figure rose to 12 per cent. for those living at a distance of four miles from the plant and to 9 per cent. for those at a distance of eight miles away. I do not claim to be an expert on these matters, but I know that the causes of asthma are many and varied, and such findings are worthy of serious research.

Given all the anxieties that I have enumerated, it is astonishing—not only to me and my constituents but to the constituents of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley—that the Government could not get their act together to reply formally to the Environment Committee's report, especially as the Committee's recommendations were expressed in fairly trenchant terms.

I have mentioned the health effect, but the Select Committee made eight other recommendations. As I said, we hope to get a response within the next few weeks, which is one of the reasons why I raised the issue tonight. On 5 December last year, I asked the Minister when we could expect a considered response to the Select Committee's report. I was told that a full response would be published early in the new year. We are now 25 per cent. of the way through 1996 and we still do not have that response. When the Minister replies, I should like to know why there has been such an inordinate delay.

It is always possible to look down both ends of the telescope. People living in Clitheroe next to the plant have one view, but Castle Cement has another. I would not be paraphrasing Castle Cement unfairly if I said that it feels that many of the anxieties expressed have been whipped up and are almost hysterical. It is keen to reassure people and to try to do something about the very hostile public mood.

In fact, I had a meeting in the House on 22 February with Jim Stevenson, the chief executive of the Cement Association, and Ian Walpole and Richard Boarder from Castle Cement. They were here to talk to the Labour party's environment committee, which I chair. Also present were Roger Lilley and Alan Watson from Friends of the Earth, who wanted to put their opposing point of view. The gulf between the two views was wide, and I did my best to see how it could be bridged.

The people from the cement industry wanted Friends of the Earth to visit Ribblesdale in Clitheroe, to see the cement works and speak to the people involved. For its part, Friends of the Earth was upset that Castle Cement was playing its cards very close to its chest, citing in its support academics such as Professor Vincent Marks of Surrey university, but not persuading Professor Marks to make available the research data that led him to state that there is a lot of misplaced anxiety among the people of Clitheroe … Despite convincing and repetitive evidence that dioxins emissions are no greater in Clitheroe when Cemfuel is burned than when coal is used alone, the dangers to health from dioxins have been so exaggerated that many local people continue to believe and repeat fallacies based on unjustified extrapolation and experimental animal data". I should like the cement people to invite Friends of the Earth to the cement works and I should like Friends of the Earth to take up Jim Stevenson's invitation. I cannot understand for the life of me why Castle Cement cannot persuade Professor Marks, who obviously has some sort of consultancy with it, to make available his research data to an academic peer group, to find out whether they stand up.

The briefing note circulated by Castle Cement, to which I referred earlier, enumerated the advantages of burning Cemfuel. It said that it reduces emissions, fossil fuel use and greenhouse gases, moves waste up the hierarchy, maintains competitiveness and secures jobs. That is important. I do not want my opposition to be misrepresented in any way. Jobs, especially in the current climate, are important and we must safeguard them. We have to support firms that are expanding employment, but not at the expense of people's health.

I recognise that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has given Castle Cement until the end of next month to identify a solution to the problem of plume grounding, with a remedy to be in place and effective by the end of the year. Many people say that there have been too many variations and too much bobbing and weaving. Information that should have been available has not been made available.

The right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), in 1994, when he was an Environment Minister, wrote to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, hinting—he did more than hint; he made it explicit—that there were commercial considerations and that Castle Cement had invested much money in burning Cemfuel. While such matters were not supreme, they could not be lightly set aside.

There are also the concerns of what I might call the opposition—the people who run incinerators, who feel that they have one hand tied behind their back, that there are double standards, that cement kilns are being allowed to burn stuff that they should not be allowed to and that there should be a level playing field. They think that purpose-built incinerators are being disadvantaged and say that it is only a matter of time before the vast majority of UK waste will be burnt in cement kilns. They ask what will happen then to one of the UK's leading environmental technology industries.

It is a long and tortured tale. There is masses and masses of technical information, but some of the simple reassurance that people want has not been forthcoming. I lay the blame at the door of Castle Cement, which could do more than it has, and of East Lancashire health authority, which has been remiss. Lancashire county council has not replied to the report on the monitoring that was undertaken in September. It has had lead boots on this occasion. Most of all, I blame the Government, who have primary responsibility for reassuring people that what they breathe in Clitheroe will not be injurious to their health.

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.

I urge the Minister to tell us when we shall receive the Government's response, so that we can set at rest the minds of people in Clitheroe and people living close to the other nine plants, so that we may see what the future is for waste incineration and reprocessing in this country and so that we may have some way in which people can take decisions about the future of cement manufacturing, its pricing and so on, with some certainty about what is happening.

9 52 pm

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. Gordon Prentice

rose—

Mr. Evans

No.

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 was initiate an Adjournment debate about Padiham power station. The hon. Member for Pendle has become involved in a gross infringement.

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. Pike

rose—

Mr. Evans

No, I will not give way again because I want to deal with a number of issues.

Mr. Gordon Prentice

rose

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.]

Mr. Evans

I would welcome a fuller health analysis of the impact of burning Cemfuel and plume grounding. It is a vital issue for me. [Interruption.] I know that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) may not be interested, but we are discussing a cement kiln in my constituency that concerns the vast majority of my constituents, although tonight's debate is not the right vehicle for debating it.

My constituents are also interested in a number of issues outside the burning of Cemfuel and plume grounding. Mention has also been made of waste incineration plants. Some of my constituents have a financial interest in what is happening at Castle Cement and other cement kilns around the country.

I spoke at the structure plan meeting in Clitheroe on Friday. I was adamant that the Castle Cement plant should not be turned into a waste incineration plant by the back door. If the company wishes to go down that route, it should apply for full planning permission from the local authority so that the case can be judged on its merits. I would fight it tooth and nail. If we were to start again, Castle Cement would not get permission to set up on its present site. However, it is there now and provides jobs to the local economy. I cannot look back 60 years. We have to accept that the plant is there. We have to make as best a job of it as we possibly can and look for ways of improving health and the environment.

I wrote to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment. I wanted the Committee to consider the impact of burning Cemfuel. I look forward to a full report from the Minister on the points that were raised in the excellent Select Committee report. I hope that that will arrive sooner rather than later, now that the results of some of the investigations have been returned to the Department.

I am also interested in commercial confidentiality. I would like to see the ingredients of Cemfuel to be made public so that everybody can see what is happening. The sooner that happens the better it will be, not only for Castle Cement but for any other areas where there is burning of secondary fuel. We need to reassure the public. I have always stated that I am not an expert on these matters. I have always relied on Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which is an independent body, to carry out the analysis and the testing.

I spoke to Peter del Strother, the works manager at Castle Cement, on Sunday and he told me that there is far more testing and monitoring at Castle Cement than at any other cement kiln in the United Kingdom because of the interest that has been raised. I am sure that a great deal of information has been collected for the Minister and HMIP to consider.

In April, Castle Cement has to produce its proposals to prevent the plume from grounding. I understand that it is considering a number of possibilities. Castle Cement must join HMIP to find the most effective way of preventing the plume from grounding and ensuring that they stop the smell and any pollution coming from the chimney. They must reassure the public that there are no harmful emissions.

I know that people will inquire about the cost. Whatever it is, it will be worth while if it prevents the plume from grounding, stops the smell and allays public concern as to what is coming out of the kiln. If Castle Cement and HMIP are satisfied that they have found a solution to the problem—for example, introducing scrubbers into the plant—but it will cost millions of pounds, then so be it.

I want to ensure that a solution is found as quickly as possible: I do not know why we must wait until the end of December. I hope that HMIP will be able to use its influence over Castle Cement to ensure that, once a solution is found, work on the plant will start immediately. The recent lengthening of the chimney by 15 m has not solved the problem. I am sure that it cost the company a considerable sum, but it did not prove effective. I hope that Castle Cement will reassure the public that it will take speedy action as soon as a solution is announced.

The area must be cleaned up. I know that there is another problem involving Castle Cement and quarrying. I am sure that it will shortly make another application to begin quarrying across the road. I opposed its initial quarrying application because I felt that it would be detrimental to the local environment. The Ribble Valley is one of the most beautiful areas in the United Kingdom. It attracts a considerable number of tourists and it is the area to which, allegedly, Her Majesty the Queen would like to retire—I hope that that will not occur for a long time. We want to attract many more tourists to the Ribble Valley, but we cannot do so if there is a deterrent to their visiting and staying in the area.

We must clean up the area. Peter del Strother has assured me that, once the current quarry reaches the end of its useful life, the company plans to fill it with water and restore the natural habitat which will attract more tourists. However, we must ensure that any other quarrying applications by Castle Cement are appropriate to the area. Although Castle Cement has enjoyed good relations with the people of Clitheroe, because of the way in which Cemfuel was introduced into the area and a number of other occurrences, that good will has been lost. It must win back public confidence, and finding a proper solution to the plume grounding in April is a good place to start.

I have sought a meeting with the Minister to discuss the matter. He said that he will be happy to have such a meeting as soon as Castle Cement and HMIP have met and found a solution. We shall talk through the various problems and residual difficulties that the people of Clitheroe may have regarding the existence of Castle Cement in my constituency and its continuing operations. I look forward to that meeting, but, more than anything else, I look forward to Castle Cement's introducing measures that will reassure my constituents that nothing going into the cement kiln and coming out of the chimneys will harm them

10.9 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the debate and to set out the Government's approach on this important subject. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) set out his views in some detail. I am sure that he is generous enough to acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has played as the Member who represents Clitheroe and the rest of the Ribble valley. My hon. Friend has taken a thoroughgoing and close interest in the subject and has already made numerous representations to my Department and to others on many of the subjects that the House has covered this evening, especially on plume grounding.

The subject is also of interest to another of my hon. Friends, the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), who cannot be here tonight. He is interested in the subject from a different direction because he represents the constituency in which Cemfuel is manufactured by the company Sotree, to which the hon. Member for Pendle has adverted. My hon. Friend also has a keen interest in the subject and has made representations to the Government.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made his contribution and set out his interests as the Chairman of the Environment Select Committee. Understandably, he raised the question of the Government's response to the Select Committee report, which was also of concern to the hon. Member for Pendle. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish set out fairly the circumstances which appertained when the Select Committee's investigation was first carried out. As he told the House, the Government made an initial response and he is now waiting for the full and considered response from the Government. He will have that response very soon.

Mr. Bennett

Will the Under-Secretary define "very soon"?

Mr. Clappison

I am sure that question has cropped up before. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his interest in ensuring that there is a proper system of regulation for potentially polluting processes. I am sure that he will understand that the Government want to give a full and considered response to the Select Committee's report. I know that the Select Committee has taken a great interest in the subject.

The system of regulation is a good starting point for me to talk about how cement works are regulated. In 1990, the Government introduced a major new initiative in the regulation of industrial processes—the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That Act singles out complex industrial processes with the potential for significantly polluting the environment and places them under a particularly rigorous regime known as integrated pollution control. I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is familiar with that. In England and Wales, such processes, which include cement works, are regulated by HMIP.

Integrated pollution control incorporates two main aims of the Government's policy for environmental protection. We aim, first, to ensure that the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—known by my favourite acronym, BATNEEC—are used to prevent or minimise the release of substances prescribed under the 1990 Act and to render harmless any such substances which are released and, secondly, to consider harm to the environment as a whole.

The 1990 Act seeks to ensure public confidence by making the regulatory process transparent and open to public scrutiny and comment. Copies of the application, of any authorisation or monitoring returns required by the authorisation and, where appropriate, notices of any formal enforcement action taken by HMIP are placed on public registers. The public have full and open access to those registers.

BATNEEC aims to balance the costs of abating pollution against the benefits to the environment of achieving such abatement. BATNEEC does not require or authorise HMIP to seek to reduce environmental impact to nil, whatever the cost. The object is to render the impact to nil, or reduce it, so far as that can be done without imposing excessive abatement costs. It is important to recognise that the responsibility for delivering environmental protection lies with the operator. It is for the operator to conceive, design, build and operate his process in such a way as to meet the requirements of the law.

I refer next to the particular question of the cement industry and its use of secondary liquid fuels in cement kilns. Cement is made by mixing limestone or chalk with clay minerals in defined proportions, then heating the mixture to high temperatures. Cement manufacture is an energy-intensive process in which energy costs represent a large percentage of variable costs.

The cement-making process incorporates several features that make it suitable for burning substitute fuels. For example, it is a continuous process and has high thermal stability suitable for destroying organic materials. Materials are heated for a long time, and heavy metals are trapped in the cement clinker in a non-leachable form.

Cemfuel is a trade name for a type of secondary liquid fuel that is blended to a specification developed by Castle Cement. Secondary liquid fuels are normally a blend of residues from solvent recovery operations and used solvents that cannot be recovered for recycling. They are flammable and, although they contain some pollutants that require control, make excellent fuels.

Cement companies in the United States of America and some European countries have been using waste solvents as a partial substitute for conventional fuels, to reduce energy costs. That practice was started in this country by the Castle Cement plant at Clitheroe in 1992. Subsequently, all major UK cement manufacturers have sought to adopt the practice.

Government policy on the burning of substitute fuels in cement and lime kilns was detailed in a parliamentary answer on 23 June 1994, which made clear the Government's policy that there would be no more such trials than necessary to allow HMIP to determine BATNEEC; the operator must provide satisfactory data on baseline operations before trials commence, which must include emission data and kiln operating data; all trials must be to an agreed schedule; if any trial is adversely affecting the environment, it must stop; HMIP must agree the specification for substitute fuel in advance; and the operator must provide continuous monitors for particulates, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and oxygen.

Having outlined those important considerations, I refer to the specific question of the burning of Cemfuel at Clitheroe. The use of Cemfuel at the Clitheroe plant started in 1992. At that time the plant was registered under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. It is important that the House bears in mind the history of the matter. That registration allowed the company to use Cemfuel in combination with coal. Regulations made under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 required all cement plants to seek authorisations under that legislation by the end of February 1993. Castle Cement duly applied and, after statutory and public consultation, was authorised by HMIP in November 1993 as an existing process. The use of Cemfuel was included in the authorisation as, at that time, the available information from monitoring data indicated that no harm was being caused to the environment.

In July 1994, HMIP developed the parliamentary answer of 23 June into a protocol for the testing of SLF in cement kilns, which was to be applied to all plants undergoing trials with secondary liquid fuel. Although Castle Cement, Clitheroe, was entitled by law to continue to use SLF under its authorisation, HMIP required the company to adjust its operations, so that it could carry out an emission monitoring trial that, as far as practicable, met the requirements of the protocol. HMIP made it clear that it would review the authorisation once the results of the emission monitoring were known. The company used the monitoring results to assess the potential effects that the use of SLF might have on the environment and reported that assessment in December 1994.

HMIP placed advertisements in the local newspapers to announce the opening of a consultation period on the continuing use of Cemfuel at Clitheroe. The public were invited to comment. In addition, documents produced by the company were sent to the local council, the local borough council, the National Rivers Authority, the local waste regulation authority, the Health and Safety Executive, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the local health authority, the Department of Health, and others.

HMIP carried out a detailed assessment of the monitoring results and found no significant change in the releases of the major pollutants: sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides with or without Cemfuel. There appeared to be an increase in particulate releases when burning Cemfuel, although the concentrations found were within those currently authorised. No change was found in the levels of dioxins released, which are very low whichever fuel is used. Because of the general anxiety about the effect of dioxins on human health, HMIP carried out a detailed study of the fate of emitted dioxins, which covered transfer to plants by deposition, to herbivores in grazing and then to humans via the food chain. It showed that there was no significant difference between coal and coal plus Cemfuel.

Overall, the releases of heavy metals from the process were found to be low and of little environmental significance, although some individual metals were found at higher levels, and some at lower levels, during the burning of Cemfuel. The overall conclusion was that the use of Cemfuel does not result in any net adverse environmental effect.

MAFF analysed milk, as part of the human food chain, from a number of farms in the vicinity of the Clitheroe plant. The results showed that the levels of dioxins, heavy metals and arsenic were within the range normally found in milk in the UK.

The public had expressed concerns about the perceived ill-health effects caused by the use of Cemfuel. HMIP sought advice from MAFF, East Lancashire health authority and the Department of Health on human health effects from the burning of Cemfuel. The advice that it received, which was publicly announced, stated that, first, it is unlikely that there will be any unacceptable effects on the human food chain arising from the use of Cemfuel at Clitheroe; secondly, there is no evidence of increased admissions to hospitals, increased prescribing of anti-asthma therapies or increased levels of asthma and cancer in the area as a result of burning Cemfuel—indeed, the standard of health in the area is rather better than in some other parts of Lancashire—thirdly, it is unlikely that the ambient level of any of the pollutants released from the burning of Cemfuel are responsible for the increase in complaints of eye and upper respiratory tract irritation recorded in the area; and, fourthly, there is no scientific evidence relating to the emissions to support the assertion that the use of Cemfuel at Clitheroe is likely to be more harmful to human health than the use of coal.

I now turn to a separate concern about the plant at Clitheroe—the problem known as plume grounding, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley is familiar. He has made representations on this subject and has taken a close interest. This phenomenon is where the plume from the plant chimneys may reach the ground prematurely in certain weather conditions. There were practically no complaints about this at the time of the original authorisation. However, as the local public opposition and concern about the use of Cemfuel has built up, the number of complaints about plume grounding have increased.

Plume grounding is not caused by Cemfuel but rather is a consequence of the cement plant and its interaction with local weather and topography. However, there is public concern about plume grounding, and in response to a high number of complaints about the site, HMIP commissioned the National Physical Laboratory to perform continuous monitoring of emissions from the plant when burning Cemfuel in areas that are subject to plume grounding. That exercise was conducted for 24 hours a day over the period 7 August to 1 September 1995. As a feature of the exercise, NPL scientists operated a hotline service through which members of the public could report incidents and so provide an opportunity for the NPL to monitor on-going plume grounding incidents as they were in progress.

The full report from the NPL was placed on the public registers. The results showed that accepted air quality limits were not exceeded on any occasion, but the NPL did report some eye and chest irritation effects on a number of occasions.

I have already mentioned that HMIP sought advice on the health effects of burning Cemfuel from MAFF, East Lancashire health authority and the Department of Health. On the separate issue of plume grounding, those organisations advised HMIP that it appeared possible that concentrations of sulphur dioxide in the grounded plume were sufficient at times to induce eye and upper respiratory tract irritation. That seemed to be independent of the fuel used, as the stack emissions—and hence the ground level concentrations—did not differ between the two fuels, coal and Cemfuel. People with asthma might expect to be more affected than others, but ailments such as headache and nausea could not be attributed to substances recorded in the emissions.

HMIP takes plume grounding seriously. The variation to the Castle Cement authorisation issued on 23 January requires the company to advance firm proposals to solve the problem, with the aim of implementing them by the end of the year. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has taken a close interest in the problem, and in what is to be done about it. Properly designed engineering solutions for large industrial plants take time; in this instance, the tight schedule imposed on the company reflects the urgency that HMIP attaches to the problem. Depending on the company's success in remedying it, the inspectorate will then consider whether the authorisation should be varied yet further, or even rescinded.

In allowing the continued use of Cemfuel at the plant, HMIP has imposed strict requirements on the company. They include a reduction in the percentage of Cemfuel that can be used, and a lowering of the limits for heavy metals and sulphur. There are also individual limits on the amount of chromium, lead and nickel in the Cemfuel. The use of Cemfuel is forbidden if the plant is working at low loads, when dust emissions are high or when the electrostatic precipitator is not working fully. Limits have been placed on all major pollutants, and, in particular, those on dioxins are the same for chemical waste incinerators.

This is not an easy subject, but it is important. I hope that in the short time allowed to me I have been able to convince the House of the priority that the Government attach to having an overall, proper national system of regulation, and to the specific problems of the Castle Cement plant in Clitheroe. The Government are determined to achieve a satisfactory environmental solution to all the problems.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.