HC Deb 15 December 2000 vol 359 cc940-8

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

1.52 pm
Mr. David Rendel (Newbury)

I welcome this opportunity to outline to the House and to the Government my concern and that of my constituents about the operations of the Cleansing Service Group Ltd, which is known as CSG and is the largest privately owned waste management company in the country.

The company's slogan is: "You identify the waste, we'll provide the solution!" Recent events, as I shall show, have endowed that slogan with a comic aspect that, sadly, also has a bitter twist. CSG has operated a liquid waste treatment facility at Pinchington lane in Greenham in my constituency since 1990. At present, the main business at this site is the bulk handling of waste oil. The company holds a waste management licence for that purpose from the Environment Agency.

The company wants to expand operations at Greenham to include the collection and transfer of a range of more exotic wastes. It is required to obtain two consents for that. First, it needs planning permission to upgrade the existing waste treatment facility, expand the office and provide a laboratory and a drummed waste transfer facility. Secondly, it requires a modified waste management licence from the Environment Agency. The original planning application was submitted in August 1996 to the former Berkshire county council. It was deemed inadequate to address public safety concerns, given the growth of residential and commercial development—including two schools—around the site, and the lack of a proper risk assessment.

CSG subsequently produced a risk assessment in May 1999, by which time West Berkshire council was the minerals and waste planning authority. The council engaged independent consultants—the chemical incident management support unit, which is based at the university of Wales in Cardiff—to review the assessment. It refused planning consent in July 1999, largely on the basis of the advice that it received. Allegations made at the time, mainly on the basis of stories from former employees of CSG, raised questions about the company's safety practices, including those at Sandhurst in Gloucestershire. CSG appealed against the refusal and the case was the subject of a public inquiry in June and August 2000. An inspector from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions then overturned the planning objections of West Berkshire council and granted the permission, much to the surprise of most local people.

It is important to sketch some details of the local area, to help place in context the environmental, health and safety concerns about the site. These concerns now arouse particular anxiety in respect of the proposed expansion of operations. Two schools are situated in close proximity to the plant. There is also a mobile home park, many of whose residents are elderly. The area is residential and new houses are on the way in the new district plan. We have a large branch of Tesco, including a petrol station, and a car dealership area with five or six car dealers, some of whom also have servicing areas. Finally, there is a large retail park.

The area is no longer the mainly rural location that existed when the plant was established. Given the proximity of the schools, elderly residents and petroleum supplies, the House will appreciate that the security and regulation of operations at the CSG plant are a matter of very considerable local concern. That was the case even before recent events in Gloucestershire. It was perhaps unlucky for the DETR inspector that his decision to overrule the planning objections of West Berkshire council coincided with a major explosion and fire at the company's Upper Parting site at Sandhurst in Gloucestershire on 30 October.

I understand that approximately 200 tonnes of toxic waste, some of which was carcinogenic, were ignited, but the details remain unclear and are being investigated by the authorities. The explosion forced the evacuation of 60 residents on health and safety grounds. Meanwhile the release of chemicals continues to pose a serious threat to the local environment, watercourses and public health. The Environment Agency has provided a list of chemical substances that were consumed by the fire and which are known to have severe effects. They include industrial solvents, mixed pesticides and cyanide. With regard to the latter, Kenneth Pee, managing director of CSG, admitted: How much went up, we do not know. The disaster was compounded by stormy weather, winds and flooding. Local residents have registered a variety of health complaints, including headaches, stomach pains, sore throats, irritated eyes, vomiting, diarrhoea and breathing pains. I understand that some members of the emergency services have also experienced health problems. On top of that, CSG has been unable to account for six drums of BSE-contaminated waste that were missing after the explosion and floods. It is not clear whether the waste was consumed in the fire or whether it simply floated away during the floods. In any case, the Environment Agency now says that CSG was never licensed to store such waste at the Sandhurst site.

The episode does not inspire confidence either in the company's competence in waste management or in the regulatory safeguards and contingency plans that were in place—or not in place—to protect the public. It has been suggested that its slogan should be not "you identify the waste, we'll provide the solution", but "you identify the waste, we'll provide the explosion".

That is not the first time that questions have been raised about the management competence of CSG at Sandhurst. There have been three smaller fires at that plant during the past year. Last year, the release of a cloud of noxious gas forced police to seal off Sandhurst for several hours.

Thirdly, in December 1997, an escape of powdered waste dye from the site caused a shower of purple rain over the nearby village of Maisemore. It caused purple staining on houses and vehicles. CSG initially denied knowledge, but later—two years later—admitted responsibility, following legal proceedings under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The company accepted a formal caution from the Environment Agency.

Fourthly, a number of former CSG employees have raised concerns about poor safety management and negligence, including claims of inadequate firefighting and decontaminating procedures. In addition, residents are subjected to a periodic stink, which is known locally as the Sandhurst smell. I understand from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) that that has been an on-going problem for some years.

It is clear that CSG has a highly dubious safety record. This year's explosion in Gloucestershire raises serious questions about the operational competence of the company to manage highly dangerous substances. It is also clear that the concerns are not new.

My constituents therefore have strong grounds to be very apprehensive about the possibility that waste management operations at the company's Greenham site may be expanded to include similar functions to those that are carried out at Sandhurst.

Further, as I have outlined, the facility lies in the middle of a busy residential and commercial neighbourhood, which includes schools, mobile homes for pensioners, social housing and retail sites. Were the Greenham site to experience an explosion similar to that which occurred at Sandhurst, not just 60 but tens of thousands of residents might have to be evacuated.

The Minister will understand the considerable opposition in my constituency to any suggestion that CSG should be allowed to continue its operations at Greenham, let alone to expand them to include even more dangerous substances of the sort previously found at Sandhurst.

Ten thousand local residents have signed a petition that expresses concern about CSG's safety record and calls for the cessation of operations at Greenham, pending a full public inquiry. The signatures were collected in just six days—I am sure that you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that an incredible number were collected—by a group of incensed local residents, led by Councillor Audrey Appleby of Greenham parish council.

The Environment Agency has suspended the waste management licence for the Sandhurst site. I understand that the application for a modified waste management licence for Greenham remains under consideration. The indications are that the Environment Agency is minded to withhold that licence at least until the outcome of the Sandhurst investigations is known, and has requested an extension of time on that basis.

In light of what I have said, I want to put a series of questions to the Minister. Does he agree that the longstanding concerns about the company's operations at Sandhurst raise wider questions about its management competence as a whole? Will he give my constituents a reassurance that the company will be subjected to rigorous examination to ensure that public health and safety standards are maintained, wherever they operate, if indeed they are allowed to operate at all in future? Does he agree that it would be extraordinary and irresponsible ever to grant a modified waste management licence to CSG for Greenham, given the question mark that remains over the competence and safety practices of the company, and the proximity of residential and commercial developments?

Finally, there is also a question mark over the adequacy of the regulatory apparatus in place both to guard against incidences of this kind and to provide adequate contingency plans in the event that they occur. Why was it not known that BSE-contaminated waste was being stored at Sandhurst? Why did checks on the site fail to reveal that? What account has been taken of the difficulty of evacuating the area should a similar explosion take place at Greenham?

Many of the more elderly of my constituents, particularly those living on the mobile home park—gaining access to it is in any case difficult—are very concerned about how they could escape if the worst came to the worst. Does the Minister believe that the Environment Agency has adequate powers to regulate the activities of such companies and to ensure that workable contingency plans are in place?

My intention is not to be alarmist, but I hope the Minister will recognise the considerable and, in my view, justified local concern in my constituency about the company's competence to conduct waste management operations. Asked if he would live in Sandhurst, managing director Mr. Pee replied, "Of course not. I wouldn't live anywhere near an industrial facility if I had a choice." Why, then, should my constituents have to put up with a company on their doorstep that holds their health and safety in such questionable regard?

Chemicals can be dangerous. Different chemicals stored near one another can be very dangerous. Drums can leak; explosions have been known to take place. There have simply been too many instances in which CSG has been shown to operate unsafely. The Sandhurst plant is in a comparatively rural area. Pinchington lane in Greenham is, sadly, no longer a rural area. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure my constituents that the Government will not allow them to be subjected to all the dangers that they currently foresee.

2.7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill)

As is customary, I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Bendel) on securing the debate. He raised important points about the management of waste and explained with great clarity the concerns of local residents about the plant operated in his constituency by Cleansing Service Group and the company's proposals to develop it further. Indeed, a petition of 10,000 signatures is tangible evidence of that concern.

The company's proposals would enable it to store a range of hazardous wastes—in legal terms, special wastes. It is perfectly understandable that those who live or work close to hazardous waste sites should be concerned about them. In this case, I also understand why the concerns of the hon. Gentleman's constituents should be increased by events at another of the company's sites at Sandhurst in Gloucester. I hope to be able to provide reassurance for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. Before I do so, however, there is an important point that I must make.

At present, the company operates on the site under the terms of a waste management licence issued in April 1991. That licence allows the treatment of mixtures of waste oil and water, with the aim of recovering the waste oil. However, in December 1997 the company applied to the Environment Agency for a new licence that would allow it to store a range of special wastes in drums, pending recovery of the wastes on site or disposal or recovery elsewhere.

The Environment Agency is prohibited from issuing a licence unless any required planning permission is in place. West Berkshire council refused the company's planning application and it appealed against that decision. Following an inquiry, an inspector appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued his decision on 26 October. That decision was to allow the appeal and to grant permission for the construction of a transfer station for waste in drums.

In reaching that decision, the inspector took into account five considerations: whether a transfer station of that kind is needed on the site; the level of risk that the operation would impose on human health, taking account of the nature and proximity of nearby land uses; the effect that the perception of risk would have on the amenity of those living in the area; the effect of the proposal on the appearance of the landscape; and whether the proposal was in accord with the development plan for the area.

I have also noted from the inspector's decision letter that he recognised the strength and sincerity of residents' fears about the development. In the end, however, he was unable to conclude that their perception of the risks was justified on the evidence of the extensive risk assessment work that had been carried out.

The company's application for a waste management licence has been held pending the outcome of the planning application. The licence application is now being considered by the Environment Agency. This brings me to the important point that I have to make, and it relates to the hon. Gentleman's question about the future issuing of a licence to CSG for the Greenham site. The Environment Agency has the legal responsibility of considering licence applications. Each and every application must be considered by the agency on its merits. My Department does not have the power to direct the agency to refuse an application. It would also be improper for us to intervene with the aim of influencing the agency's decision.

Licence applicants have a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in any case in which the Environment Agency refuses an application. In other words, he has a quasi-judicial role in relation to the appeals. That means that we must avoid commenting on any individual case that might come before us on appeal. To do so would prejudice the applicant's right of appeal.

I shall now deal with the hon. Gentleman's other specific questions. He asked why it was not known that BSE-contaminated waste was stored at Sandhurst and why checks on the site had failed to reveal that fact. We have asked the Environment Agency to review the matter and to report to us on the effectiveness of its supervision of the Sandhurst site. That will confirm why the BSEcontaminated waste was not found.

The hon. Gentleman asked about evacuation plans should a similar explosion occur at Greenham. Evacuation plans are a matter for the local authority and the emergency services in consultation with the Environment Agency.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the adequacy of the Environment Agency's powers of regulation. One of the main objects of my speech is to reassure him that the agency has adequate powers to regulate the company's activities and to protect human health and the environment.

Unfortunately, waste is a fact of life. Each year we produce huge quantities of it—more than 100 million tonnes from households, businesses and industry. Earlier this year, the Government published "Waste Strategy 2000", which makes clear the Government's commitment to ensuring that we use our natural resources sensibly and increase the value that we get from them. At the heart of this commitment are the needs to tackle the amount of waste produced and to put the waste that is produced to good use—through substantial increases in re-use, recycling, composting and recovery of energy.

We are committed also to improving the quality of life now and for future generations. The Government's sustainable development strategy, which was published last year, is based on four key elements: effective protection of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; social progress that meets the needs of everyone; and high and stable levels of economic growth and development.

The way in which we manage our resources and the waste that we produce can make an important contribution to sustainable development. However, the priority, above all, is to ensure that the waste that we produce is recovered or disposed of in ways that ensure that human health and the environment are protected.

The need to protect human health and the environment is why the Government have made sure that the operations of companies, such as CSG, are subject to stringent controls. The fact that planning permission has been issued for the company's site at Greenham does not mean that the Environment Agency will simply rubber stamp its application for a waste management licence—far from it. If the Environment Agency is satisfied that rejection of a licence application is necessary to prevent harm to human health or pollution of the environment, it must reject it.

Before granting a licence, the agency must be satisfied that whoever is applying for the licence is a "fit and proper person". The "fit and proper person" test has three parts. First, the agency must be satisfied that the waste activity authorised by the licence will be managed by someone who is technically competent. Secondly, it must be satisfied that the applicant has made adequate financial provision to discharge the obligations of the licence. Thirdly, it must consider any convictions that the company—or any person in a position of authority—has for environmental offences.

Mr. Rendel

I thank the Minister for giving way. I hope he will excuse me for intervening, given that there is a little more time than I expected.

The Minister said that companies, or individuals, must prove that they had no convictions. Can he reassure my constituents that the agency will grant no licence until the completion of any court cases that might arise from the explosion at Sandhurst?

Mr. Hill

I must phrase my responses very carefully, for the reasons of quasi-judiciality that I cited earlier. I will say, however, that we would expect all appropriate considerations to be taken into account by the agency.

When considering licence applications, the agency must have regard to statutory guidance issued to it by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is set out in waste management paper No. 4, and it emphasises that, when approving a licence application, the agency must set conditions to prevent harm to human health, or environmental pollution.

Our statutory guidance makes it clear that all waste management facilities must be prepared, developed and operated to high standards. Those objectives will be achieved by the setting of licence conditions that are necessary, enforceable, unambiguous and comprehensive. The conditions must leave the licence holder in no doubt about the standards that he must meet. Breach of a licence condition is a criminal offence, with serious consequences. In cases involving special waste, the maximum penalties are an unlimited fine and imprisonment for five years.

The granting of a licence is not, however, the end of the matter. The Environment Agency has a legal duty to inspect all licensed sites. Earlier this year, we issued statutory guidance to the agency to enable the introduction of a risk-based system for site inspection. The new system further improves standards by targeting the agency's inspections of sites where they are most needed: the higher the risk, the higher the rate of inspection.

Each site is now subject to both an environmental appraisal and an operator performance appraisal. The environmental appraisal takes account of factors such as the types and quantities of waste and sites' proximity to houses, schools, shops and public open spaces. The purpose of the performance appraisal is to ensure that operators improve their performance and reduce risk.

Those controls are supplemented by a legal duty of care, and by even more stringent controls on the consignment of any waste classified as special waste. The Environment Agency must be "pre-notified" before special waste is removed. That allows the agency to track each consignment of hazardous waste from the moment at which it is moved from the place of its production, and to ensure that it is sent only to sites that have licences and safeguards enabling it to be dealt with safely.

If, despite those controls, something goes wrong, the agency has the power to step in. It has the power to suspend or revoke licences. Those powers can be used when the licence holder has been convicted of an environmental offence, and the agency is satisfied that he is no longer a "fit and proper person". It can also be used when the site's continuing operation would cause harm to human health or the environment.

Mr. Rendel

I thank the Minister for giving way again. Will he confirm that the conditions will apply not just to the site concerned, but to other sites operated by the same company?

Mr. Hill

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The answer to his question is no.

Unfortunately, it has been necessary for the Environment Agency to use the powers to suspend the licence for the site operated by CSG at Sandhurst. I fully understand the great concern felt by local residents about the incidents at that site. The agency and the Health and Safety Executive are now carrying out a thorough joint investigation.

The agency is also investigating whether there has been a breach of the waste management controls to which I referred. If there is evidence of contravention, action will be taken in line with the agency's published enforcement policy.

The waste from the Sandhurst site is now being cleared in accordance with a risk assessment that the agency has required CSG to provide. Subject to the flooding subsiding, it is expected that all waste will be removed from the site by mid-January. I assure the hon. Gentleman that none of the special waste removed from Sandhurst has been sent to the CSG site at Greenham.

I understand that the currently agreed period for the agency's determination of CSG's licence application ends on 30 December. However, I understand that the agency has asked the company to agree an extension until 28 February. The company is likely to agree to that proposal.

The further period should provide an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman's constituents to ensure that their concerns about the proposals for the site are drawn to the attention of the Environment Agency before it reaches its decision on the licence application. I am sure that the Environment Agency will carefully follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks in this Adjournment debate.

I have been assured that there is no question of the agency's approving the licence until it is satisfied that conditions can be put in place that effectively protect human health and the environment. In addition to the agency's statutory consultation with bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive, it will consult representatives of the local community before reaching its conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Two o'clock