-----------------------------------------

The Lowermoor Water Poisoning Conference Transcript page 1

Transcript of the Public Meeting Held at the Camelford Hall, North Cornwall, attended by Right Honourable Michael Meacher, Minister for the Environment at the invitation of Paul Tyler MP.

A public meeting to discuss the ongoing calls for a public enquiry into the events stemming from, and surrounding, the Lowermoor water poisoning disaster in North Cornwall on 6th July 1988 (officially called Britain's worst ever water poisoning disaster) and to discuss calls for medical research into the effects on the health of the local population on 20,000 inhabitants; and for help and long-term monitoring of the health of the local population.

Chairman: Mr Peter Tyler, MP, the meeting convened at 11 AM Monday 12th June 2000 and finished at 4.30 PM, on Monday 12th June 2000.

See the principal speaker list, and credits

The meeting opened with Mr Paul Tyler MP calling for one minutes silence to show respect for the passing of Doreen Skudder; Chairlady of the Lowermoor Support Group.

The meeting commenced at 11:00 AM

Paul Tyler: Thank you very much. Well, I'm grateful to you all for attending but, of course, I'm especially grateful to the Minister for attending. Ever since he took on his responsibilities in the Department of the Environment, he and I have had an extensive dialogue which eventually reached the point last summer, that we thought there might be real advantages in trying to see if we could arrange an occasion when those who from an official point of view - or from an individual point of view - could put some of their concerns to him.

I try to give credit where credit is due - I know that's not the normal thing for politicians to do - but I do very much welcome Michael Meacher to this meeting today and I give him credit for being prepared to give up a day to come and listen to YOU, the people most concerned with this particular issue. Had this been possible eleven years ago, ten years ago, I think a great many people's anxieties and concerns could have been put at rest. And I do thank Michael very much for coming and for all the work that he's been doing to prepare for this meeting.

I do NOT expect at the end of this meeting we will all go out thinking well, that's the end of this. What I do hope we will manage to achieve is that some at least of the anxieties and concerns will come out into the open and if the Minister can't actually answer them here and now, he'll be able to take them back and discuss them with colleagues in other parts of the government machine.

My concern is really two fold: first, that there are so many unanswered questions, not just by those who were victims at the time, but people whose businesses, whose livelihoods were affected at the time. I don't think uncertainty is a safe thing to allow to continue for so long in a democratic society. I hope that to some extent by publishing in the Western Morning News and sending to the Minister some of the questions that have been coming to me from local people that that may help to crystallise the concerns that people continue to have.

Secondly: and I'm sure the Minister will want to address this -- we also, I think, want reassurance that the Lowermoor incident won't happen again - either here or anywhere else in the country.

I've on occasion said to people, both here and in other parts of Britain, I believe our water here is probably the best monitored drinking water in the British Isles, and, it should be, but that doesn't mean that something similar couldn't happen somewhere else. The fact is, in 1988, the fish in our rivers were actually better protected than the human population in this area of North Cornwall - a huge area of North Cornwall, not just Camelford as everybody knows. Camelford was only a small part of the area concerned - going right up to Crackington Haven and going right down to Polzeath: 20,000 people.

Now I'm going to ask Michael Meacher to talk for a few minutes about his approach to the issues that remain, and then there are a number of representatives of local authorities, of the health authorities, of OFWAT, the water consumers' watchdog, and I hope there will be others too who will contribute. We'll have a break about half past one and we'll resume this afternoon, so that I hope by the end of the day everyone who wants to ask a question or put a point of view will get an opportunity to do so.

But first, I am very grateful to Michael Meacher for joining us. I'm glad the transport arrangements weren't too impossible, despite the Cornish mizzle, and I'd like you to talk.

Michael Meacher: Well, Paul, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for that welcome and I too apologise for being a little late. The transport problems that have dogged me over this weekend have been extending to the beginning of this week but I do apologise.

Can I say I'm very pleased indeed to have the opportunity of this meeting and I'm extremely grateful to Paul for the invitation to visit Cornwall to meet you face to face and to have this discussion? I do think it is important to pay credit in politics and we do enough of it and I want to play an extremely warm tribute to Paul for the way in which - and I have been at the receiving end of it - he has persistently and effectively represented the interests of his constituents throughout the last decade over this matter. He could not, I think, have done more and I am going to try to respond to all of those points, if I can.

Now, let me say, at the outset, immediately, I remain extremely concerned about what happened here in 1988 and the actions that were then taken or not taken to deal with what is unquestionably an extremely distressing episode. I agreed with Paul that I should come here to try to outline the new arrangements that have, indeed, been introduced in the water industry since that occurred, and indeed to listen to any points that any of you may still want to make. That is my prime purpose in coming here today, I'm not going to make a long speech, I'm going to say a few things, but I do want to listen - and exactly as he said - to take away and think about what you've said, to discuss with colleagues in other departments where that is appropriate.

Now, let me explain my position, although I think it is pretty clear as Minister for the Environment I am obviously responsible for policy in regard to the water industry but there are other issues, important issues and I suppose the most important of those is health, surrounding this incident which don't come within my brief. Also, of course, there may be continuing litigation following this incident, and I hope everyone understands that I therefore cannot comment on particular issues, which may come before the courts. However, I am happy and indeed desirous to take delivery of any points that might be raised on issues for which I do not have ministerial responsibility such as the health service, such as the legal system, and as I say, I undertake to raise them with colleagues, and I undertake to ensure you get proper answers. But I do want to say at the outset that I fully realise the severity of this incident and I recognise it is a matter of very real, continuing concern for some of those people who were directly affected by it, and I'm wholly sympathetic of their position, their attitude and what they still are demanding as a result.

Perhaps I too can make my tribute to Mrs Doreen Skudder who is very sadly unable to be present here having lost her battle with cancer, but she did I know do a very great deal, as much as anyone, to keep the issues surrounding the Lowermoor incident alive and in the public domain. I did write to her in April further explaining my position, and the fact that I'm here today and I'm sure Paul would agree with this, is as much the result of work that she did on behalf of those affected by the incident, as anyone else.

Now, let me say again, and I mean this but you make your own judgement, had Labour been in power at the time of the incident, we would have held a public enquiry. You may have doubts about that, I am absolutely clear in my mind, we said that at the time, very clearly, we pressed the Government to set one up. The two prime objectives would have been to establish the facts of the incident and to make sure that the lessons were learned. Exactly as Paul said, to make sure that this does not happen again, not just of course here but anywhere. That's the importance of setting up a public enquiry.

Now on those two points, I don't think that there is today any serious dispute - there certainly was in the first few days, I well understand, but there is no serious dispute now about what actually happened on the 6 July 1988. Twenty tons of aluminium sulphate were accidentally tipped into the reservoir serving the Lowermoor area, and the facts including the action taken by South West Water to deal with the problem were also set out in the Lawrence Report - I know there are views about that, and I'll come to that in a moment - which investigated the incident immediately after it occurred. Now John Lawrence was, as you all know, a non-executive member of the South West Water Authority board at the time. He was not an employee of the authority he was assisted by independent toxicologists to advise on the medical aspects of the water quality and what I think is significant he was strongly critical and his conclusions did influence subsequent changes, which I shall outline shortly.

I have to say, and I'm ready to admit this, that I think it would have been better if the author of the report had been more overtly independent. But having said that I think there is no reason to believe that the conclusions would have been any different. I mean, we can all take our view on that, but I think that's a fair conclusion to draw. But, most importantly, twelve years on, and it is now twelve years on, it is not I think realistic to expect new conclusions.

Now, as a result of what happened South West Water was prosecuted, they were found guilty of public nuisance - a curious legal doctrine that still persists in this country - following exploration of the evidence and compensation was, of course, paid to several hundred people who were affected by the incident. Now the second question, which I think really is the absolutely critical one, is what lessons have been learned? Have the procedures been put in place to ensure that such an incident and the consequences cannot happen again. Now I believe, and that's where I think we need to have discussion, I think a reasonable answer to that question is yes. So let me explain why I think that: for a start, of course, there has been a complete change in the organisation and regulation of the water industry since the event took place. And indeed you could say and I think I would say that the incident itself had a significant impact on the content of those changes. Privatisation means that the regulation of the industry was separated from operations and that is a very very important distinction. A fully independent inspectorate was set up to police the companies' activities and to report on them. Now the first step taken by all water companies following publication of the Lawrence report, was to carry out a review of all of their operating procedures. Where procedures were deficient, companies were required to put in place the recommendations of the report. And these included new, rigorous controls and improved procedures AND security at all waterworks, security in terms of access and keys to waterworks, and also in terms of the reception of chemicals, the key issue that applied here.

Now, the Water Act 1989, which has since been consolidated in a further act two years later, introduced further new measures and controls. Now these included, and these, I think, again are critical points, a duty on the Secretary of State, a DUTY on the Secretary of State, to take enforcement action against a water company failing to supply wholesome water. Secondly, the introduction of a criminal offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption, something which is absolutely, I think, bedrock but tragically did not exist in 1988. Regulations, thirdly, setting strict water quality standards, and as part of the same process establishing the Drinking Water Inspectorate to police these new requirements on behalf of the Secretary of State. Now, water companies are also now required to report all water pollution incidents as soon as possible after they occur - again another lesson, which was not taken in 1988.

Every, EVERY such incident is now thoroughly investigated by the Drinking Water Inspectorate and there are also regulations and guidance which set out the duties and responsibilities of water companies where water is found to be unfit for human consumption. And that includes - and again I think this is very important with regard to what happened at Lowermoor - when customers should be notified (I'm well aware they were notified late following this incident), providing water by other means and notifying local authorities and district health authorities if the incident is likely to give rise to a significant health risk.

Now, I have with me Owen Hydes, who is the Deputy Chief Drinking Water Inspector who's come with me today, if you have any technical questions as opposed to the political or policy implications, he's the man I hope who can answer them, and I know he'll be very happy to be as full with data that you want as he can. Now those duties and responsibilities are designed - all of what I've just said - to prevent another incident like the one that happened at Lowermoor. And to ensure that if contamination incidents do occur - (history never repeats itself exactly, it's always slightly different, but of course there is a risk that further incidents can occur of a different kind) but if they occur - and I think it is much less likely that they will occur - then reaction has got to be swift and decisive.

That's also now written into the legislation and the regulations. And the water industry, which is now a closely regulated industry (I don't think there's any doubt about that!), knows that it cannot afford to be complacent. And we ensure through the Drinking Water Inspectorate in whom I have great faith - I don't say, - I don't always say that about public institutions but I think the Drinking Water Inspectorate is very rigorous - is that they ensure that they maintain the high standards that we've set. Now, briefly, on the health implications, you may well want to talk much more about this, the view of the Department of Health was set out in my letter to Paul of the 21st December which I'm sure many of you have probably seen, and this included a note of all the health actions since the incident and of course the Health Authority continues to monitor the health of people in the area.

Now, again, I'm going to talk more about that, and I'm sure you will want to do so. Now further investigation was also provided by the Lowermoor Incident Health Action Group in the reports they produced in 1989 and 1991 on various health and toxicology aspects. I am well aware that those have been criticised, and no doubt some of that will be repeated today, but I think it is important to remember that both reports were unanimous and they did involve a group of independent experts. Now for all of these reasons, this is all I think I want to say at the outset, Paul.

For all of these reasons, I hope it is accepted that the lessons of this tragic incident have now been well and truly learned and that the situation is wholly different today. I know there are still some people who continue to call for a public enquiry. I do understand their position but I do honestly believe at this stage that a public enquiry is not the way forward. It is now, whether we like it or not, twelve years on, all the facts are fully known and there is no reason, I think, to believe that a public enquiry could now add to that. The water industry now is much more closely regulated than it was in 1988, but I think the key point, this is the real point, is that the full implications of this episode for the water industry, for the environment, in respect of health policy and the legal system, have all been systematically taken on board. If there are some people who think there is still more that we can do now to apply the lessons of what happened, then I do undertake to you today to look very carefully at any further relevant proposals any of you may make which would seek to ensure that any such incident does not occur again. I appreciate that I've given a very brief summary of what has taken place. I did say I've come to listen, and I have, and I will - with your agreement, Paul - now do so, although I will also try to answer any questions that people may have. Thank you once again, very much, for inviting me and I look forward to the discussion and to trying to reach conclusions with you. Thank you.

Paul Tyler: Thank you very much. Now I want to ask, please, first and foremost those who were in any position of authority or in any position of representing the local community in 1988 or who are doing so now if they would like to add to that. We have particularly asked, of course, representatives from the local authorities, the Health Authority, GP's - I know there are one or two here - OFWAT - we have the chair of the watchdog for us as customers; I'm not absolutely certain whether anybody's here from the water company itself.

(laughter from the audience)

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: ... Are they here? Is anybody here from South West Water? No?

Paul Tyler: I think...

Member of the public: That's why we need a..

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Deaf again!

Paul Tyler: I think, Mr Jones, you've got your answer. Now then, any GP's who want to chip in, or anybody from OFWAT or anybody from the local authorities? Deathly silence. Jenny, do you want to say a word? You were a councillor at the time.

Jenny : Yes, I...

Paul Tyler: Would you like to stand up? Could everybody just give their names and organisations?

Michael Meacher: Yes, for my sake.

Paul Tyler: For Michael.

Jenny Thompson: Yes, my name is Jenny Thompson. I was a County Councillor at the time of the disaster and I think it was a very strange event altogether because the County Counsellor for this area was not prepared to take the flak that I did for becoming involved in the incident. And that goes on, doesn't it? My greatest concern was I chaired a public meeting, and I think there were 400 people at the school and I remember getting through that evening and then just going home in tears I was so upset to see the state of the people of Camelford and district. I knew there was going to be a real fight to get any recognition of any sort for what you'd all gone through. I was appalled at the attitude of everybody which was a disgrace - the Health Authority, the County Council, the District Council were utterly, utterly reprehensible and everybody was afraid to say, "I am in a position of a slight amount of power, I can help you." But did anybody? No. It was down to the residents and people like Liz Sigmund.

I have two questions really, Mr Meacher. One is specific to the incident itself: I have always had this horrible thought in my mind: what about all the babies that were being bottle-fed, or indeed, perhaps those that were being breastfed; I don't know enough about that. What are the long-term effects? Those babies might have been fed on contaminated water for four months, five months? What is being done, to me that was always the greatest worry, in that distressing incident? The other thing is, Mr Meacher, and I suppose things are getting a little bit better, I wouldn't particularly want to go through the ridicule, the hissing, the booing, the problems at County Hall - you know, why are you interfering, this is all nonsense; they're all making a fuss about nothing. Anybody who wants to do anything to expose a public authority, the water board, whatever it might be, we are all made to look daft. The nicest thing anybody in authority said to me was "you don't know anything, you're not a professional, why don't you shut up?" Now, I don't know anything, I do admit I don't know anything, but when I go to a public meeting and people are coming up to me and saying "Mrs Thompson just look inside my mouth and see all the ulcers", I mean, okay, I'm not a doctor but I can tell if people have got mouth ulcers or not. But it's this horrible climate of fear and it's not just the Camelford incident it's the sheep dip poisoning, "we'll prosecute you for failing to follow the rules", not "we'll give you all the help we can to establish the truth". I just prayed with the Labour Government we were going to see an improvement in openness...

(Audience - hear, hear)

(applause)

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Can I clarify a procedural point there?

Paul Tyler: Yes.

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Am I right in understanding that you were saying any representatives of local authorities to speak now? Because in the schedule they're scheduled to speak at 2.15.

Paul Tyler:

No, if you look at 12 noon, comments from representatives of local authorities? GP's, health authorities... Yes, we're trying to get them out of the way first... I know that OFWAT didn't exist at the time of the incident, but I wonder whether the Chair of OFWAT, Jessica Thomas, who's here would like to have a word?

Jessica Thomas: I'm Jessica Thomas, Chair of the Customer Service Committee of the South West. As Paul says the regulator didn't exist and nor did the Customer Service Committee so clearly all I can do here today is be an observer.

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Sorry, could we ask you to speak from the front because it's going to give some people a difficulty to try to turn round to hear you.

Paul Tyler: Yes, do come up.

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: ... a crick in the neck to turn round and see you.

Jessica Thomas: I'm terribly sorry, I've lost my voice because I've got a cold.

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Thank you very much.

Jessica Thomas: Shall I speak into the mike?

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Not necessarily.

Jessica Thomas: The regulator didn't exist in 1989 and the Customer Service Committee didn't exist either. So all I'm here to do today is to see what is happening and to make notes as to how to make sure that it never happens again. I think I agree with the Minister that that is the best thing that can be done by the regulators. I'd like to be able to be more practical and helpful but I don't in fact have any leg to stand on in things that happened before 1989, so I'm really here to listen. But thank you for inviting me here to do so.

Paul Tyler: Any other local authority members? Want to come in at this stage? I know one or two town council, and parish councils around are here and I think in a listening capacity too. GP's!

(long silence - laughter)

Dr Chris Jarvis: I think we're here in a listening capacity as well.

Paul Tyler: Alright, we may want you to come back later on. Anybody from the Health Authority? Dr Miles is here. No, he is here, I think he is maybe in a listening capacity, but would you like to make any comment at this stage? You can always come back later if you wish. Come up front, too, if you would.

Dr David Miles: David Miles, Director of Public Health, and I have been in the County since 1984 so I have been here through the whole of this episode. I don't particularly want to say anything at this stage, I'm really here to listen, but I do want to reinforce what Michael Meacher has said about the huge changes that have been made since then in terms of the water industry, in terms of better health information systems being available nationally on call, and things like that.

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Could I ask you a question, please?

Dr David Miles: That's entirely up to the Chairman.

Paul Tyler: Yes, yes, please do.

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: It's alleged that you're publishing a report that you are the author of regarding the facts and figures of the incident. Can I ask you why it is that on numerous requests you have not released any of the figures from the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Health Authority into the public domain?

Dr David Miles: We release all figures we have through publications, through peer review journals, that is the way of ensuring that the information we put together is tested rigorously by other scientists and as soon as that is done we seek to publish, but obviously it is up to the journals to decide whether they wish to publish or not so we did publish, my colleagues published right after the episode on the initial symptoms, we published subsequently on hospital admission rates and we hope to publish shortly on death rates but at the moment we haven't had that peer review. But there's absolutely nothing we want to hide. Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Can I ask you have you flagged the population as was mooted back in 1988...

Dr David Miles: The population has been flagged, yes...

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Is it a large sample?

Dr David Miles: The whole of the population who was living here at that time is flagged on the Office of National Statistics Register in Southport and we get every time there is a death we get details of that and the causes. Every time there is any other untoward incident we get details of that as well.

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Can I ask why it has taken you twelve years? There's been no summation of any of the figures let into the public domain? Twelve years is a very long time to wait.

Dr David Miles: It is a long time to wait, but the data has to be accurate and the numbers of deaths in this locality are, thankfully, small and one has to put large numbers of years together to get accurate data.

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: And you've read, presumably, Dr Altman's report, can I ask you...

Dr David Miles: Yes, I have read it.

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: ... I mean, that was held back for a number of years - a lot of us wondered why because it forced us to go, without a public enquiry, to court and proceed on our own backs. I mean, is that in your remit? Has that been put into your domain? Did you have sight of that prior - you're smiling - did you have...

Dr David Miles: I was smiling because I was thinking it would be sociable.

Nigel Mazlyn Jones: Did you have visual sight of that report, of Dr Altman's?

Dr David Miles: I saw it about three or four days before it got into the BMJ, not before that. Like you, I think it was disappointing that it took eight years to publish. I think it was disappointing that the things he reported on had occurred eight years before and we are awaiting the Department of Health's expert advice - we as a Health Authority asked the Department of Health to interpret that paper for us and we are awaiting that response.

Paul Tyler: That is something I think we should come back to. Can I just make a general point which picks up something that not only the Minister but Dr Miles has said but Jessica Thomas has said, the very fact that we are now being reassured that everything is so much better is really an admission that it was so bad then, isn't it?

(general agreement)

Every time we hear well, that couldn't happen, this couldn't happen and so on and so on. I don't want, and that's not a point of criticism, it's simply a point of fact that to be reassured that x, y and z are now impossible, is an admission that x, y and z were then possible. Anybody else from any of the authorities represented here? If not, I'm very happy to open this out to residents and their representatives. Who would like to go next? Elizabeth Sigmund, South West Environmental Protection Agency.

Elizabeth Sigmund: Mr Meacher, and the gentleman from OFWAT, I would like to ask a local question immediately. A few weeks ago we heard that that there had been some form of contamination of the water supply from Bastreet which is a reservoir not very far from here which serves a different area. A friend of mine had a son who was violently sick in the night, who collapsed, many of the areas served by Bastreet had no information about this incident, other people had - it was completely haphazard - they were told, when my friend rang and enquired, that it was ammonia in the water. I suggested she rang a friend of ours who is a biochemist, who said that it can't just be straight ammonia, we must have more details, will you find some more details. She rang the water authority and was just told boil the water and it will be perfectly safe. She complained that many areas had not had any warning that there was any contamination in the water, so it's very nice and bland to say that things are better, but they're not absolutely as good as we would want. Now, I would like to come back to something else. Dr Richard Newman can't be here now, he's left the district, he's working with the Royal Navy. He suffered the most appalling blackballing by other doctors, by the Health Authority, by officials in this area. His life was made an absolute misery, he was pilloried in public meetings by...

(agreement from other members of the audience)

... experts on aluminium from Newcastle University, absolutely unjustly. He was then asked to go and speak to the Royal Society of Chemistry in London; he made a very humble speech in which he said "I am nothing more than a humble GP but what I have seen has been dreadful" and he was cheered. The whole of the audience at the Royal Society stood and cheered him, an American group came up to him and said, "if this had been America, your bust would be in the hall here you're a hero." It was not a simple matter of the Health Authority not knowing what to do, it was they were not WILLING. We had to find a doctor who...

(general agreement, hear hear)

... would do biopsies of bones for people, two only, at St. Georges. The doctor took them; they were analysed at Manchester University; deep bone aluminium was found, completely with no explanation, nobody ever answered the question. This whole history is an utter disgrace and when you talk about having no public enquiry, Mr Meacher, we're not just looking at Camelford, we're looking at scientific handling of BSE, the GMO's, of OP's - the scientists who appear on these specialised advisory committees are the same names again and again; they come from the same organisations and I think that when we look at Camelford, we've got to look at all these other terrible things which happened to human health and say something must be done about government scientific advisors and senior civil servants because we know that they have not done an objective job and it is a disgrace to this country in this day and age that this is still the case. A public enquiry would support what's going on in the BSE enquiry, and is absolutely essential for the scientific health of this country.

(applause and agreement)

-----------------------------------------