Welsh Affairs Committee
Thursday 10th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:33
Ruth Jones
-
-
Ruth Jones
Order, order! Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this oral evidence session of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. My name is Ruth Jones and I'm the chair of this committee. The committee today is holding a one off evidence session on industrial legacy and contaminated land. But first and foremost, before we begin this session, I do want to acknowledge the concerns raised by communities across Wales with regards to this contaminated land.
And I also want to pay tribute to those working to remediate these sites and support those who've been affected. Today's session is inspired by our inquiry into the environment and economic legacy of Wales industrial past, and obviously the recent BBC documentary buried with Michael Sheen. So I want to say thank you to Lucy Taylor, Michael Sheen and Dan Ashby for coming before the committee today. It's greatly appreciated. You coming to give us your evidence. Our hope is today that the session will allow us to discuss the findings from your research, so that we can make informed recommendations about future policy, legislation and funding and support for our communities living near these former industrial sites.
Now, before I begin, can I ask any members to declare any any interest relevant to today's session? Steve.
And I also want to pay tribute to those working to remediate these sites and support those who've been affected. Today's session is inspired by our inquiry into the environment and economic legacy of Wales industrial past, and obviously the recent BBC documentary buried with Michael Sheen. So I want to say thank you to Lucy Taylor, Michael Sheen and Dan Ashby for coming before the committee today. It's greatly appreciated. You coming to give us your evidence. Our hope is today that the session will allow us to discuss the findings from your research, so that we can make informed recommendations about future policy, legislation and funding and support for our communities living near these former industrial sites.
Now, before I begin, can I ask any members to declare any any interest relevant to today's session? Steve.
09:34
Steve Witherden
-
-
Steve Witherden
Thank you. Thank you chair. So my wife and I are both featured in the documentary. My wife's a community councillor in the area where the chemical plant that we're going to be speaking at, one of the chemical plants we're going to be speaking about was , and she used to work there and did have a blood test as part of the documentary. We live about 100m away from the site in question.
09:35
09:35
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
Yes. First of all, thank you very much for inviting us to come today. My I mean, it started very randomly, really for me. I was living in Los Angeles at the time. I was contacted by someone, a teacher in the Rhondda Cynon Taff area. And before I replied to this, this lady who was doing a school project, I thought I would look up what Rhondda Cynon Taff actually means. So I went on to Wikipedia, and on the Wikipedia site I saw one little entry that said Environmental controversy.
Brisk inquiry has been named as the most toxic place in Britain. And that was it. And I thought, well, that seemed very strange, that there was nothing more about it. I looked into it and by the end of that day I was terrified and fascinated by what I'd found out. And to cut a long story short, I came across the story of a man called Douglas Gowan who had spent his life. It seemed, having first of all, in the mid 60s.
A younger man working for the National Union of Farmers. He had been. There'd been a call from a farmer in the vine area near countryside. Farmer, who had seen strange things happening to his livestock, aborted fetuses, malformed fetuses. Dead. Crayfish and and such in the in the streams and wanted someone to come and investigate. Douglas Gowan went out to investigate. He tells a very powerful and emotional story about finding a lamb who was deformed, dying, no genitalia.
And he then discovered that there was a quarry nearby Brofiscin Quarry disused quarry quarry that was being used for for dumping from the Monsanto factory in Newport, dumping what turned out to be canisters of something called PCB polychlorinated biphenyls. And Douglas spent many, many years after that testing finding out what PCBs were, and slowly piecing together a story that seemed to indicate that the dumping of these PCBs in Brofiscin quarry was leading to it leaching out and affecting the local farmers livestock and contaminating what was happening there.
So Douglas then took that story on because he believed there should be accountability and responsibility taken. And that led to a huge saga just around that quarry site. Anyway, on that day when I was reading up about this and finding out a bit more about Monsanto as a company, both historically and in the years ahead, I was struck by two things. Firstly, that there seemed to be a terrible injustice potentially, and not only a historic failure on many levels to protect people, but a very present danger and possibly a danger in the future.
Douglas talked about the idea that this wasn't just an issue in the past. This was an issue for us now and not and our children and our children's children. So I was very, very struck by that and and was also equally struck by how little there seemed to be that you could find out information about this. There was a essentially one big report in the ecologist magazine and, and very little else. So it led to me ultimately trying to find out if this man, Douglas Gowan, was still alive and he was he lived in Norfolk, and I asked if I could come and see him and get his story.
And he said, yes, please come and see me, but come quickly, because I think I'll be dead soon. And I went with a friend who had a camera. I recorded him for two days, got about seven eight hours of footage of him telling his entire story, and within about six months he was indeed dead. And he believed that it was because of the effect of PCBs on his system. The story that he told was an absolutely extraordinary one.
And myself, Lucy and Dan have tried to sift through that story for a long time now. And some of the most extraordinary things are the most true things that are in there, some of the most unbelievable things. But that sort of formed the basis of my interest in this. I then did something called the Raymond Williams Lecture in 20 1617, where I mentioned it because I'm not an investigative journalist. I didn't know how to take this on.
I was interested in it as a drama as well as, you know, a piece of investigative journalism. But in terms of following that on, I couldn't do it. So I mentioned it in the in the lecture, hoping someone would pick up on it. And it took a while. But eventually, years later, I had a call saying that Lucy and Dan were interested in telling Douglas Gowan's story as part of a wider story about not only PCBs, but what are known as forever chemicals.
And we talked about it. We got together, we ended up making the podcast series buried, and then ultimately the the documentary series.
Brisk inquiry has been named as the most toxic place in Britain. And that was it. And I thought, well, that seemed very strange, that there was nothing more about it. I looked into it and by the end of that day I was terrified and fascinated by what I'd found out. And to cut a long story short, I came across the story of a man called Douglas Gowan who had spent his life. It seemed, having first of all, in the mid 60s.
A younger man working for the National Union of Farmers. He had been. There'd been a call from a farmer in the vine area near countryside. Farmer, who had seen strange things happening to his livestock, aborted fetuses, malformed fetuses. Dead. Crayfish and and such in the in the streams and wanted someone to come and investigate. Douglas Gowan went out to investigate. He tells a very powerful and emotional story about finding a lamb who was deformed, dying, no genitalia.
And he then discovered that there was a quarry nearby Brofiscin Quarry disused quarry quarry that was being used for for dumping from the Monsanto factory in Newport, dumping what turned out to be canisters of something called PCB polychlorinated biphenyls. And Douglas spent many, many years after that testing finding out what PCBs were, and slowly piecing together a story that seemed to indicate that the dumping of these PCBs in Brofiscin quarry was leading to it leaching out and affecting the local farmers livestock and contaminating what was happening there.
So Douglas then took that story on because he believed there should be accountability and responsibility taken. And that led to a huge saga just around that quarry site. Anyway, on that day when I was reading up about this and finding out a bit more about Monsanto as a company, both historically and in the years ahead, I was struck by two things. Firstly, that there seemed to be a terrible injustice potentially, and not only a historic failure on many levels to protect people, but a very present danger and possibly a danger in the future.
Douglas talked about the idea that this wasn't just an issue in the past. This was an issue for us now and not and our children and our children's children. So I was very, very struck by that and and was also equally struck by how little there seemed to be that you could find out information about this. There was a essentially one big report in the ecologist magazine and, and very little else. So it led to me ultimately trying to find out if this man, Douglas Gowan, was still alive and he was he lived in Norfolk, and I asked if I could come and see him and get his story.
And he said, yes, please come and see me, but come quickly, because I think I'll be dead soon. And I went with a friend who had a camera. I recorded him for two days, got about seven eight hours of footage of him telling his entire story, and within about six months he was indeed dead. And he believed that it was because of the effect of PCBs on his system. The story that he told was an absolutely extraordinary one.
And myself, Lucy and Dan have tried to sift through that story for a long time now. And some of the most extraordinary things are the most true things that are in there, some of the most unbelievable things. But that sort of formed the basis of my interest in this. I then did something called the Raymond Williams Lecture in 20 1617, where I mentioned it because I'm not an investigative journalist. I didn't know how to take this on.
I was interested in it as a drama as well as, you know, a piece of investigative journalism. But in terms of following that on, I couldn't do it. So I mentioned it in the in the lecture, hoping someone would pick up on it. And it took a while. But eventually, years later, I had a call saying that Lucy and Dan were interested in telling Douglas Gowan's story as part of a wider story about not only PCBs, but what are known as forever chemicals.
And we talked about it. We got together, we ended up making the podcast series buried, and then ultimately the the documentary series.
09:41
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
Thank you very much, chair, and thank you all for coming today. Obviously, while we're mindful that we want to avoid any undue public alarm on the topic, you know, can you tell us and I'm thinking of Lucy Taylor and Dan Ashby here. Tell us about your findings relating to PCBs at former industrial sites. And if I start with yourself, Lucy, please. Yeah.
09:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It's interesting that you talk about undue alarm because that's exactly where we began as well. I remember the three of us having a conversation when we first started the podcast, which came before the documentary, saying, well, we have to be absolutely sure everything we say is watertight here because it's going to scare people. And you don't want to scare people if it's actually not a risk to them. But I think as we've gone further through this journey, we've, we've, we've shifted on that and felt that actually what we're finding out is quite scary.
And I think the public emphasis is, is towards thinking, well, it can't be, it can't be that bad. It can't be that bad, because they wouldn't allow that to happen when actually some of what's happening is quite worrying. So for example, we have done soil testing, soil sampling in for, well, for the TV series, 14 different sites and 13 of them showed above average or high levels of these chemicals in soil. One of those was so dangerous that if you touch it, it would be dangerous to health.
The scientists. We had told us that if a dog ran through a puddle, the dog could die because of the levels of chemicals in the soil. And then beyond that, we've done blood testing and found those same chemicals in people's bloods, people's blood from who lived in the surrounding areas and in some of those in high levels or above average levels. And in some of those people, they've experienced rare cancers. So I think it is I think it is worrying.
And I think this is just the beginning. Do you want to pick up Dan.
And I think the public emphasis is, is towards thinking, well, it can't be, it can't be that bad. It can't be that bad, because they wouldn't allow that to happen when actually some of what's happening is quite worrying. So for example, we have done soil testing, soil sampling in for, well, for the TV series, 14 different sites and 13 of them showed above average or high levels of these chemicals in soil. One of those was so dangerous that if you touch it, it would be dangerous to health.
The scientists. We had told us that if a dog ran through a puddle, the dog could die because of the levels of chemicals in the soil. And then beyond that, we've done blood testing and found those same chemicals in people's bloods, people's blood from who lived in the surrounding areas and in some of those in high levels or above average levels. And in some of those people, they've experienced rare cancers. So I think it is I think it is worrying.
And I think this is just the beginning. Do you want to pick up Dan.
09:43
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
I mean, it's I guess one thing that's worth emphasizing is that we obviously did indicative testing. You know, we're a small team. We're not the Environment Agency or NRW. And we only tested a handful of sites and we found some truly alarming results. And in my mind, it raises the question, well, what would we have found if we tested hundreds of sites? And, you know, we just chose specific locations. So as Lucy said, I mean, one of the places was so high it was off the scientists charts.
But but in all the locations across Wales, almost all of them, the scientists came back and said they warrant further investigation. They might not have been as high as the sort of 2000 or 12,000 times over at the highest result, but because they were more than 100 times over in places across Wales and they were going into streams sometimes, or they were on land close to people, the Royal Society of Chemistry scientists said, look, this does warrant further investigation.
But but in all the locations across Wales, almost all of them, the scientists came back and said they warrant further investigation. They might not have been as high as the sort of 2000 or 12,000 times over at the highest result, but because they were more than 100 times over in places across Wales and they were going into streams sometimes, or they were on land close to people, the Royal Society of Chemistry scientists said, look, this does warrant further investigation.
09:44
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
I think you've touched on it actually already. But, you know, obviously there are some limitations of the research you've done because of the sheer scale of it. And, you know, do you think there's you've quite clearly said there needs to be more testing. We need to find out a lot more about this across the whole country, across the whole UK, probably. But the limitations of that research, you know, in the documentary, you know, it's indicative, as you said, you know, you know, are there more limitations to it, do you think?
09:44
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
I think with forever chemicals and indeed chemical testing, and you're probably familiar with this with with looking at lead, there's two stages to it. There's testing where you can find out specific concentrations in soils. And then there's a risk assessment where you're looking at, well, are those concentrations getting into people. The scientists talk about a pathway and a receptor. Now we don't have the budget or the expertise to do the full risk assessment.
But the sort of chemical hits we were getting in some place were big red flags. And these were in places where there isn't either any testing happening or very little. So from our journalistic perspective, it certainly warrants more investigation. We can't categorically say the risk without doing the full risk assessment, though.
But the sort of chemical hits we were getting in some place were big red flags. And these were in places where there isn't either any testing happening or very little. So from our journalistic perspective, it certainly warrants more investigation. We can't categorically say the risk without doing the full risk assessment, though.
09:45
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think it's worth saying as well that the person who did that testing for us was Doctor Dave Megson, who's from Manchester Metropolitan University with the Royal Society of Chemistry. He's one of the kind of world experts on this. And then for the TV documentary, we're also supported by the Open University, who went back and kind of scrutinised what he has done for sort of compliance reasons, to make sure that what we put out to the public is, is fair.
So although it's indicative, it's indicative because of the budget that we had and the fact that we're not an environmental regulator who can survey the whole area, not because we're a TV crew, you know, it's that it's still quite robust testing. It's just limited in scope.
So although it's indicative, it's indicative because of the budget that we had and the fact that we're not an environmental regulator who can survey the whole area, not because we're a TV crew, you know, it's that it's still quite robust testing. It's just limited in scope.
09:46
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
It's probably it's probably useful to say at this point that the the testing that's been done up until the testing we did with with the documentary has been done by councils . And it's difficult to see how that testing could be could be trusted by the communities as being appropriate and extensive enough and rigorous enough. When if the result of that testing went one way, it could lead to the potential bankrupting of those councils. So people are being asked to trust testing.
That has an understandable, quite strong agenda behind it. And I think that's part of the point. So however limited and what restrictions there might have been on the testing that we've done, I would suggest that there has been even greater restrictions on any other testing that's been done before this. Yeah, I think that's a really fair and interesting point. It's something we will come on to later on. But thank you very much. Thank you, chair.
That has an understandable, quite strong agenda behind it. And I think that's part of the point. So however limited and what restrictions there might have been on the testing that we've done, I would suggest that there has been even greater restrictions on any other testing that's been done before this. Yeah, I think that's a really fair and interesting point. It's something we will come on to later on. But thank you very much. Thank you, chair.
09:47
09:47
Simon Hoare
-
-
Simon Hoare
Yes. Thank you. I just wondered, in the course of your researches whether you've identified anything which would tell you that the companies, the individuals, whoever who were doing the dumping in the first place, did it with the knowledge that what they were dumping was potentially harmful and injurious to public health, or whether because of the time that it was done, they didn't know. They just thought they were putting a byproduct of whatever it is that they were doing into something which they thought was appropriate to store it without knowing.
Have you have you got a view on any of the three of you? Got a view on that in anything that you've unearthed or discovered? Right.
Have you have you got a view on any of the three of you? Got a view on that in anything that you've unearthed or discovered? Right.
09:47
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
Yeah. Well, I immediately think about the case that was that happened in Anniston, Alabama, on behalf of the community in Anniston. And we spoke to one of the lawyers who took on that case, and he was able to show us internal memos from Monsanto dating as far back as the, well, certainly the 50s, but, you know, potentially back to the 30s that that indicated that there was an awareness within Monsanto of the effect on the community.
And in fact, by the time it got to the point where they had to shut down production of PCBs in the plant in Anniston, Alabama, we also found found internal memos that said, we cannot afford to lose $1 of business. And at that point, it turns out and as we discovered in the moment in the documentary, when Dan told me that it was at that point that they turned their sights on Newport in South Wales, knowing I would say full well what damage had been done to the community in Anniston, Alabama, and they just moved production to Newport, South Wales, of course, a place that has a history across South Wales, a history of heavy industry, chronic illness.
If one wanted to be cynical about it, you could say that there was. the the possibility of masking any potential damage to the community because of what already existed there, as well as a desperate desire for employment, for jobs to come in, to take the place of the industry that are gone, and also communities that perhaps don't get listened to as much. You know, this is not Oxfordshire we're talking about as in the case of, you know, the recent the the case that happened recently in the.
And in fact, by the time it got to the point where they had to shut down production of PCBs in the plant in Anniston, Alabama, we also found found internal memos that said, we cannot afford to lose $1 of business. And at that point, it turns out and as we discovered in the moment in the documentary, when Dan told me that it was at that point that they turned their sights on Newport in South Wales, knowing I would say full well what damage had been done to the community in Anniston, Alabama, and they just moved production to Newport, South Wales, of course, a place that has a history across South Wales, a history of heavy industry, chronic illness.
If one wanted to be cynical about it, you could say that there was. the the possibility of masking any potential damage to the community because of what already existed there, as well as a desperate desire for employment, for jobs to come in, to take the place of the industry that are gone, and also communities that perhaps don't get listened to as much. You know, this is not Oxfordshire we're talking about as in the case of, you know, the recent the the case that happened recently in the.
09:49
09:49
Ben Lake
-
-
Ben Lake
Thank you, chair, and thank you, all of you, for appearing today. You've mentioned already the testing of particular sites, and I'm interested to scrutinise a bit more about how much we actually understand about , one, the total number of sites that may be contaminated in Wales. In the documentary, I think you referenced in double figures that there are some 15,000 sites that may have been contaminated, and I wonder whether I can ask two quick questions.
The first is, how confident are we that that 15,000 is accurate and reliable? I ask because I know in in another strand on the lead contamination, that there is a question about how much we actually understand about the extent of contamination. And then secondly, do you have an idea as to how NSW or the regulator came to that figure? What sources of information are they relying on to, to, to state 15,000 sites? So I don't know who would like to begin.
Yeah,
The first is, how confident are we that that 15,000 is accurate and reliable? I ask because I know in in another strand on the lead contamination, that there is a question about how much we actually understand about the extent of contamination. And then secondly, do you have an idea as to how NSW or the regulator came to that figure? What sources of information are they relying on to, to, to state 15,000 sites? So I don't know who would like to begin.
Yeah,
09:50
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
I could start maybe. I mean, there are different numbers quoted for contaminated land. I mean, you can take friends of the earth did their own look at council records and they said there are potentially 45,000, the potentially 45,000 contaminated land sites. And interestingly, they said something like 80 had been declared contaminated. But what they found was that many, many councils don't keep public registers. They don't even have full inspection teams. Obviously, the NRW figure, I think is much lower.
I think we can say with some confidence that there are thousands of contaminated sites across Wales, and I would say probably more than 10,000. The question is, is, is how contaminated are they and what contaminants are we talking about? And I think our worry is, from what we've seen from Douglass's evidence, from internal Monsanto memos and from years of our own testing, is that there are many sites with high levels of PCBs. And, as Michael alluded to, remember that PCBs were dealing with something much scarier in a way than lead in some senses, because PCBs in tiny, tiny amounts can affect you for the rest of your life.
And not only that, you pass them on to your children so they contaminate from generation to generation. They're the sort of first or the godfather of forever chemicals. So for us, we, I guess the risks is higher and the thresholds are lower. And the same with the NSW. You know, they will be looking at those. But one of the scary things is that there's less rules around PCB testing than, say, some water testing.
So in many, many cases they don't need to test for PCBs.
I think we can say with some confidence that there are thousands of contaminated sites across Wales, and I would say probably more than 10,000. The question is, is, is how contaminated are they and what contaminants are we talking about? And I think our worry is, from what we've seen from Douglass's evidence, from internal Monsanto memos and from years of our own testing, is that there are many sites with high levels of PCBs. And, as Michael alluded to, remember that PCBs were dealing with something much scarier in a way than lead in some senses, because PCBs in tiny, tiny amounts can affect you for the rest of your life.
And not only that, you pass them on to your children so they contaminate from generation to generation. They're the sort of first or the godfather of forever chemicals. So for us, we, I guess the risks is higher and the thresholds are lower. And the same with the NSW. You know, they will be looking at those. But one of the scary things is that there's less rules around PCB testing than, say, some water testing.
So in many, many cases they don't need to test for PCBs.
09:52
Ben Lake
-
-
Ben Lake
Okay, just one quick follow up because I'm mindful of time and I just want to ask questions. But just in terms of the, the sites that we fear have been contaminated by some of this illegal dumping, how much record keeping was there so that we can know what potentially was dumped in some of these sites, you know, 10,000, 15,000, 40,000 sites, a big number. And I should imagine one of the first things we need to do is to try and categorize them according to potential risk.
In order to do that effectively, we'd need hopefully some information about what has actually been deposited. But in the course of your research investigations, how much information is there to be able to guide that sort of undertaking?
In order to do that effectively, we'd need hopefully some information about what has actually been deposited. But in the course of your research investigations, how much information is there to be able to guide that sort of undertaking?
09:53
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
I don't mind taking this again. Yeah, so each site is different. Douglas did really well at finding the right memos and documents in the councils, but now also knows what's in many of the sites, some sites, to be honest, nobody knows. And the authorities will come out and say, we just don't know. There are organisations like watershed who have gone around and tested all around the UK and published a map, which is a great start, because they're pulling in public data from everywhere so that localities can go and say, my goodness, we've got this on our doorstep.
But yeah, there's a a so-called orphan sites where just nobody knows what's in them. They are many thousands as well.
But yeah, there's a a so-called orphan sites where just nobody knows what's in them. They are many thousands as well.
09:53
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
I mean, as people say in the documentary, we have people talking about as children looking out their window at night and seeing trucks dumping stuff in the darkness of night, coming out the next day, finding jelly like substance on the road and kids playing with it. I mean, I don't know if that's being recorded by anyone, but it doesn't look like it.
09:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
One final thing on the testing, I don't know if we emphasized is that although we're talking about mostly former landfill sites or in some cases, former industrial sites, but actually where we tested was not the sites themselves. It was the public land around those sites. So everywhere where we tested and got higher levels, that was public footpaths, public woodland, public sports fields, roads. So not you would probably expect higher levels in the sites themselves, but we were talking about the public land.
So we're talking about chemicals leaching out of those sites.
So we're talking about chemicals leaching out of those sites.
09:54
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
Yeah, exactly. The testing that we've been able to do because a lot of this, these places are fenced off now. And of course, that doesn't stop contamination getting out, but we can't actually get into the place to be able to do the testing that we would like to do. So we've had to rely on a lot of anecdotal stuff. But when you hear someone like Michael in the documentary, who's up in the Wrexham area, who played in the lagoon as a child, saying that he got cancer, and it was such a rare form of cancer that his surgeon said to him, well, you get in that cancer is like you've won the lottery in a negative way.
But then his best friend, who also played in the lagoon, gets exactly the same rare form of cancer. And the surgeon says that's like winning the lottery every day for six months. That anecdotal evidence starts to make you think, I think we need to get inside these places and test this stuff.
But then his best friend, who also played in the lagoon, gets exactly the same rare form of cancer. And the surgeon says that's like winning the lottery every day for six months. That anecdotal evidence starts to make you think, I think we need to get inside these places and test this stuff.
09:55
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
And and just on that lagoon, I was speaking to a really well placed contact that I have who works with the regulators. And he said when he watched the documentary, he almost thought he was drunk on Rattler. He put it and he is an expert. I mean, that lagoon is a shame on Britain. And it's not you know, it is a scandal really that that's there. You know, Kidlington, you know, there's an action plan. It's cleared up and you know stuff like that that that has stood there for 20 years is outrageous.
And that's you know, I think Wrexham Council would acknowledge that and would acknowledge their frustration that they haven't got the money to clean it up. And it probably in our W as well. You know that that should not be there today.
And that's you know, I think Wrexham Council would acknowledge that and would acknowledge their frustration that they haven't got the money to clean it up. And it probably in our W as well. You know that that should not be there today.
09:56
09:56
09:56
Steve Witherden
-
-
Steve Witherden
Thank thank you chair. It was just a question for Lucy and Darren. Following on from the Natural Resources Wales question. It's basically how on earth can we make, you know, a balanced assessment of the genuine concerns posed by PCBs? If we have no idea which sites are contaminated, contaminated and which sites are not contaminated?
09:56
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
Yeah, I think there are obvious low hanging fruit here. Like, you know, the lagoon is I think many people would say an obvious thing that needs to be cleared up, that even if you look at what the authorities are saying and the councils, they're saying, the reason if you look at the internal paperwork, when Wrexham Council assessed that lagoon, the advice was the first choice was clean it up, it will cost £40 million. The second option was if you haven't got the money, then put a fence around it, fence around it and just monitor it.
But that was only if you haven't got the money, you know if health and the environment comes first, you clean it up. So look at the low hanging sites which are even the authorities agree with in terms of where there is contention and people aren't sure there should be more funding, and whether that's a national fund I'll leave to the sort of policy makers, but there should be rigorous funding for more testing. And so that remediation is an option and not a burden.
And remember, until I think 2014, this country had a national remediation fund. You know, at the moment we are the laggards in the world. You know, America is digging up and cleaning up this site. PCB levels in America are falling in some fish and oceans much faster. We have some of the worst seas around Britain for PCB contamination, and we don't have a national fund anymore. And the question is why? You know, if not, then who's paying for it?
But that was only if you haven't got the money, you know if health and the environment comes first, you clean it up. So look at the low hanging sites which are even the authorities agree with in terms of where there is contention and people aren't sure there should be more funding, and whether that's a national fund I'll leave to the sort of policy makers, but there should be rigorous funding for more testing. And so that remediation is an option and not a burden.
And remember, until I think 2014, this country had a national remediation fund. You know, at the moment we are the laggards in the world. You know, America is digging up and cleaning up this site. PCB levels in America are falling in some fish and oceans much faster. We have some of the worst seas around Britain for PCB contamination, and we don't have a national fund anymore. And the question is why? You know, if not, then who's paying for it?
09:57
Steve Witherden
-
-
Steve Witherden
Just a follow up question, because obviously councils we're talking about now, we're talking about councils. You know, councils report that some of the sites had been investigated and didn't meet the legal definition of contaminated land. We're told about, you know, thresholds, thresholds. It doesn't meet this threshold. You know, with that in mind, do you think that the legislation needs to be updated, you know, to to address that?
09:58
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
Again, I suppose I would I would question and I think it's a sensible question that if that information, if the judgment around thresholds and what is safe for the communities is coming from councils who, if they were to judge it, to not be safe for the communities, cannot afford to pay for the remediation, then it's very difficult to take that at face value. And I think in any conversation around any of this that we're talking about, we have to start by saying the people who are responsible for doing this in the first place seem to have got away with it.
They seem to be protected and buffered and inured from any responsibility. Everything we're talking about, and presumably we'll go on to talk about, is, in the absence of the original perpetrators of this action, getting away with it.
They seem to be protected and buffered and inured from any responsibility. Everything we're talking about, and presumably we'll go on to talk about, is, in the absence of the original perpetrators of this action, getting away with it.
09:59
09:59
Gerald Jones
-
-
Gerald Jones
Thanks, chair. I think my question leads nicely on really from from the research, what response do you think we need from government to make the sites safe, or the sites with contamination or PCBs? And also, if we can think about in the question, the the point just made there about, in your opinion, who should pay for identifying and remediating the sites?
09:59
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
I mean, I've come to believe more and more that the longer that we've worked on this, that the burden has to be taken off the councils, because at the moment it feels like there's a sort of stand off that you've got councils who are terrified of making a judgment one way, regardless of what the data or evidence or information might be, and in fact, are probably very nervous about really looking into it too far, because if they were to find out that they were financially responsible for this, that's the end of that council.
So we have to take we have to go beyond that. We have to take it off the councils. I think the testing has to be done completely independently, and I think there has to be a fund that is that is there beyond the council. At a national level, I would say even possibly a multinational level, but certainly at a national level, that means that councils are not just sitting there terrified of looking into this too much. That would be my take on it.
So we have to take we have to go beyond that. We have to take it off the councils. I think the testing has to be done completely independently, and I think there has to be a fund that is that is there beyond the council. At a national level, I would say even possibly a multinational level, but certainly at a national level, that means that councils are not just sitting there terrified of looking into this too much. That would be my take on it.
10:00
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
Yeah. The British policy differs from the American one in that we have tried to outsource remediation and decontaminating to sort of companies. Really what happens in Britain is the advice is try get developers to come in and sort it out for us. And in some cases, they do, you know, do a good job, they test beforehand and they remediate. But in many, many cases, there's no incentive. So the developer doesn't want to clear up that mess.
So the land just stays there. Whereas in other countries what happens is if the land's contaminated, if it's a risk, the government moves in and pays for it. So I think in terms of polluter pays, I mean, to be honest, Britain has a woeful record on that. When you compare it to other countries, you know, we're not taking up many of these cases. And going back to, as Michael says, the people who did this, many of whom have budgets set aside to pay for this sort of thing.
So we need to look at why polluter pay isn't working. Why are we polluter profits, not polluter pays. And and how does that change? Because you look at the figures, so few cases we've taken up over the last 20 years.
So the land just stays there. Whereas in other countries what happens is if the land's contaminated, if it's a risk, the government moves in and pays for it. So I think in terms of polluter pays, I mean, to be honest, Britain has a woeful record on that. When you compare it to other countries, you know, we're not taking up many of these cases. And going back to, as Michael says, the people who did this, many of whom have budgets set aside to pay for this sort of thing.
So we need to look at why polluter pay isn't working. Why are we polluter profits, not polluter pays. And and how does that change? Because you look at the figures, so few cases we've taken up over the last 20 years.
10:01
10:01
Simon Hoare
-
-
Simon Hoare
I'm just picking up on that which I'm. My questions are slightly out of order, if I may. So get them both done at the same time. Mr. Ashby, just picking up on that point that you were just making towards the end, you've mentioned how America does it, and we all know there's a huge difference in the sort of capitalist model, if you will, and federal government and state government. So it's often very difficult to compare America to to the UK.
Could you point us to a European country which has also had a long industrial past, where they have done remediation? Well, that we should be looking at as an example.
Could you point us to a European country which has also had a long industrial past, where they have done remediation? Well, that we should be looking at as an example.
10:02
10:02
10:02
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
Yeah, I know the both. I mean talking last night to my insiders, I know in terms of the remediation, I mean, one of the ironies here is that some of this remediation stuff, we don't have the companies to do it because we don't remediate. So the Dutch are particularly good at some of the remediation and the Germans as well, in terms of forever chemicals, more generally, you are seeing the EU go much further than Britain in terms of legislating to stop the pollution getting there in the first place.
The prevention is more about what I know about I, I don't know about specific models of remediation in Europe, in America. One big consideration is that they have class action lawsuits, which are really effective in forcing change, which we don't have.
The prevention is more about what I know about I, I don't know about specific models of remediation in Europe, in America. One big consideration is that they have class action lawsuits, which are really effective in forcing change, which we don't have.
10:03
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
And of course, one of the other added complications is that when we talk about the original perpetrators of this, they have managed to transform their companies, change their. So it's incredibly complicated to find out who is now ultimately responsible for this, who actually owns everything that just trying to find that out is complicated enough and that tells its own story.
10:03
Simon Hoare
-
-
Simon Hoare
I suppose. Mr. Sheen, this is this is a question to you. I mean, you and your colleagues have highlighted these were private companies who have caused the problem, and there's now a legitimate expectation that the taxpayer, whether it's the local taxpayer or the national taxpayer somehow or another, picks up the the the tab for that. And that demonstrably doesn't seem to be particularly fair. But I just wondered, and taking your point, that you've made about sort of councils and their exposure, their sort of financial vulnerabilities, etc., has anybody post the broadcast sort of picked up the phone to you from whether it's Welsh Government, the Wales Office here, whoever it may happen to be, to say, come in, we want to have a chat.
These are some strategies that are evolving. We'd like to pick your brains about it. Or has it just met a stony silence from officialdom in its in its broader sense? To
These are some strategies that are evolving. We'd like to pick your brains about it. Or has it just met a stony silence from officialdom in its in its broader sense? To
10:04
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
me personally, no. I got in touch with the First Minister. Yeah. Before the documentary went out and I. I invited him and whoever he would like to bring forward to watch the documentary before it went out publicly, because I feel like this is not about trying to point blame at anyone or. And I thought it was a very good opportunity for the First Minister as a new First Minister, you know, in coming to be able to get on board with this, to look for solutions.
This is not everything. I've always said that everything we're doing with this is not about just shouting about it. It's about looking for a practical way forward, a practical solution. And so I invited the First Minister to, to have an opportunity to look at it, talk to us about it. Unfortunately, that offer was not taken up. And subsequently, I personally haven't been contacted by anyone that you've mentioned as as anyone got in touch with, you.
This is not everything. I've always said that everything we're doing with this is not about just shouting about it. It's about looking for a practical way forward, a practical solution. And so I invited the First Minister to, to have an opportunity to look at it, talk to us about it. Unfortunately, that offer was not taken up. And subsequently, I personally haven't been contacted by anyone that you've mentioned as as anyone got in touch with, you.
10:05
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
Know, we we had right of replies from Defra, but they were mostly towards our concerns, I think. And obviously anyone we made allegations against, we get replies, but I think this issue has been met with either indifference or a kind of, you know, I guess they don't know what to do or they don't want to engage from pretty much across the political spectrum. What's kind of surprising is that, you know, chemical contamination and toxins in our communities is, I don't think, a politically divisive issue at the moment.
It's not something like climate change where you're seeing divisions in parties. So it's stunning to me that the one of the things we've had so much response from the public and so many people have said the angriest moment for them was reading the end slates, the responses. That's what made everyone's blood boil.
It's not something like climate change where you're seeing divisions in parties. So it's stunning to me that the one of the things we've had so much response from the public and so many people have said the angriest moment for them was reading the end slates, the responses. That's what made everyone's blood boil.
10:06
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
And just one other thing. When you say that there's a sort of an expectation for the taxpayer to take this up, I would disagree. No. My expectation is that the people who are responsible for this originally should pay for it. My I think the problem is that there appears to be a lack of appetite to take it to them from the people in power yourselves. I'm not you personally, but you know, the reason why we're coming here is because we're, as I said earlier, we're having to talk about second best options because the people who are actually responsible for it don't seem to be held accountable.
10:06
Simon Hoare
-
-
Simon Hoare
I take your point entirely on that, but have any of you done any research? It's not an area of my expertise. I think I'm still trying to work out what my area of expertise is, but are there any residual liabilities that the perpetrators have through public liability insurances that they may have carried, etc., which may provide an avenue for exploration, for funding? Because, as you say, these companies have transformed over the years.
There are different parent companies. They change the name, they change the purpose of the business, etc. for motivations, which we won't necessarily go into. But they will always have had some form of insurance. And whether there is any historic legacy insurances that could be tapped into as a way of either in whole or in part , meeting remediation costs, have you has anybody sort of come to you with that as a thought or an avenue to be explored?
There are different parent companies. They change the name, they change the purpose of the business, etc. for motivations, which we won't necessarily go into. But they will always have had some form of insurance. And whether there is any historic legacy insurances that could be tapped into as a way of either in whole or in part , meeting remediation costs, have you has anybody sort of come to you with that as a thought or an avenue to be explored?
10:07
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
Yeah, yeah. The liabilities are there. As he says, they're incredibly complicated. And you would need someone like a law firm, specialist law firm to go through the liability contracts. Not always. They're not always there because they they sort of disappear over time. And council, we had one case where a council bought the site for £1 and took all the lights, stupidly took all the liabilities. But, but in many cases they exist.
Yeah.
Yeah.
10:08
10:08
10:08
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
you. Chair. One of the biggest impacts on me in the documentary was actually the impact on people who live in those areas and on the communities. So to you, Mr. Sheen, you know, can you describe, you know, during that during, sorry, the impact that contaminated land had on the people that you met, you know, in those communities? Well, I mean, there's huge fear, I think, because so little is known.
You know, there's, there's, you know, when we talk about the, as we call them, the two jams who feel like they've been pushing back against their local council, they don't feel they can trust the information they've been getting from them about the contaminated land. You saw the, the meeting that we had where local people were talking about the effect on their their pets, their dogs. I was hugely affected by Michael, who I alluded to earlier, who talked about who had played in the lagoon when he was a child and his best friend.
Then both of them get in the same, you know, specialist, very rare form of cancer. When he talked about his son saying to him, have I got it as well? I mean, I still, you know, I'll never forget that. And so when you see the effects on people where they're just terrified about what might have happened to them historically, Paul and Wendy, Paul's father, who Paul and his father handling this stuff in on their land and Paul's father dying of cancer.
Paul not knowing what's going to happen to him. The levels in his blood were through the roof. And in that land, you can just see the fear in people's, in people's eyes because of what's not known. And that's why I think we have to push for testing. The best outcome would be testing is done and we find out, no it's not. It's going to be okay. It's going to be there's a way to deal with this.
But unless that testing is done, people are going to have to live with this fear. And that was the the gamble, I suppose, that we've taken with the documentary and all the work that we've done, the last thing we want to do is terrify people and scare people, and then not be able to follow through with anything that allays those fears. I think the testing has to be done. And that, yeah, for me and everyone we met in talking about how it's affected their lives and how they're worried about it'll affect the lives of their children and their children's children.
That's that's what will stay with me forever. It's very powerful. Yeah. Me as well. Thank you.
You know, there's, there's, you know, when we talk about the, as we call them, the two jams who feel like they've been pushing back against their local council, they don't feel they can trust the information they've been getting from them about the contaminated land. You saw the, the meeting that we had where local people were talking about the effect on their their pets, their dogs. I was hugely affected by Michael, who I alluded to earlier, who talked about who had played in the lagoon when he was a child and his best friend.
Then both of them get in the same, you know, specialist, very rare form of cancer. When he talked about his son saying to him, have I got it as well? I mean, I still, you know, I'll never forget that. And so when you see the effects on people where they're just terrified about what might have happened to them historically, Paul and Wendy, Paul's father, who Paul and his father handling this stuff in on their land and Paul's father dying of cancer.
Paul not knowing what's going to happen to him. The levels in his blood were through the roof. And in that land, you can just see the fear in people's, in people's eyes because of what's not known. And that's why I think we have to push for testing. The best outcome would be testing is done and we find out, no it's not. It's going to be okay. It's going to be there's a way to deal with this.
But unless that testing is done, people are going to have to live with this fear. And that was the the gamble, I suppose, that we've taken with the documentary and all the work that we've done, the last thing we want to do is terrify people and scare people, and then not be able to follow through with anything that allays those fears. I think the testing has to be done. And that, yeah, for me and everyone we met in talking about how it's affected their lives and how they're worried about it'll affect the lives of their children and their children's children.
That's that's what will stay with me forever. It's very powerful. Yeah. Me as well. Thank you.
10:10
10:10
Ann Davies
-
-
Ann Davies
You've talked a lot about the effect of of human health on come coming from PCBs. So how can we how can we raise the the awareness within the public and, you know, buried has certainly done that, to be honest. And we're talking about it. And and hence that you're here today and we. And we need to move forward. What what can we do to move forward in order to raise awareness within these communities, within the agricultural community as well? Actually, because sheep dip at one time was, was a PCB, you know, so we've lived with this within the agricultural community as well to, to be honest.
So how can we, how can we raise the awareness on top of what you've already done.
So how can we, how can we raise the awareness on top of what you've already done.
10:11
10:11
10:11
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
Yeah. Yeah. I think you're seeing the first stirrings of a genuine public campaign forum forming. I went to Wrexham afterwards and nearly 200 people turned up, and it was a kind of hair raising moment where people stood up and broke down in tears, told stories, people that we've, you know, we've never heard from before. And we've had an enormous response from the public. We've had people email in from inside the authorities from who worked in Monsanto.
So there is more to this story. And certainly our ambition is to keep telling it a storytellers to, you know, to bring about change. That's the main thing. But I think, you know, the problem always is that it's many hands make light work. We are only part of the journey. If there is not a political reaction, if there is just silence, it is all for nothing. Because you see with the post office and many other examples, you need the storytellers, you need the communities, and you need the politicians all to be in, you know, in favor of change and also outraged by what they're seeing.
So there is more to this story. And certainly our ambition is to keep telling it a storytellers to, you know, to bring about change. That's the main thing. But I think, you know, the problem always is that it's many hands make light work. We are only part of the journey. If there is not a political reaction, if there is just silence, it is all for nothing. Because you see with the post office and many other examples, you need the storytellers, you need the communities, and you need the politicians all to be in, you know, in favor of change and also outraged by what they're seeing.
10:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think, as well. One of the difficult things about this story is so many people have come up to us and said, what can I do? Or my brother had cancer, what can I. But actually, as individuals, there's very little that people can do. They don't know these chemicals. They're they're invisible, they're odourless, they can't see them. They can't just quit smoking to reduce their risk of, you know, of these chemicals because they're, they're on public land and they're in our food and they're in our seas.
So I don't think it is something that individuals can step up other than by campaigning and trying to bring it to people in power like yourselves. I think this needs authorities to take this on and protect people. It's not something that individuals can do for themselves.
So I don't think it is something that individuals can step up other than by campaigning and trying to bring it to people in power like yourselves. I think this needs authorities to take this on and protect people. It's not something that individuals can do for themselves.
10:13
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
I mean, our conversation now, and literally when we leave here, will be continuing. The conversation is about what we can do to keep this momentum going. People have clearly engaged with this and are alarmed by it. And as Lucy said, people are saying, what can we do about it? What can we do about it? Well, from our point of view, we need to keep moving forward with this story and keep telling the story. But I think from the public point of view, the most important thing would be once these fears are raised, that they see that something is being done about it, that it is they're being heard.
Like I say, I don't think it's a coincidence that all the places, the main places where this dumping has been done, not just in Wales but across the world, tend to be in communities that don't have much of a voice and don't necessarily expect to be heard. And we need to show that they are heard, their voices are heard. That was what was so powerful about bringing people together from all over Wales to the Senate when, because those people didn't even know that they existed, they thought they were in isolation, working on this stuff and now suddenly coming together.
That makes a difference. The fact that we've come here today and you've very graciously listened to us, if if people know that that's happening and then something is done about it as well, it's taken forward. We're not going to get to the end in one go. This is a long road. And as Dan says, it's going to take many different strands to to make this work. But if people see that something is being taken seriously and moving forward, I think that will do a huge amount.
Rather than thinking, well, we can't do anything about this, can we? It's just another one of those things.
Like I say, I don't think it's a coincidence that all the places, the main places where this dumping has been done, not just in Wales but across the world, tend to be in communities that don't have much of a voice and don't necessarily expect to be heard. And we need to show that they are heard, their voices are heard. That was what was so powerful about bringing people together from all over Wales to the Senate when, because those people didn't even know that they existed, they thought they were in isolation, working on this stuff and now suddenly coming together.
That makes a difference. The fact that we've come here today and you've very graciously listened to us, if if people know that that's happening and then something is done about it as well, it's taken forward. We're not going to get to the end in one go. This is a long road. And as Dan says, it's going to take many different strands to to make this work. But if people see that something is being taken seriously and moving forward, I think that will do a huge amount.
Rather than thinking, well, we can't do anything about this, can we? It's just another one of those things.
10:14
Steve Witherden
-
-
Steve Witherden
Thank you. Thank you, chair. It's just something that's been touched on already in relation to cancers and something very personal to me, referring back to my declaration of interests. Three generations of my wife's family worked in the the Monsanto plant featured in part two of the of the documentary. Why do you think that such little research has been done on the correlation between PCBs and cancer clusters in the UK? Michael.
I think.
I think.
10:15
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
It comes back again to. Well, and it's something that Simon alluded to earlier on that to begin with, people didn't know what I mean. When PCBs first were being produced, they were this sort of miracle thing. They made things safer for us. You know, they're in electronic goods. It's a coolant. It's you know, it's in paint. It's in all kinds of things. And it took so much work by people like Douglas Gowan to start to highlight that there is actually a problem with this stuff that then I think moving forward from that, again, because of the difficulty in getting the people who are actually responsible for this, first of all, to, to get them to admit which, you know, they still don't, but to get any evidence that shows that they were aware that it was harmful.
That's the hard enough as it is to get them to actually, you know, take responsibility and do something about it is incredibly difficult, given that you're then asking the taxpayer councils to, to step in when the perpetrators are not prepared to do it themselves. That's, that's really a hard place for those, for those people to be now whilst they're in charge of the testing, like I say, like I keep saying, it's very hard to take that the results of that testing at face value.
This is why I think we have to call for an independent, independent body to be in charge of testing. Thank you.
That's the hard enough as it is to get them to actually, you know, take responsibility and do something about it is incredibly difficult, given that you're then asking the taxpayer councils to, to step in when the perpetrators are not prepared to do it themselves. That's, that's really a hard place for those, for those people to be now whilst they're in charge of the testing, like I say, like I keep saying, it's very hard to take that the results of that testing at face value.
This is why I think we have to call for an independent, independent body to be in charge of testing. Thank you.
10:16
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
Yeah. Just to add more to that, I think there's when we think about illness, there's different levels. Now, first of all, there's sort of people who are really directly affected by interacting with these places. Michael Phillips There will be hundreds of those people whose cancers will have been caused by playing in the tip. There's so many people who've emailed in, you know, they're obviously really at risk. There'll be people who've worked in the factories who will be really at risk.
Now, for me, that's unacceptable that those people have cancers. But cluster surveys won't necessarily pick up those people because they're not kind of massive clusters. They'll be localised people that we're finding. They might be in the tens, they might be in the hundreds. We don't know. They might be in the thousands across Wales. Then there's the bigger concern of communities who live nearby. Now, I want to reassure people that, look, not not all these communities are going to you know, you're not you don't.
Just because you live within a mile of a dump doesn't mean you're going to get ill from it. You know, it's not not the case, but there will be cases where people are getting ill and it's not always cancer. We don't survey for all the other illnesses. There's asthma, there's deformities and things which aren't really surveyed as well. So my fear is that we are not really surveying properly on all the illnesses and, and even on, on cancer.
The problem is with PCBs, there's a lag in time. So it's going to turn up many decades later from when the pollution happened. So it's to reassure communities that you don't need to suddenly panic. But at the same time, I do think we're not scrutinising enough.
Now, for me, that's unacceptable that those people have cancers. But cluster surveys won't necessarily pick up those people because they're not kind of massive clusters. They'll be localised people that we're finding. They might be in the tens, they might be in the hundreds. We don't know. They might be in the thousands across Wales. Then there's the bigger concern of communities who live nearby. Now, I want to reassure people that, look, not not all these communities are going to you know, you're not you don't.
Just because you live within a mile of a dump doesn't mean you're going to get ill from it. You know, it's not not the case, but there will be cases where people are getting ill and it's not always cancer. We don't survey for all the other illnesses. There's asthma, there's deformities and things which aren't really surveyed as well. So my fear is that we are not really surveying properly on all the illnesses and, and even on, on cancer.
The problem is with PCBs, there's a lag in time. So it's going to turn up many decades later from when the pollution happened. So it's to reassure communities that you don't need to suddenly panic. But at the same time, I do think we're not scrutinising enough.
10:18
10:18
Ruth Jones
-
-
Ruth Jones
Thank you Lucy. Okay. I'm conscious of time. I'm just asking if the witnesses could spare us an extra 5 or 10 minutes, because I'm conscious we're going to move on to testing shortly. And we we're looking for the way forward today. We're looking for solutions. So so if you could stay, that would be really helpful. Yeah. Of
10:18
10:18
Gerald Jones
-
-
Gerald Jones
10:18
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
Yeah. Do you want me to take you through? Yeah. So we have an approach in Britain where we try to limit. Well, let me go backwards a bit because this might shock any public listening. I guess think about these sites as a kind of sort of the poison tap, if you like. And the communities we worry about are sort of trying to stop the tap and splashing around, but the poison is obviously flowing towards all of us, because what's happening with PCBs over the last 50 years is they've gone into the streams, they've gone into our fish, they've gone into our food chain, and we're all eating them.
So we've all had our blood tested and we've all got 80 PCBs in our blood. You all have PCBs in your blood and there is no safe level. So you are being harmed in some way, hopefully a small way. Hopefully it's taking days off your retirement rather than years. But we don't know the way the UK manages it. To answer your question is they set a toxicity kind of diet. There are officials out there who are trying to make sure that you just eat enough PCBs, that it doesn't hurt you too much.
Now that's kind of your sort of toxic quota, if you like, is really kind of contested amongst scientists. So to give you an example, the EU sets a much lower threshold than Britain. The EU worries that our thresholds are too high and are kind of creating hormone defects and all sorts of things. British scientists say, no, we think we've got the right amount. The challenge with that approach, though, is that it has to make some really big assumptions, and it makes assumptions on how much meat and fish we're eating.
We went out and tested supermarket fish, and we found that if you ate two portions of fish a week and other foods, you would be well over your PCB quota, so you would be being poisoned. One fish we tested was so high it was illegal to sell. Officials should go in and take it off the shelves. So I think our worry is, is that these chemicals have built up more than we think in all of us.
Again, it's not we're not all going to collapse suddenly and get cancer and die, but we're worried that more of us from PCBs and other toxins are getting ill. And of course, the worry is, is that cancer rates in under 50 are spiking in the UK. And some scientists believe the cause is in the environment. So, you know, it is a worry. PCBs are part of a worry that are getting into all of us. Does that answer your question?
So we've all had our blood tested and we've all got 80 PCBs in our blood. You all have PCBs in your blood and there is no safe level. So you are being harmed in some way, hopefully a small way. Hopefully it's taking days off your retirement rather than years. But we don't know the way the UK manages it. To answer your question is they set a toxicity kind of diet. There are officials out there who are trying to make sure that you just eat enough PCBs, that it doesn't hurt you too much.
Now that's kind of your sort of toxic quota, if you like, is really kind of contested amongst scientists. So to give you an example, the EU sets a much lower threshold than Britain. The EU worries that our thresholds are too high and are kind of creating hormone defects and all sorts of things. British scientists say, no, we think we've got the right amount. The challenge with that approach, though, is that it has to make some really big assumptions, and it makes assumptions on how much meat and fish we're eating.
We went out and tested supermarket fish, and we found that if you ate two portions of fish a week and other foods, you would be well over your PCB quota, so you would be being poisoned. One fish we tested was so high it was illegal to sell. Officials should go in and take it off the shelves. So I think our worry is, is that these chemicals have built up more than we think in all of us.
Again, it's not we're not all going to collapse suddenly and get cancer and die, but we're worried that more of us from PCBs and other toxins are getting ill. And of course, the worry is, is that cancer rates in under 50 are spiking in the UK. And some scientists believe the cause is in the environment. So, you know, it is a worry. PCBs are part of a worry that are getting into all of us. Does that answer your question?
10:20
10:21
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
Yeah, I guess on the on the land side, the only other thing to say is we do have thresholds. We have soil guideline values. So for commercial use and allotments and residential, the, the government or the Environment Agency say, here's the kind of maximum allowed. And if you hit that number, then they, they say you should do a risk assessment. The difference with America, it's a lot stricter. There's a. There's a kind of strong limit.
And if it hits that limit, then they sort of send in diggers and remediate much quicker. Ours is more complicated. We go through this sort of complicated risk assessment procedure.
And if it hits that limit, then they sort of send in diggers and remediate much quicker. Ours is more complicated. We go through this sort of complicated risk assessment procedure.
10:21
10:21
Llinos Medi
-
-
Llinos Medi
Thank you. We're moving on to the testing. And first of all, I want to congratulate you on what you've been able to achieve in raising awareness and in the way that you've done it with these communities, and for you to be with us today as well. To raise awareness, we've got to be careful because we have to find the answer. And I think the answer starts with the testing, because if we're going to try and find who's accountable and paying for it, we're losing time.
So the testing has to be. And then that's where the remediation works come from as well. And, and there are examples as well where it has worked in, you mentioned in the USA, but we also have in the UK where it's worked as well. So can we just focus on the testing now? And I think we need to recognise who's accountable, who's who's who's that body that makes sure that that test you've said independently, but funding that has to come from somewhere.
I believe that it's the UK government's responsibility because of the legacy of these sites. And I believe that the UK government then should find the legal way of getting that money back. But where do you believe that that ownership starts, and do you think that we have the capacity and the capability when the scale of the sites in Wales and across the UK to deliver that testing in a timely manner as well?
So the testing has to be. And then that's where the remediation works come from as well. And, and there are examples as well where it has worked in, you mentioned in the USA, but we also have in the UK where it's worked as well. So can we just focus on the testing now? And I think we need to recognise who's accountable, who's who's who's that body that makes sure that that test you've said independently, but funding that has to come from somewhere.
I believe that it's the UK government's responsibility because of the legacy of these sites. And I believe that the UK government then should find the legal way of getting that money back. But where do you believe that that ownership starts, and do you think that we have the capacity and the capability when the scale of the sites in Wales and across the UK to deliver that testing in a timely manner as well?
10:23
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
No, I don't think. I don't think the W has the capacity to do this, and I don't think the Welsh Government has the perhaps even the budget or the certainly the will to do this. So I think a lot more funding would be needed for sure. And if you look I mean, I've I've spoken to many people in the NSW and I've, you know, seen documents over the years and you can see that NSW is really stretched, you know, and that's we are facing an environmental crisis around the world.
They're facing all sorts of pollutants, contaminations going up. So no, we are not meeting this challenge with enough resources. I think that's a fact in terms of who pays for it. I probably wouldn't want to answer that. I guess that's not my that's more political. But yeah, no, certainly not. I would say as a factual basis. Would you agree? There
They're facing all sorts of pollutants, contaminations going up. So no, we are not meeting this challenge with enough resources. I think that's a fact in terms of who pays for it. I probably wouldn't want to answer that. I guess that's not my that's more political. But yeah, no, certainly not. I would say as a factual basis. Would you agree? There
10:24
Andrew Ranger
-
-
Andrew Ranger
is a there is a history. We were talking about this earlier. There is a precedent for the companies who are the original perpetrators of this getting involved with payments. It becomes very complicated when it comes down to taking responsibility and that kind of stuff. But what did they call it? Goodwill payments or something. Voluntary payments, voluntary payments. So it's not impossible. I mean, I know, you know, we the two, Jans, Reverend Paul, whoever are not going to get it's going to be very difficult for us to get the top level of, you know, where this all started from to do that.
But it is not impossible to get it done, historically speaking. And I think we have to always hold on to. I every time I talk about anything to do with this now, I force myself to say, the people who are responsible for this are somehow buffered from paying for it or taking responsibility. Everything we're talking about around councils, taxpayers, all of this stuff is all secondary to what ideally should happen. I think that's always has that always has to be the first thing, because otherwise we just write it off and we just let them get away with it.
It has to be said that. So whenever anything to do with who pays for this or that has to be the first thing that we always look at. But then next to that, I think, I mean, the testing itself, the testing that was done for us as Dave Mason. I mean, the testing itself is independent, obviously, because they're scientists and they're not working on behalf of, you know, it's. Yes. What is the body that kind of becomes the umbrella organisation that takes responsibility for making sure that that testing is done and who pays for that? As Dan alluded to, there was a fund pre 2014.
It's it's something that we're not asking necessarily for something that has never happened before. So that's, you know, maybe a starting point.
But it is not impossible to get it done, historically speaking. And I think we have to always hold on to. I every time I talk about anything to do with this now, I force myself to say, the people who are responsible for this are somehow buffered from paying for it or taking responsibility. Everything we're talking about around councils, taxpayers, all of this stuff is all secondary to what ideally should happen. I think that's always has that always has to be the first thing, because otherwise we just write it off and we just let them get away with it.
It has to be said that. So whenever anything to do with who pays for this or that has to be the first thing that we always look at. But then next to that, I think, I mean, the testing itself, the testing that was done for us as Dave Mason. I mean, the testing itself is independent, obviously, because they're scientists and they're not working on behalf of, you know, it's. Yes. What is the body that kind of becomes the umbrella organisation that takes responsibility for making sure that that testing is done and who pays for that? As Dan alluded to, there was a fund pre 2014.
It's it's something that we're not asking necessarily for something that has never happened before. So that's, you know, maybe a starting point.
10:26
David Chadwick
-
-
David Chadwick
It's worth saying as well that it falls in the cracks quite a bit because NRW are obviously responsible for the environment, as is the E councils are, you know, primarily involved in land and some human health. But then you have the public health agencies and we have seen it just fall in between all this. So that's a problem.
10:26
10:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And it all goes back to Steve's question about legislation. This testing could happen. It's on the whole, it's the local authority's responsibility, although in many cases they're not legally required to test for PCBs. And there isn't anybody policing and checking that they they are doing. And in terms of declaring contaminated land, the guidance is for any other solutions to be found first. So essentially declaring it contaminated is a last resort, which might work in cases where developers are coming in to try and do that, and the responsibility can be passed on to them.
But for most of these very contaminated sites in rural areas These very contaminated. sites in rural areas of Wales. You know, there might not be developers coming forward to do it. And so what is what's the backup option for that? And I think there's a sort of gap in who's policing that and who's overseeing that. It's actually done in a number of cases. When we've looked into these sites and asked the councils, well, when did you last test? For many, many years there was no.
But for most of these very contaminated sites in rural areas These very contaminated. sites in rural areas of Wales. You know, there might not be developers coming forward to do it. And so what is what's the backup option for that? And I think there's a sort of gap in who's policing that and who's overseeing that. It's actually done in a number of cases. When we've looked into these sites and asked the councils, well, when did you last test? For many, many years there was no.
10:27
10:27
10:27
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
program. But in many cases there isn't. And one, one important point in all of this is that obviously the UK government is dealing with risk all over the place. There are so many different pollutants and a bit like in Covid, where they had to make a calculation about what's an acceptable number of people to allow to die before you shut down the economy and all those debates they were having, they're doing that all the time with pollutants.
Of course, they can't stop every single pollutant. But I think what buried raises the question is, have we set an acceptable risk level here? Is Wales bearing a. disproportionate brunt of the harms? And not just in Wales. There are places in England too. Have we got the risk assessment right. And and our early evidence suggests . We've we've
Of course, they can't stop every single pollutant. But I think what buried raises the question is, have we set an acceptable risk level here? Is Wales bearing a. disproportionate brunt of the harms? And not just in Wales. There are places in England too. Have we got the risk assessment right. And and our early evidence suggests . We've we've
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
decision of stopping the funding in 2014? I think it's fair to say there's been much less remediation. Yeah. The other thing that was big was there was statutory guidance issued in. 2012 on how to interpret the original legislation. The original legislation was really radical. It was really kind of amazing stuff in terms of in terms of. environmental foresight, saying, you know, if if there's significant possibility of significant harm to people or rivers and the environment, then it should be cleaned up.
But there was guidance issued in 2012 which which really kind of qualified it and said, well, first port of call, get developers in, you know, don't always declare it contaminated land, don't, don't trigger kind of polluter pays legal action, you know, go for the sort of more pragmatic approach, I think is what they would say.
But there was guidance issued in 2012 which which really kind of qualified it and said, well, first port of call, get developers in, you know, don't always declare it contaminated land, don't, don't trigger kind of polluter pays legal action, you know, go for the sort of more pragmatic approach, I think is what they would say.
10:29
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So I think that that guidance has really changed the picture in the UK. I remember it wasn't until two years later, after the fund went, that I came across this story, and I could find very little about it even then. So, you know, it shows the difficulty that there is in, in getting involved in . This stuff
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
Ann Davies
-
-
Ann Davies
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
Ann Davies
-
-
Ann Davies
Resources is probably a must to deal with this. Can I ask you something else following that then as a committee, how do you think is the best way that we can support the. communities in specifically for us in, in Wales having when we go through the testing and what can we do as a committee to . Ensure
10:31
10:31
10:31
10:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Who are utterly outraged by this, but we're not really seeing any anybody assessing this risk seriously. So I think change within political parties is one thing. And and the problem is the problem of anonymity, right, with the environment is that because we never see the child who's died from cancer because they're never a headline, then we all feel better about it. But statistics show that those children and those families are out there. So I think if you can change parties attitude, that's the that's the first thing because it's weird for us as environmental reporters that we know from scientists that scientists are are terrified of what's going on with forever chemicals.
And weirdly, political parties . Have
And weirdly, political parties . Have
10:32
10:32
Ruth Jones
-
-
Ruth Jones
view. Thank you, thank you, and thank you for you've talked a lot about some the hard evidence and, you know, the digging, the research and everything. Let me ask Michael, as the final question. During this, the programme, you know, most of us watched it. You were tested for PCBs. And I just wonder from a subjective level, how did that make you feel? And and going forward, you know,
10:32
10:32
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah. Well, I mean, I, I agreed to be tested because I thought, well, you know, it's not I'm not affected. I haven't been living in these communities. I haven't been playing in lagoons. So of course I'll do that. But then once someone's sitting there telling you you've got. 82 different PCBs in your blood and one of them is the most deadly when it comes to, you know, carcinogens. And it's, it's shocking.
And, and then again, when you say, well, what's the kind of. baseline here? And you're told, well, we don't really have a baseline in Britain because we haven't got enough research. So it's the American baseline. You think, well, hang on, can we get the British one please? I'd like to know a bit. Once it becomes personal to you. You sort of want to know a bit more about it. So you can only imagine what it must be like for families like Steve's and Michael's and, you know, everyone else where it is incredibly personal.
And yet the lack of information about it is terrifying, you know? But also, I suppose to know that. communities in the area where I come from. Was sort of. chosen to have this stuff put near them. because they couldn't fight back because it would get hidden, it would be buried. I take as a as a personal affront. I mean, that I so, you know, I've been involved with this now for ten years since I first came across this story.
And, you know, I'm involved in a lot of different issues. And, and it all comes down to a basic thing, which is a basic unfairness. That's, that's what I respond to mainly. And I've never come across anything more unfair than this, that that communities. families .. Unbeknownst to them, have been potentially poisoned by this stuff. And it is going to continue. And it's very difficult to get anyone to do anything about it.
So I whilst I have any. ability to raise the alarm, push people to try and do something about this, make sure that people's . Voices are
And, and then again, when you say, well, what's the kind of. baseline here? And you're told, well, we don't really have a baseline in Britain because we haven't got enough research. So it's the American baseline. You think, well, hang on, can we get the British one please? I'd like to know a bit. Once it becomes personal to you. You sort of want to know a bit more about it. So you can only imagine what it must be like for families like Steve's and Michael's and, you know, everyone else where it is incredibly personal.
And yet the lack of information about it is terrifying, you know? But also, I suppose to know that. communities in the area where I come from. Was sort of. chosen to have this stuff put near them. because they couldn't fight back because it would get hidden, it would be buried. I take as a as a personal affront. I mean, that I so, you know, I've been involved with this now for ten years since I first came across this story.
And, you know, I'm involved in a lot of different issues. And, and it all comes down to a basic thing, which is a basic unfairness. That's, that's what I respond to mainly. And I've never come across anything more unfair than this, that that communities. families .. Unbeknownst to them, have been potentially poisoned by this stuff. And it is going to continue. And it's very difficult to get anyone to do anything about it.
So I whilst I have any. ability to raise the alarm, push people to try and do something about this, make sure that people's . Voices are
10:34
10:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Lucy and Dan, I don't know if you've got anything else you wanted to add there. I think just to echo the the. importance and urgency of this, I think when you see that sort of lagoon as a really visible symbol, the lagoon in Cefn Mawr, which has an eight foot fence around it, and warning signs that you can't go into it, and yet it isn't legally. contaminated land. I think that really makes you question.
And the the fact that that's the visible sign. But there are so many more. invisible sites like this and they're affecting us all and they're affecting our waters. I think if if this chemical was slightly less insidious, I think if it glowed green and it smelled and you touched it and you keeled over within.
And the the fact that that's the visible sign. But there are so many more. invisible sites like this and they're affecting us all and they're affecting our waters. I think if if this chemical was slightly less insidious, I think if it glowed green and it smelled and you touched it and you keeled over within.
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
it's actually no less urgent. Yeah, I guess it's just helpful to just remember some of those vignettes that I still can't believe are true. You know, that we have officials who are paid to monitor our poison quota for all of us, that. Britain's resident population of killer whales will go extinct because of.
10:36
10:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That Lulu, the the killer whale had washed up on a shore, had so much PCBs in her that she had to be declared toxic waste. I mean, this is really dystopian stuff that's happening kind of on our watch. And think of these sites as. taps that are flowing to all of us. And Michael talked about unfairness, and there's an argument around geographic unfairness. There's also an argument about generational unfairness here.
I mean, the latest studies show that. PCBs and the forever. chemicals that are now in production, still. 14% of teenagers who are tested across European. countries showed they have levels in them that are harmful or potentially harmful to their health. So if we continue to do nothing, we are. potentially condemning or at least passing the buck to future generations. And I think what I see from the future generations is that they are desperate to know more.
They are really.
I mean, the latest studies show that. PCBs and the forever. chemicals that are now in production, still. 14% of teenagers who are tested across European. countries showed they have levels in them that are harmful or potentially harmful to their health. So if we continue to do nothing, we are. potentially condemning or at least passing the buck to future generations. And I think what I see from the future generations is that they are desperate to know more.
They are really.
10:36
10:36
10:36
Ruth Jones
-
-
Ruth Jones
And I think they're not being met with enough action. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much for coming before us this morning. I do want to thank you for your time. And it's such a vital issue. And obviously, this is part of a process for us in terms of our committee. We do hope that this session has gone some way to acknowledging the concerns that our. constituents have have raised with us, certainly as a local MP in Newport West, and I've had many letters since the programme.
So thank you for raising that.
So thank you for raising that.
10:37