---

Contaminated Brownfield Sites

I thank the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) for initiating this debate. It is timely, not least because if the Government's targets for house building are to be achieved, it will be necessary to use more brownfield sites. It is important that the guidance given by Government Departments is clear and deals with some of the complicated issues to which the hon. Member referred and which cause concern when sites are proposed for development. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) said, I am particularly concerned about that because a site in my constituency had the world's largest asbestos factory. Hon. Members may be aware that I had an Adjournment debate on the issue earlier this year. It is interesting that a Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was put up to answer at that time, but today we have a Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The ODPM, DEFRA and the Department for Work and Pensions, and four Government bodies—the local authority, the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the Health Protection Agency—are involved in dealing with sites of this nature. It is clear that there is a lack of co-ordination and guidance in dealing with sites as complex as the Spodden valley, and that considerably hinders development of them. We must be clear about the issues, to which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire referred. Like the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, I would like to discuss the effects on the Spodden valley. DEFRA has not yet issued clear guidance on safe levels of asbestos in the ground. As we speak, the rubble that he referred to is being moved from Rochdale through Heywood and Middleton to Bury. Unlike the first time rubble was moved, there has been a good deal of co-ordination between the Environment Agency and the HSE this time, but it has been voluntary. I am pleased to say that this time there has also been co-operation from the developer. The method statement that he produced has not been released. When I spoke to him, he said that he was willing for it to be released, but neither the HSE nor the local authority are prepared to release it. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 applies to Government agencies, but it seems not to apply in this case. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a great deal of concern about what is going on, given the past actions of the developer. If brownfield sites such as this one in Rochdale are to be developed safely, we need clear guidance from the relevant Departments. I understand that the Environment Agency has prepared guidance, but it is up to the ODPM and DEFRA to issue it. When one is dealing with a site as big as this one—as the hon. Gentleman said, up to 650 houses, a nursery and industrial premises are planned for it—the lack of guidance is extremely serious. Can we have some co-ordination between Departments? Guidance must be issued on safe levels of contamination and even on how levels of asbestos are to be tested on the site. Then there must be clear guidance on the stages of remediation. Such guidance is not given at present, and that causes great concern. No one has said that they do not wish the Spodden valley site to be developed. However, the development should be done carefully and with transparency, and that is not happening. As has been said, the local authority paid for the environmental impact statement in this case. The developer paid £2,500 to submit his planning application, yet the local authority will have spent £70,000 to carry out the survey. Clearly, the old maxim that the polluter pays does not apply in this case. I hope that the Minister will respond to some of these concerns so that not just the Spodden valley site but other sites can be developed safely. We all wish to see that.