---

Contaminated Brownfield Sites

: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) on his grasp of a complex subject. I understand the pressures on his constituents, which he ably articulated, and the problems identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) and the hon. Members for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and for Leominster (Bill Wiggin). I will try to deal with the issues raised. I welcome the general support that has been expressed for the Government's policy of utilising brownfield sites. Like the hon. Member for Cheadle, I think that it is important because it takes pressure off greenfield sites and releases land that is essential to housing development to meet the needs of communities in England. We have made good progress, having exceeded our target of 60 per cent. of new build on brownfield sites—the current figure is about 66 per cent. That will change as more and more houses come on stream, but it is welcome that those figures are being achieved. Tackling problems associated with brownfield sites is therefore important. Some perfectly reasonable points have been raised in the debate. It is always worth examining mechanisms that can be used to encourage developments on brownfield sites and a range of measures are available. It would be reasonable to develop a single permit for remediation to ensure that there is not undue bureaucracy in dealing with brownfield sites, particularly their remediation. I will try to deal with some of the detailed technical points that were raised. I disagree that there is confusion between Departments and a lack of clarity. Part of the problem is that local authorities, not unreasonably, want a simple system with a threshold figure over which there is contamination and under which there is not. That would be nice, but sadly the situation is a bit more complicated than that. The problem with having a single number above which action would be taken relates to the concentrations of any substance. We have been talking about benzo(a)pyrene—or BAP, which is an easy abbreviation and which I shall use from now on. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made the fair point, which the Government accept, that the substance is widespread, so the fact that the substance is being detected does not necessarily mean that the land is contaminated to an unacceptable degree. I understand why he asks what the unacceptable figure is, but that is the point at which things become quite complicated. That does not mean, however, that we should not examine the situation. The concentration of any substance that might give rise to unacceptable risk varies according to a range of factors and from site to site. Such factors include the exact form of the contaminant, the way in which the land is used—or is proposed to be used—the depth at which the substance is present, the nature of the soil, how the substance might get into the body and whether there is a pathway by which a source of harm might reach a vulnerable receptor and thereby cause harm. Each site must be examined individually and there must be a risk-based approach on each individual site. That is where the problem emerges. It is not appropriate to have one figure that can be applied to every contaminated or brownfield site in the country. There needs to be a more sophisticated approach than that. Guideline values are needed, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. They have to be devised for human health risk assessment. The present values are generic, whereas all the sites and their circumstances need to be considered. Soil guideline values are not binding; they are indicative—a tool to be used in assessments. Some local authorities fail to understand that, and it might be useful to try to make the guidance a bit clearer for them. The mere presence of contaminants does not mean that a risk—let alone an unacceptable risk—is present.