Welsh Affairs Committee
Wednesday 1st July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:30
14:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Attacks that were so high. If a child was to regularly eat 1 or 2 of them, they could become severely cognitively impaired. That was a sort of shooting gun for me that really got me interested in this. And as part of my reporting, I went down to Wales on a number of occasions and truly just knocked on people's doors and tried to get a sense and a feel as to whether or not the farmers or the people living in these parts of Wales, near old lead mines, which I found on maps had ever experienced anything like horses dying.
And it became very clear to me very quickly that, yes, actually, there were people who reported a number of things from animals dying to not being able to grow vegetables. And in the most severe case I found, I found a mother whose daughter's gums actually turned green. She went to the doctor and the doctor identified lead poisoning. And that really was the start of it. And this has been a very long story. I will stop here, but I was initially interested in why animals were dying.
And then it's moved considerably into looking at food. And then obviously the most important thing for me has been trying to understand the impact of this on people.
And it became very clear to me very quickly that, yes, actually, there were people who reported a number of things from animals dying to not being able to grow vegetables. And in the most severe case I found, I found a mother whose daughter's gums actually turned green. She went to the doctor and the doctor identified lead poisoning. And that really was the start of it. And this has been a very long story. I will stop here, but I was initially interested in why animals were dying.
And then it's moved considerably into looking at food. And then obviously the most important thing for me has been trying to understand the impact of this on people.
14:33
14:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Um, yes. Professor Macklin, uh, I've been studying this issue for, for more than 40 years. Um, looking across the law, I met Flora Laura, I think probably about 2 or 3 years ago. Um, she phoned me up just before I was going to New Zealand, uh, to do some research actually on mining. Um, and, uh, that's when the conversation began. But in terms of my own expertise and background, um, I've lived in karadagian, uh, for 36 years, on and off.
Um, uh, and my main area of research is looking at the way that legacy mining, historical mining impacts on the environment, particularly on river systems and on ecosystems and human health. And I suppose the, the major inflection point, um, that we've made, and it's not just me, um, there's been a large team that have been working on these problems for, for many, many years. The big inflection point we made probably 25 years ago was pointing out the fact that while mines themselves, um, as I understand, you visited with and Frongoch, and mine themselves constitute a point source, arguably the bigger problem in terms of contamination are the river channels and floodplains, which lie downstream and.
The reason for that was that. Um, well, the UK was the first industrial nation, um in the. 18th and 19th century we had no regulation as such, although the first royal commissions on pollution were done in mid-Wales. Uh, and done actually in Tyneside in the 1860s. And what we've been doing specifically over the last 25 years, um, are sometimes struggling, um, with a slightly wry smile to prevent the regulators that this was, is important is illustrating the fact that it's a two part problem.
It's the mining themselves, but actually it's the channels and floodplains downstream where people live, where they grow. Um, their crops, um, where they've got their allotments, um, where they've got their grazing chickens and they've contaminated eggs. Um, and just one other point related to that, um, there is a strong climate change flooding related issue because um the, the channels and floodplains are in some cases the contaminants can be up to a metre and a half thick. Extends in the case of where you visited in Aberystwyth from cwmystwyth down to the sea.
So of course of 30 miles. So the whole of this is contaminated as a consequence of more frequent floods. Um the contaminants seems like lead are um the original forever chemical and the neurotoxin. Um they reside in soils and sediments effectively forever. And as a consequence of more frequent flooding, um, channel banks are being eroded that material is reintroduced into the channel. It's moved then downstream and contamination occurred. And we saw that just to end on this, this thought, we saw that in the 20 12th June floods in Ceredigion.
As a consequence of that, um as. You may be aware of, there was a significant number of cattle deaths, um, as a consequence of the animals inadvertently being fed contaminated silage. So um yes, I'm in it for the long haul. Um, there's a biblical saying which I'm sure I'm gonna get wrong. You know, no one is a prophet in their own land. Um, our work is used worldwide. We work in South America, in Eastern Europe.
Um, but in terms and they use our methodology. Um, but in terms of Wales and the UK specifically, although we've drafted a lot of the policy documentation, we haven't got this over the line quite yet. Uh, in terms of, of our risk maps that we've developed.
Um, uh, and my main area of research is looking at the way that legacy mining, historical mining impacts on the environment, particularly on river systems and on ecosystems and human health. And I suppose the, the major inflection point, um, that we've made, and it's not just me, um, there's been a large team that have been working on these problems for, for many, many years. The big inflection point we made probably 25 years ago was pointing out the fact that while mines themselves, um, as I understand, you visited with and Frongoch, and mine themselves constitute a point source, arguably the bigger problem in terms of contamination are the river channels and floodplains, which lie downstream and.
The reason for that was that. Um, well, the UK was the first industrial nation, um in the. 18th and 19th century we had no regulation as such, although the first royal commissions on pollution were done in mid-Wales. Uh, and done actually in Tyneside in the 1860s. And what we've been doing specifically over the last 25 years, um, are sometimes struggling, um, with a slightly wry smile to prevent the regulators that this was, is important is illustrating the fact that it's a two part problem.
It's the mining themselves, but actually it's the channels and floodplains downstream where people live, where they grow. Um, their crops, um, where they've got their allotments, um, where they've got their grazing chickens and they've contaminated eggs. Um, and just one other point related to that, um, there is a strong climate change flooding related issue because um the, the channels and floodplains are in some cases the contaminants can be up to a metre and a half thick. Extends in the case of where you visited in Aberystwyth from cwmystwyth down to the sea.
So of course of 30 miles. So the whole of this is contaminated as a consequence of more frequent floods. Um the contaminants seems like lead are um the original forever chemical and the neurotoxin. Um they reside in soils and sediments effectively forever. And as a consequence of more frequent flooding, um, channel banks are being eroded that material is reintroduced into the channel. It's moved then downstream and contamination occurred. And we saw that just to end on this, this thought, we saw that in the 20 12th June floods in Ceredigion.
As a consequence of that, um as. You may be aware of, there was a significant number of cattle deaths, um, as a consequence of the animals inadvertently being fed contaminated silage. So um yes, I'm in it for the long haul. Um, there's a biblical saying which I'm sure I'm gonna get wrong. You know, no one is a prophet in their own land. Um, our work is used worldwide. We work in South America, in Eastern Europe.
Um, but in terms and they use our methodology. Um, but in terms of Wales and the UK specifically, although we've drafted a lot of the policy documentation, we haven't got this over the line quite yet. Uh, in terms of, of our risk maps that we've developed.
14:38
14:38
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Remediation Authority on, on, on Monday and um. You know, they have and they are working towards dealing with this, but of course it's a long, it's a long process in order to even begin to try and tackle this. Um, but, you know, but would you like to both of you are here today and bringing your expertise here in front of us, but from your research, um, and you mentioned when Laura, especially about the potential health risks associated from the metal mine pollution, such as lead poisoning. So can you, can you elaborate a little bit on that first and then I'll ask professor McNally to come in as well?
14:38
14:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The first thing to say about lead and why it is so dangerous is that the World Health Organisation now agree there is no level of exposure to lead lead in our bodies. That is without harm to any level you have is not okay. The reason that is so awful is it contributes to a number of health problems. It has a devastating effect on nearly every organ of the body. Once you're exposed, it tends to be it's absorbed and stored in the bones and in teeth, and the cumulative effects can lead to things like heart disease, heart problems, kidney issues, infertility, miscarriage.
Children are the most vulnerable to lead exposure because their bodies absorb it more than adults do, and in children, it can lead to reductions in IQ, and it can lead to behavioral problems among another, another serious health issues. And that that is why I became when I read up on it, so absolutely fascinated and sort of obsessed with this topic and in terms of how how this particular issue affects human health, there are a number of routes that I think I have identified in my reporting that could be exposing people in Wales and the rest of the UK to lead.
So there's the soil issue, which could affect vegetables that are being grown, animals that are being reared on that soil, but also children. The way they explore the world. There's a lot of hand to mouth activity. That is another big risk. And actually, in some of the families I spoke to, one child who did have lead poisoning, that was the source of of their lead poisoning was putting soil in their mouth. And then there are people who are living in really rural bits of Wales who have private drinking water sources.
And again, that can be contaminated by the environment. And through my reporting, I have found people who have had lead levels in their water that were 300 times the legal limit. Um, and that's another contributing factor. And I guess my concern as well is that there might be hotspots where you have a number of sources of lead exposure. So it might be the, the food that you're consuming. If you're a farmer eating the offal from your produce, the eggs, which we can get into later, maybe, but that's another source.
And one of the reasons for that I found was people were using the spoil from the old lead mine tips as gravel on their driveways because it stopped weeds growing. But then your chickens and your animals are grazing on this. And that is how it's getting into their food system. So there's also the issue of, um, the spoil and the dust that's created. So again, I spoke to families who would let their children ride their bikes over the spoil tips. People who are living very near them downstream.
And again, when the wind gets everything moving, it can, it can come into your house. So you could be exposed that way. Um, I think those are the main those are the main sources.
Children are the most vulnerable to lead exposure because their bodies absorb it more than adults do, and in children, it can lead to reductions in IQ, and it can lead to behavioral problems among another, another serious health issues. And that that is why I became when I read up on it, so absolutely fascinated and sort of obsessed with this topic and in terms of how how this particular issue affects human health, there are a number of routes that I think I have identified in my reporting that could be exposing people in Wales and the rest of the UK to lead.
So there's the soil issue, which could affect vegetables that are being grown, animals that are being reared on that soil, but also children. The way they explore the world. There's a lot of hand to mouth activity. That is another big risk. And actually, in some of the families I spoke to, one child who did have lead poisoning, that was the source of of their lead poisoning was putting soil in their mouth. And then there are people who are living in really rural bits of Wales who have private drinking water sources.
And again, that can be contaminated by the environment. And through my reporting, I have found people who have had lead levels in their water that were 300 times the legal limit. Um, and that's another contributing factor. And I guess my concern as well is that there might be hotspots where you have a number of sources of lead exposure. So it might be the, the food that you're consuming. If you're a farmer eating the offal from your produce, the eggs, which we can get into later, maybe, but that's another source.
And one of the reasons for that I found was people were using the spoil from the old lead mine tips as gravel on their driveways because it stopped weeds growing. But then your chickens and your animals are grazing on this. And that is how it's getting into their food system. So there's also the issue of, um, the spoil and the dust that's created. So again, I spoke to families who would let their children ride their bikes over the spoil tips. People who are living very near them downstream.
And again, when the wind gets everything moving, it can, it can come into your house. So you could be exposed that way. Um, I think those are the main those are the main sources.
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:42
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Probably in terms of just underscoring the. The scale of the issue. Um, uh, I think I've shared the, the paper not in confidence as a document. I, I have given you in confidence a paper we're just about to submit. I mean, we estimate that something like 140km² of Wales floodplains. So that's 14,000 rugby pitches. Um I. Laminated. So it's the scale is very important. Um it's dynamic because obviously the sediment soils are being remobilized partly by, by, by wind erosion but mostly by flooding.
Um and obviously there is a great pressure, uh, particularly in Wales in terms of food security, in terms of new housing, etc.. And, um, unfortunately, uh, this issue hasn't been taken into consideration, even though we're probably going to discuss this, even though we do have, um, and I can outline in some detail some new flood risk mapping technologies and modelling technologies, which give a resolution down to about 50m of showing where the likely contamination is going to be and how we can actually manage it. Remediation is not, it's possible to remediate a mine site to some degree to turn off the tap, but it's very difficult indeed, uh, to remediate floodplain and soil contamination.
It's a different issue. Again, it's a two part problem. That's good. Thank you professor. Thank you. Turn to your.
Um and obviously there is a great pressure, uh, particularly in Wales in terms of food security, in terms of new housing, etc.. And, um, unfortunately, uh, this issue hasn't been taken into consideration, even though we're probably going to discuss this, even though we do have, um, and I can outline in some detail some new flood risk mapping technologies and modelling technologies, which give a resolution down to about 50m of showing where the likely contamination is going to be and how we can actually manage it. Remediation is not, it's possible to remediate a mine site to some degree to turn off the tap, but it's very difficult indeed, uh, to remediate floodplain and soil contamination.
It's a different issue. Again, it's a two part problem. That's good. Thank you professor. Thank you. Turn to your.
14:44
14:44
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Sure. Um, the first stage is to know whether your soil is contaminated or not. And that is really the biggest challenge. There is. No we will be able to provide it. Um, there is currently no systematic data available for that. So if the soil was demonstrated to be contaminated, as you know, there are various thresholds, uh, in terms of contamination. So say for instance, um, you were using your soil for um, to grow in your own vegetables.
Uh, you wouldn't want, lead concentrations to be much above 200 ppm. So certainly not much above 300 ppm. If you did discover that it was contamination, um, the, the simplest thing is to remove you remove yourself from that exposure. Um, is obviously to not grow vegetables, um, you know, to be careful in terms of your children, in my case now my grandchildren are dealing with dealing with these things. Um, if you want to, and I would encourage people, um, my wife is a very keen gardener.
Um, uh, to build raised beds, um, to import your soil, um, and have it, have it tested. So this is not a way of blighting these communities or landscapes in any shape or form. This is really providing information which allows it to, to manage it in a, in a grown up way, which we're really not doing now. So yes, there are, there are in straightforward sense, there are ways once we know there is contamination issue, um, there are straightforward ways, not so much remediation, but actually managing, uh, the problem.
Uh, you wouldn't want, lead concentrations to be much above 200 ppm. So certainly not much above 300 ppm. If you did discover that it was contamination, um, the, the simplest thing is to remove you remove yourself from that exposure. Um, is obviously to not grow vegetables, um, you know, to be careful in terms of your children, in my case now my grandchildren are dealing with dealing with these things. Um, if you want to, and I would encourage people, um, my wife is a very keen gardener.
Um, uh, to build raised beds, um, to import your soil, um, and have it, have it tested. So this is not a way of blighting these communities or landscapes in any shape or form. This is really providing information which allows it to, to manage it in a, in a grown up way, which we're really not doing now. So yes, there are, there are in straightforward sense, there are ways once we know there is contamination issue, um, there are straightforward ways, not so much remediation, but actually managing, uh, the problem.
14:46
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Well, that leads me on to my next point, because the thing that stood out for me though, is when you said, you know, the best thing to do is to remove yourself from that exposure. Yes. So obviously, you know, the best mitigations would be ones that wouldn't impact too much on, uh, on members of communities being able to enjoy their gardens, their homes. Absolutely. Um, so, you know, would it be fair to say that, um, all the, you know, the most appropriate mitigations other than obviously removing yourself from the exposure, uh, are ones that would prohibit people from enjoying, uh, gardens and homes in the area where they live.
14:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Absolutely not. I mean, I still play football twice a week. Um, uh, it's very important that people you, you know, use, uh, their outside space. Um, I think there's probably more of an issue and we may come on to this in terms of, let's say, the farming community. Um, and one of the, the big issues, uh, and this was, came, uh, it was brought into, um, strike contrast in terms of the 2012 floods. Um. Again, those problems can be managed because what we've recommended and the 2012 floods were not very unusual in Ceredigion, but um, as I said, I've been doing this for 40 years.
Uh, and uh, the original, one of the original studies we did was in Swaledale in 1986 following the hurricane. Charley. Um, in the millennium floods of 2000, uh, in the Yorkshire and the Yorkshire Dales and parts of, um, those areas. And the key recommendations that we gave to, to the farmers at the time. But there was pushback, um, was to take their animals off of the land. Um, we live in a smallholding. Um, we, we, we, we know how to deal with these things, so to speak.
Um, and, uh, remove your animals, make sure that you don't cut silage. Uh, and inadvertently feed the contaminated silage to your, to, to your livestock. And as Laura started at the beginning with, with her introduction, um, it was contaminated, not so much. Um, the vegetation, it's the soil animals. Um, I won't do sort of, a sort of cartoon movements with my hand, but animals, particularly sheep for example, actually eat quite a lot of soil. Um, particularly when the grass is quite short.
So it's actually the soil rather than the foliage, which is the main, very often the main source of contamination. So a long winded answer to your question, but yes, we can, we can have raised beds in terms of our households and farmers. We after a major flood, we can say take your animals off that flooded land. Don't feed them, don't cut silage. So there are very practical ways we can still absolutely enjoy the landscape. Um, as uh. As I mentioned, I've lived in Ceredigion for on and off for 36 years.
And, uh, I want to continue enjoying it, but in a, in a way that understands that the nature of the risks and those, those risks are localised. Um, but, um, the public policymakers yourselves, um, need to be aware of where those risks are located so we can appropriately manage them.
Uh, and uh, the original, one of the original studies we did was in Swaledale in 1986 following the hurricane. Charley. Um, in the millennium floods of 2000, uh, in the Yorkshire and the Yorkshire Dales and parts of, um, those areas. And the key recommendations that we gave to, to the farmers at the time. But there was pushback, um, was to take their animals off of the land. Um, we live in a smallholding. Um, we, we, we, we know how to deal with these things, so to speak.
Um, and, uh, remove your animals, make sure that you don't cut silage. Uh, and inadvertently feed the contaminated silage to your, to, to your livestock. And as Laura started at the beginning with, with her introduction, um, it was contaminated, not so much. Um, the vegetation, it's the soil animals. Um, I won't do sort of, a sort of cartoon movements with my hand, but animals, particularly sheep for example, actually eat quite a lot of soil. Um, particularly when the grass is quite short.
So it's actually the soil rather than the foliage, which is the main, very often the main source of contamination. So a long winded answer to your question, but yes, we can, we can have raised beds in terms of our households and farmers. We after a major flood, we can say take your animals off that flooded land. Don't feed them, don't cut silage. So there are very practical ways we can still absolutely enjoy the landscape. Um, as uh. As I mentioned, I've lived in Ceredigion for on and off for 36 years.
And, uh, I want to continue enjoying it, but in a, in a way that understands that the nature of the risks and those, those risks are localised. Um, but, um, the public policymakers yourselves, um, need to be aware of where those risks are located so we can appropriately manage them.
14:49
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And that leads me on to my final question on this point. If I may, um, how can we, uh, when I say we, I mean your MPs, this committee expert stakeholders like yourselves, you know, uh, how can we support the communities that are suffering from contaminated land, uh, to have the adjustments?Um, you know, to, to, to absolutely minimise and ideally eradicate altogether, uh, any impact it may have on quality of life.
14:49
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I think the first step is to have an understanding of what the nature of the hazard and the risks are. Uh, the second step is to produce, and we're in a position to do this. Um, risk maps exactly the same as you had flood risk maps. Um, there's no difference with these things. So people can understand the nature of the risk. So it's not hearsay that there's a problem. Um proper testing. For the cost of around about 25, 300 £0 each local authority could have um a lot of racemic working.
Looks like something out of Star Trek. It's an XRF gun, um, which allows you to do very rapid on site measurements and uh, instantaneously in some cases within 30s, you can have a heads up of whether there was a problem. So there's lots of very straightforward things that we can do. Um, and we probably should have done them sooner than later.
Looks like something out of Star Trek. It's an XRF gun, um, which allows you to do very rapid on site measurements and uh, instantaneously in some cases within 30s, you can have a heads up of whether there was a problem. So there's lots of very straightforward things that we can do. Um, and we probably should have done them sooner than later.
14:50
14:51
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you chair, and good afternoon both. Um, this question is sort of following on from, from that really, um, I want to ask both of you. Both of you excuse me, both of you. I'll start with Laura. Um, um, of the communities that you've spoken to in the last year, um do you think they have received sufficient information to help them understand where the contaminated land is or may or may be?
14:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
No. Um. And something that's been really shocking for me, I've mentioned earlier the spoil tips as an example. So I've driven up to them. I've seen them, they're completely exposed. There is no sign saying this is potentially toxic. So the fact that parents are allowing their children to cycle over them, which could be really dangerous, was quite shocking to me. Um, there's, there's no information. I'm sure we're going to get on to solutions, but it's not as if when you buy a property, the disclosure of sources of lead is, is in the home survey.
So you go into a situation with absolutely no idea. And I've come across families who, for example, couldn't grow vegetables, couldn't understand why got their soil privately tested, found extraordinarily high levels of lead. They sold their house and they moved on. But there is there is no information sharing. Most of the people that I spoke to knew that they knew the lead mines were there, but it was part of their history. They were celebrated. People walk all over them.
They run through them. I don't think anyone really, very few people actually knew of the potential health risks. And I did find some farmers who were not thrilled to talk to me, who I think did did know, but were not really doing anything about it, which, for reasons I do understand. Um, but no, there's no leaflet through your door. And as a result, hearsay spread. So some people said to me, oh yes, when we moved in, we were told not to grow rhubarb because apparently rhubarb absorbs lead.
And that's not, that's not true. So the lack of information means false narratives are spread and people do not have the information to know. Take your shoes off, wash your vegetables, use raised beds, rotate your animals in fields. And yeah, I mean just a total and complete and utter lack. And actually something else interesting is which I would flag, is that a lot of local GPS don't know anything about this, and that's something else I would really want to drive home is if doctors living in these areas knew that their patients were living on potentially contaminated soil and contaminated houses.
It just enables you to start thinking a little bit differently. If a child presents with anaemia, is struggling to sleep, has stomach problems, do a lead test. And because no one's testing anything, no one really knows anything.
So you go into a situation with absolutely no idea. And I've come across families who, for example, couldn't grow vegetables, couldn't understand why got their soil privately tested, found extraordinarily high levels of lead. They sold their house and they moved on. But there is there is no information sharing. Most of the people that I spoke to knew that they knew the lead mines were there, but it was part of their history. They were celebrated. People walk all over them.
They run through them. I don't think anyone really, very few people actually knew of the potential health risks. And I did find some farmers who were not thrilled to talk to me, who I think did did know, but were not really doing anything about it, which, for reasons I do understand. Um, but no, there's no leaflet through your door. And as a result, hearsay spread. So some people said to me, oh yes, when we moved in, we were told not to grow rhubarb because apparently rhubarb absorbs lead.
And that's not, that's not true. So the lack of information means false narratives are spread and people do not have the information to know. Take your shoes off, wash your vegetables, use raised beds, rotate your animals in fields. And yeah, I mean just a total and complete and utter lack. And actually something else interesting is which I would flag, is that a lot of local GPS don't know anything about this, and that's something else I would really want to drive home is if doctors living in these areas knew that their patients were living on potentially contaminated soil and contaminated houses.
It just enables you to start thinking a little bit differently. If a child presents with anaemia, is struggling to sleep, has stomach problems, do a lead test. And because no one's testing anything, no one really knows anything.
14:54
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
That's interesting. I was quite interested in your point on signs at the start of your answer there, because on the trip on Monday, we were talking to various people from the Remediation Authority, and I'll talk to you about signs going on, on, on spoil that I wasn't. And I will say that wrong, but yeah. Um, and yeah, we were interested. There were no signs at all, but there was a, there was a, you know, um caution about having signs in case of it created perhaps, um, you know, too much worry if, if, if there can be such a thing as too much worry, you know, because people, um, you know, in import lots of different meanings onto that don't they, and as well, but I'm taking it for your answer.
You think there should be more signs?
You think there should be more signs?
14:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. And I understand there is this constant balance between not wanting to terrify everyone, but giving them information. But the, the approach so far has been just don't mention, just don't mention it. Don't talk about it. You're going to freak people out. Parents aren't going to want to buy that house because they don't want their kids playing in the garden. It doesn't have to be that way. And other countries have different ways of dealing with this.
And there is no need for panic. And of course, my journalism is is a little bit sensational. But I think unless you do slightly put a little bit of fear into people, nothing, nothing will happen. And the reason I care so deeply about this subject is that I have spoken to parents whose children have become very, very sick. And it is my belief that because we don't screen anyone for their lead levels, that there will be many people out there who are not reaching their full potential, who are suffering health wise as a consequence of something that we have just completely decided to bury our heads over.
And there is no need for panic. And of course, my journalism is is a little bit sensational. But I think unless you do slightly put a little bit of fear into people, nothing, nothing will happen. And the reason I care so deeply about this subject is that I have spoken to parents whose children have become very, very sick. And it is my belief that because we don't screen anyone for their lead levels, that there will be many people out there who are not reaching their full potential, who are suffering health wise as a consequence of something that we have just completely decided to bury our heads over.
14:56
14:56
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I think the only thing I would add is if you went to Miss Smith and Frongoch. Uh, and you look at the, the the new visitor boards that come with, uh. I'm very interested in archaeology and etc.. Um, it's very pretty, very informative board, but it says nothing in terms of the damage it did to the miners themselves, which was absolutely horrific. It says nothing at all in terms of damage that was done to the environment. So it's a little bit perverse.
But with that being, um, to joke about this, uh, as Laura was saying, it's about information. Um, it's about understanding what the processes are. And if it was a very difficult problem to resolve, um, highly complex, lots of moving parts, then I think it would be reasonable to say, you know, we need to do a lot more. This is this is intractable to some degree, but actually it's a very straightforward problem. And I think that's been the frustration. Uh, and it's not something we haven't been aware of.
Um, it's something that we have been very aware of, uh, Defra in RW the local authorities, um, in all the. Years I worked in the UK, in the North east, in the Dales, in Ceredigion, all of the authorities, all of the regulators have known there's been a problem. But the focus to repeat myself has been on just on the mines, which can be important. But it's it's the channels and floodplains downstream where people live. And the notion that, uh, that these could be contaminated despite, um, a 35 or 40 years worth of research with.
Um, highly cited papers in science, which I think where Laura picked up back in 2023, we showed it was a global issue. Um, seems a little perverse.
But with that being, um, to joke about this, uh, as Laura was saying, it's about information. Um, it's about understanding what the processes are. And if it was a very difficult problem to resolve, um, highly complex, lots of moving parts, then I think it would be reasonable to say, you know, we need to do a lot more. This is this is intractable to some degree, but actually it's a very straightforward problem. And I think that's been the frustration. Uh, and it's not something we haven't been aware of.
Um, it's something that we have been very aware of, uh, Defra in RW the local authorities, um, in all the. Years I worked in the UK, in the North east, in the Dales, in Ceredigion, all of the authorities, all of the regulators have known there's been a problem. But the focus to repeat myself has been on just on the mines, which can be important. But it's it's the channels and floodplains downstream where people live. And the notion that, uh, that these could be contaminated despite, um, a 35 or 40 years worth of research with.
Um, highly cited papers in science, which I think where Laura picked up back in 2023, we showed it was a global issue. Um, seems a little perverse.
14:58
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
If I could add as well. Such an easy fix to so many people I have spoken to whose drinking water was contaminated because their water came from a private bore in their garden. If they had known. And get a water filter, you can get yourself connected to the mains. That's such a simple fix and I have I have gone to people's houses and they got in touch with me to say, oh, I read your, I read your piece and actually thought, oh, I have a private drinking water source.
They got it tested really high levels of lead. They got themselves tested really high levels of lead. Since installing filters, their lead levels have gone down and they're able to read a book. Again, this is these are genuinely real people's lives. This is you know, it's something you add to a home survey and it tells you you need to get your water tested. It's not that complicated.
They got it tested really high levels of lead. They got themselves tested really high levels of lead. Since installing filters, their lead levels have gone down and they're able to read a book. Again, this is these are genuinely real people's lives. This is you know, it's something you add to a home survey and it tells you you need to get your water tested. It's not that complicated.
14:59
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
So I'm guessing from your answers that actually you don't think the of the communities you visited that they've received sufficient support to mitigate the risks of metal pollution, metal mine pollution?Were there any examples where sufficient support has been put in place at all that you can, you could, you could point.
14:59
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
To I can give one example, and it is the document that is confidential that you, you, you have sight of. Um we've been working with a and. Ben has been been part of that. It's been fantastic in terms of supporting, um, I'm not going to name names because that's, that's not appropriate, but we're talking about this generically. A village, um, which was significantly impacted in the 2012 floods. Um, uh, we knew on the basis of the work we did on that published in 2014, um, that there was significant contamination of that area from flooding.
And, um, I've kept in contact with that group. And um, after the last meeting that we had, that was it May 2024. Um, and the lack of progress, not from yourselves. Um, although the general election didn't particularly help. But anyway, that's the way these things go. Um, uh, we decided to actually work with this community. Um, my colleague, um, Professor Paul Brewer at Aberystwyth University and we decided ourselves to do our own, um, uh, citizen science in effect.
Um, and we went to the community. Um, we worked with local councillors. Um, we worked with, with, with local local people and um they have been primed to some degree because obviously I had had a major project funded by Merck, um, ten years before looking at the flooding and contamination issues. And we asked them whether they would like to be involved with this. Um, and over a period of about a year or so, um, they collected soil samples. Um, they were brought to us.
Um, they were tested. Unfortunately. Um, 80% of the samples that were collected were found to be significantly contaminated. So, um, this was a strong validation of the map and the modelling work that we were doing. So that was good news, but not, not great news in terms of things. Um, we had long discussions, uh, with their leaders, so to speak, and with local councillors. Um, we did a, a community meeting and Ben, uh, came along and listened to it.
And um, that was a very positive meeting. We provided in obviously a very private thing. Uh, we provided information. I think I've shared the, the presentation with the committee, um, of how we fed back data. Um, it was done very carefully. Uh, we took supplementary questions and, uh, we were there to give advice in terms of what needs to be done. Uh, and, um, we did that in our own time. Because we know it's important and because the other thing that I've said to you is the, um, the methodology and some of the validation from mapping and modelling technologies, which we're going to submit for publication probably probably next week.
Um, we really wanted to. Convince ourselves, so to speak, that we had got the technology right. And although it was disappointing, um, of the number of, uh, gardens and soils that were contaminated and actually the levels were quite shocking as well, we felt, yes, we have done the right thing. We can actually provide a way forward, a sensible way forward of dealing with the issue. And Ben, you might have a reflections on, um, on that meeting or, or not.
And, um, I've kept in contact with that group. And um, after the last meeting that we had, that was it May 2024. Um, and the lack of progress, not from yourselves. Um, although the general election didn't particularly help. But anyway, that's the way these things go. Um, uh, we decided to actually work with this community. Um, my colleague, um, Professor Paul Brewer at Aberystwyth University and we decided ourselves to do our own, um, uh, citizen science in effect.
Um, and we went to the community. Um, we worked with local councillors. Um, we worked with, with, with local local people and um they have been primed to some degree because obviously I had had a major project funded by Merck, um, ten years before looking at the flooding and contamination issues. And we asked them whether they would like to be involved with this. Um, and over a period of about a year or so, um, they collected soil samples. Um, they were brought to us.
Um, they were tested. Unfortunately. Um, 80% of the samples that were collected were found to be significantly contaminated. So, um, this was a strong validation of the map and the modelling work that we were doing. So that was good news, but not, not great news in terms of things. Um, we had long discussions, uh, with their leaders, so to speak, and with local councillors. Um, we did a, a community meeting and Ben, uh, came along and listened to it.
And um, that was a very positive meeting. We provided in obviously a very private thing. Uh, we provided information. I think I've shared the, the presentation with the committee, um, of how we fed back data. Um, it was done very carefully. Uh, we took supplementary questions and, uh, we were there to give advice in terms of what needs to be done. Uh, and, um, we did that in our own time. Because we know it's important and because the other thing that I've said to you is the, um, the methodology and some of the validation from mapping and modelling technologies, which we're going to submit for publication probably probably next week.
Um, we really wanted to. Convince ourselves, so to speak, that we had got the technology right. And although it was disappointing, um, of the number of, uh, gardens and soils that were contaminated and actually the levels were quite shocking as well, we felt, yes, we have done the right thing. We can actually provide a way forward, a sensible way forward of dealing with the issue. And Ben, you might have a reflections on, um, on that meeting or, or not.
15:03
15:03
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Um, I suppose on Monday during our visit, um the MRA and NRW were very keen to show us what science and testing they've been doing. And you know, quite rightly they have been doing it, but I'm just, you know, your your citizen testing if you like. Um, is, is something is doing the same testing if you like, but a different group of people are getting the results. So I suppose my question is, um, is there a gap?Do you feel there is, I won't say withheld evidence, but do you feel there is a gap between the the corporate bodies, you know, that are doing the testing, say, in waterways?Because we know I mean, we know there's no fish, there must be a problem, you know, those sorts of issues.
But is there is there an issue there that there's there's not exactly joined up thinking?Yeah, absolutely.
But is there is there an issue there that there's there's not exactly joined up thinking?Yeah, absolutely.
15:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I mean, there isn't joined up thinking. I mean, I'm a scientist. I'm what's called a fluvial geomorphologist. Um, the way that rivers shape landscapes, you need what's called. And we've been advocating this for many years, catchment thinking you need to look at this in, in the round different space, different time scales. But um I think the, the other um. Body, which we probably need to talk about as well as the local authorities because obviously in terms of the, the mine themselves, um, they're, their orphaned, is that the phrase that is used that no one owns them anymore, but we've got to deal with the pollution legacy.
And usually that's the responsibility of the regulatory authorities, which is I w and in Wales case and the Coal Board in terms of contaminated land, we move into the realm of local authorities. And um, again, uh, after the 2012 floods, uh, we did try to engage, um, probably things have moved on because we're about 15 years in further on, but um, um, they were slow to engage with us at best. So I think they need to be brought into the realm to do the, from a regulatory perspective, um, because at the end of the, the presentation we did to this particular village, um, uh, obviously myself and my colleague were there in a, uh, we're now both retired in a private capacity.
We're there, we're there as Ceredigion citizens. Um, and, um, as academics, uh, we wanted to help, but it was done in a very careful way. Um, and we, we did very, we rehearsed the issues, but what we were left with was that ultimately we could feel the questions from, uh, local landowners, but ultimately, ultimately it was the local authorities, um, that need to be fully involved in this process. And if I can remember correctly, one of the frustrations not with us at this meeting, but the frustrations.
And it wasn't really with Ben either. It was frustrations in terms of the local authorities have said, well, shouldn't they have known about this?Well, yes, they should have known about it. Well, why haven't they done anything about this?Well, because they they really haven't adopted the methodologies that we've developed, which are used in many parts of the world but are not used in, in, in Wales or the UK. So I think there needs to be. And we'll come on to this towards the end of what we perhaps need to do.
Together in a in a room at a high level and just talk it through, join it up. Um, this is not done in a confrontational way. We, you know, I, I've got skin in the game because I live there. Um, and, um, I think it's as Laura's saying a lot of the, problems are relatively straightforward to deal with, but it's joining them up, as you suggested, Ruth at the beginning and having the information. And we do have the information, uh, and, um, I think it's time, as I said before, to, to nudge it across the line, so to speak.
Sort things out.
And usually that's the responsibility of the regulatory authorities, which is I w and in Wales case and the Coal Board in terms of contaminated land, we move into the realm of local authorities. And um, again, uh, after the 2012 floods, uh, we did try to engage, um, probably things have moved on because we're about 15 years in further on, but um, um, they were slow to engage with us at best. So I think they need to be brought into the realm to do the, from a regulatory perspective, um, because at the end of the, the presentation we did to this particular village, um, uh, obviously myself and my colleague were there in a, uh, we're now both retired in a private capacity.
We're there, we're there as Ceredigion citizens. Um, and, um, as academics, uh, we wanted to help, but it was done in a very careful way. Um, and we, we did very, we rehearsed the issues, but what we were left with was that ultimately we could feel the questions from, uh, local landowners, but ultimately, ultimately it was the local authorities, um, that need to be fully involved in this process. And if I can remember correctly, one of the frustrations not with us at this meeting, but the frustrations.
And it wasn't really with Ben either. It was frustrations in terms of the local authorities have said, well, shouldn't they have known about this?Well, yes, they should have known about it. Well, why haven't they done anything about this?Well, because they they really haven't adopted the methodologies that we've developed, which are used in many parts of the world but are not used in, in, in Wales or the UK. So I think there needs to be. And we'll come on to this towards the end of what we perhaps need to do.
Together in a in a room at a high level and just talk it through, join it up. Um, this is not done in a confrontational way. We, you know, I, I've got skin in the game because I live there. Um, and, um, I think it's as Laura's saying a lot of the, problems are relatively straightforward to deal with, but it's joining them up, as you suggested, Ruth at the beginning and having the information. And we do have the information, uh, and, um, I think it's time, as I said before, to, to nudge it across the line, so to speak.
Sort things out.
15:06
15:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, exactly. There's just a everyone is operating in silos. So all the regulators say, well, we're testing, we're testing the water because that's what they're responsible for. But they are missing the fact that they're not testing the land. And that's what we're saying is it's the land that is impacting on people's health. This is the problem. And no one seems to be telling the local authorities, right. You have this number of old lead mines in your in your area.
These are the this is the estimated area of contamination. Therefore. And here are the tools. Here's the XRF gun. Here are the farms you should be testing here. Here are the people you should be telling. No one's exchanging information. No one's talking to GPS. What are they finding?What are they seeing?What should they be testing for the. The biggest frustration with this story is I would be following something very specific.
So let's just take those eggs in the academic report. And everyone just everyone just kept passing me round to the other authority. No one is. No one is seemingly responsible. So it's just slipping under the under the carpet.
These are the this is the estimated area of contamination. Therefore. And here are the tools. Here's the XRF gun. Here are the farms you should be testing here. Here are the people you should be telling. No one's exchanging information. No one's talking to GPS. What are they finding?What are they seeing?What should they be testing for the. The biggest frustration with this story is I would be following something very specific.
So let's just take those eggs in the academic report. And everyone just everyone just kept passing me round to the other authority. No one is. No one is seemingly responsible. So it's just slipping under the under the carpet.
15:09
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And we do. Sorry, just to follow on from, I mean, um, in terms of the, the, the, the paper draft I've shared with you, I mean, you know, um, I've written down here. Uh, 1700km, not 500km an hour, as we say, in terms of river contaminated by lead. So there's a not quite a magnitude, but significant difference. Um, uh, the regulators just focus on the mines. There's 140km², as I mentioned, 14,000 rugby pitches, uh, of contaminated land. So and we know where it is.
There are 24 affected catchments. Um, I could go through them one by one. Uh, so we have this information at our fingertips. We need to actually change, transfer it into a risk management system. Um, pretty quickly.
There are 24 affected catchments. Um, I could go through them one by one. Uh, so we have this information at our fingertips. We need to actually change, transfer it into a risk management system. Um, pretty quickly.
15:10
15:10
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. Thank you, chair professor. So, uh, Natural Resources Wales, uh, mining Remediation Authority, local and local authorities, uh, they all have a role to play when it comes to contaminated land. Um, the focus today is on metal mines in my constituency. It's, uh, it's forever chemicals. Uh, we had a very big chemical plant, 143 years to 2010. Um, do. You think that NSW Mining Remediation Authority LAS are sufficiently resourced to be able to do their jobs in relation to contaminated land?Because I must say, I'm incredibly skeptical based on based on my own work in this area, but I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts.
15:11
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah. It's um, everyone needs more money. Uh, and that's a slightly cheeky answer, but that's obviously not the case. But again, um, thank you for asking that question because I can give you a little bit of specifics in terms of the, the costs of these things. Um, I did a little bit of digging, as I'm sure many of you have had in terms. I'll just focus on the, um, legacy. Legacy mining issue. Um, uh, as far as I can see, uh, since I think 2020.
Anyway, of, I think in terms of capital expenditure, there's about £4.5 million. Um, and that's partly contributed to the cleanup at Frongoch. And I think it will go towards commitment as well. I think there's something like 230 large mines that need to be remediated. So if you sort of multiply that, you end up with probably about 250, £300 million. Um, that's going to be required to do this. Um, and I think on the sort of year to year budget, it's about 4500 £0 in terms of monitoring where I'm getting to is that, um, uh, we have, and this is joint work with my long term colleagues, two long term, three long term colleagues, uh, Professor Chris Thomas, um, Professor Karen Edwards, the University of Exeter, and Professor Paul Brewer, um, at Aberystwyth University.
The paper I've shared with you, um, provides us with a way of mapping across the whole of Wales. We estimate for the cost of cleaning up one mine. Take a mess with 1.2 million. I my, um my border is on the Ystwyth catchment. So I know, I know, I know it quite well, but for the same cost of cleaning up or trying to clean up clean up one mine, we could produce risk maps for the whole of Wales, which would address your point in terms of resource.
So this would be resource well spent I would say, because for the first time we would have to say to um the medical community, perhaps these are the areas you might need to test. Um farmers. These are the areas you need to be mindful of. So it becomes a management tool. And we estimate in the order of somewhere between 700 and £50,001.2 million, we'd be able to do that across Wales. So in terms of the terms of the terms of the financial issue, um yes.
In terms of cleaning up a single mine, those costs are large. And then I've worked on mining problems all over the world. Um that will, that will clean up a point source that will turn off a local tap. That's that's important. Don't get me, don't get me wrong, but, um, as I mentioned, there are probably, well, there are 2300 lead mines in Wales. Um, there are 220 very large ones. So the costs are huge. So the point I'm making is that for literally for a fraction of that, we could rather than, um, I don't have any hair to pull out, but rather than Laura pouring out her hair in terms of why people aren't doing these things, we'd have a process based understanding.
This would be a layer in land use planning. It'd be a layer that local authorities could use. Um, and we're just be in a different place. Doesn't mean that we were still not to work on these frongoch is problematic. Um, there are other mines that are significant as well. Um, but at least in the short term, it would get us to a much better place because the climate impacts are going to be more on the river channels and floodplains themselves, less so on the mines.
So that's, that's the key. So in a sense, there's going to be more, more bang for your buck, so to speak, by spending relatively small amount of money in terms of getting a nationwide heads up. Um, just one last point on this. Um, warehouse could be ahead of the game internationally, you know, in terms of our future nations or future generations act. Um, we could. Actually export both in terms of mine remediation at site and in terms of the mythology worldwide.
So we could actually make a virtue out of this. But as I think a number of people say, we need to join, join these things up. So I hope, I hope I answered your question, Steve.
Anyway, of, I think in terms of capital expenditure, there's about £4.5 million. Um, and that's partly contributed to the cleanup at Frongoch. And I think it will go towards commitment as well. I think there's something like 230 large mines that need to be remediated. So if you sort of multiply that, you end up with probably about 250, £300 million. Um, that's going to be required to do this. Um, and I think on the sort of year to year budget, it's about 4500 £0 in terms of monitoring where I'm getting to is that, um, uh, we have, and this is joint work with my long term colleagues, two long term, three long term colleagues, uh, Professor Chris Thomas, um, Professor Karen Edwards, the University of Exeter, and Professor Paul Brewer, um, at Aberystwyth University.
The paper I've shared with you, um, provides us with a way of mapping across the whole of Wales. We estimate for the cost of cleaning up one mine. Take a mess with 1.2 million. I my, um my border is on the Ystwyth catchment. So I know, I know, I know it quite well, but for the same cost of cleaning up or trying to clean up clean up one mine, we could produce risk maps for the whole of Wales, which would address your point in terms of resource.
So this would be resource well spent I would say, because for the first time we would have to say to um the medical community, perhaps these are the areas you might need to test. Um farmers. These are the areas you need to be mindful of. So it becomes a management tool. And we estimate in the order of somewhere between 700 and £50,001.2 million, we'd be able to do that across Wales. So in terms of the terms of the terms of the financial issue, um yes.
In terms of cleaning up a single mine, those costs are large. And then I've worked on mining problems all over the world. Um that will, that will clean up a point source that will turn off a local tap. That's that's important. Don't get me, don't get me wrong, but, um, as I mentioned, there are probably, well, there are 2300 lead mines in Wales. Um, there are 220 very large ones. So the costs are huge. So the point I'm making is that for literally for a fraction of that, we could rather than, um, I don't have any hair to pull out, but rather than Laura pouring out her hair in terms of why people aren't doing these things, we'd have a process based understanding.
This would be a layer in land use planning. It'd be a layer that local authorities could use. Um, and we're just be in a different place. Doesn't mean that we were still not to work on these frongoch is problematic. Um, there are other mines that are significant as well. Um, but at least in the short term, it would get us to a much better place because the climate impacts are going to be more on the river channels and floodplains themselves, less so on the mines.
So that's, that's the key. So in a sense, there's going to be more, more bang for your buck, so to speak, by spending relatively small amount of money in terms of getting a nationwide heads up. Um, just one last point on this. Um, warehouse could be ahead of the game internationally, you know, in terms of our future nations or future generations act. Um, we could. Actually export both in terms of mine remediation at site and in terms of the mythology worldwide.
So we could actually make a virtue out of this. But as I think a number of people say, we need to join, join these things up. So I hope, I hope I answered your question, Steve.
15:16
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Yeah. You have professor. I just wanted to very quick come back. You elaborated there on on costs. Yes. I'm aware it may not be an area of expertise, but I thought I'd try you anyway on the polluter pays principle, you know, is that something that we've looked at as well?I know some some metal mines are very, very old I think. Yeah. Um, but where there is, you know, an existing um company or a company that's taken on the liabilities of a, of a, since closed, you know, mining company or chemical plant or whatever it may be.
Um, you know, it's, it would you see the scope in.
Um, you know, it's, it would you see the scope in.
15:17
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Certainly first principles. Pluto. Pluto obviously should pay, but not obviously. But as you, you I'm sure understand these are often these historical mines. Um, if for instance, um and I appreciate this is not a critical minerals or, or metals uh, committee, but in terms of the green transition, um, I know from work that we're doing, uh, particularly overseas, um, with the British British government, um, uh, there are thoughts in terms of reprocessing, uh, some of this mine waste. So yes, if someone wanted to do that, um, then they probably should take on the, um.
As an idea, in terms of getting remediation done, but I think the scale of the issue is so large. Um, and. Not that it shouldn't be attempted, but as I say, I think in terms of a short term, you know, 2 to 5 year sort of window of moving things on significantly, I'd say, particularly in terms of the flooding and erosion issue, if we can combine, turning off the tap at the most contaminated mines in conjunction with the understanding, the risks and the challenges on floodplains themselves, we'd be in a 100% better position than we than we are now.
As an idea, in terms of getting remediation done, but I think the scale of the issue is so large. Um, and. Not that it shouldn't be attempted, but as I say, I think in terms of a short term, you know, 2 to 5 year sort of window of moving things on significantly, I'd say, particularly in terms of the flooding and erosion issue, if we can combine, turning off the tap at the most contaminated mines in conjunction with the understanding, the risks and the challenges on floodplains themselves, we'd be in a 100% better position than we than we are now.
15:18
15:18
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Chair, you've touched upon it already. I just sort of wanted to touch on this coordination point across these different, uh, bodies that are responsible, whether it's councils and RW or the remediation authority. I, we've got reports from the BBC that they had, I think this was in March 25th, that they had. 22 only half of the 22 councils said they, uh, so that they could not or would not provide figures. So. And then there was identified 698 high risk sites, of which 586 have not been inspected.
Um, and then when you say in terms of that testing, but then if you get to the identifying, um, in terms of the mapping, you've got heavy disclaimers from the remediation authority as well. Um, I mean, there seems to be sort of a lack of coordination across, across these different bodies in terms of their approach.
Um, and then when you say in terms of that testing, but then if you get to the identifying, um, in terms of the mapping, you've got heavy disclaimers from the remediation authority as well. Um, I mean, there seems to be sort of a lack of coordination across, across these different bodies in terms of their approach.
15:19
15:19
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Absolutely. And I, I. I've been in the game. Fortunately or unfortunately for a long, long time. And, um, if we went back to, let's say 2 to 2000, um, it was a very different even 2012, it was a very different environment in terms of um, being. In these, these, these, these, these issues up, um, they weren't really discussed in a grown up way. Whereas I think now, um, uh, you know, my feeling is you should get the appropriate people that are steering these organizations.
Um, and the, the, um, the technical experts that work with them. Um, you, we need to get in the same room, uh, we need to have a say, not a huge amount of funding, but actually using the funding currently available in a much smarter way. We've got to see each other, not, as, you know, as combatants, not in terms of confrontation. This is a team a team game. Uh, and unfortunately, um. We live. In a very litigation based, um, environment.
And I think unfortunately, and this is where I give Laura, uh, and her and her colleagues, I mean, we've worked with, with the FTC, with Laura, with BBC, um, media with, with very good, um, investigative journalists. And actually without the investigated, um, journalists. Um, we probably may not be here today because I've been pushing this for decades. Um, whereas I think now if we can get everyone together, uh, and this is not sort of a, um, sort of a woolly jumper sort of hugging, uh, moment.
This is, this is we need to talk it through. Um, and I was given a presentation, um, to the mining community involve all regulators in Cardiff back in November presented um an earlier version hasn't changed that much. So the draft paper I've given to you, I got no feedback. I've got no invitations. Um I don't take it personally. Um but I do find it. Henry, extraordinarily surprising that people haven't, haven't leant in. This is issues, not personalities.
I'm not about individuals, but very often. And that applies to local authorities as well. There is a great hesitancy um to be involved. And now is a, a retired, uh, emeritus professor as a retired professor, um, even some academics. And this is not a reflection on my own previous institutions at all in any shape or form, but even some of the academic community, um, you know, can be slightly hesitant in terms of speaking out because their universities and I say it didn't apply to my universities, my universities.
Um, but I know for a fact there is some hesitancy in terms of, of speaking truth, truth to power.
Um, and the, the, um, the technical experts that work with them. Um, you, we need to get in the same room, uh, we need to have a say, not a huge amount of funding, but actually using the funding currently available in a much smarter way. We've got to see each other, not, as, you know, as combatants, not in terms of confrontation. This is a team a team game. Uh, and unfortunately, um. We live. In a very litigation based, um, environment.
And I think unfortunately, and this is where I give Laura, uh, and her and her colleagues, I mean, we've worked with, with the FTC, with Laura, with BBC, um, media with, with very good, um, investigative journalists. And actually without the investigated, um, journalists. Um, we probably may not be here today because I've been pushing this for decades. Um, whereas I think now if we can get everyone together, uh, and this is not sort of a, um, sort of a woolly jumper sort of hugging, uh, moment.
This is, this is we need to talk it through. Um, and I was given a presentation, um, to the mining community involve all regulators in Cardiff back in November presented um an earlier version hasn't changed that much. So the draft paper I've given to you, I got no feedback. I've got no invitations. Um I don't take it personally. Um but I do find it. Henry, extraordinarily surprising that people haven't, haven't leant in. This is issues, not personalities.
I'm not about individuals, but very often. And that applies to local authorities as well. There is a great hesitancy um to be involved. And now is a, a retired, uh, emeritus professor as a retired professor, um, even some academics. And this is not a reflection on my own previous institutions at all in any shape or form, but even some of the academic community, um, you know, can be slightly hesitant in terms of speaking out because their universities and I say it didn't apply to my universities, my universities.
Um, but I know for a fact there is some hesitancy in terms of, of speaking truth, truth to power.
15:22
15:22
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Who pays for it, who's going to sort it out. I think that I really do think that is part of the problem. So you go to the UK Health Security Agency and they say, okay, you're talking about a health issue, but it's it's got an environmental cause. So it's got to be the environmental agencies. And then they say, well, no, it's a local, it's a local issue. So it's got to be the local councils. And just no one wants no one wants to be held accountable.
Really, no one wants to pay for it. So I would say create a whole new thing, create a whole new thing, connect all these different dots. And then then that maybe has its own funding to specifically deal with this problem. In the same way we've dealt with radon as an example, there's a whole UK HSA website about radon where you can see if you're living on it. There are examples of actually how UK policymakers have done this sort of thing before and got it, got it right.
Um, I do, I'm cynical, but I honestly, I think it is a, it's a money, it's a money thing. Everyone is under huge pressure and it's about the political priorities of the day. You can't always see or taste or smell lead contamination, but you can sewage. So, so the public get really wound up by it. You don't know your child is suffering from lead exposure because no one's tested for it. So then it makes it easier in a way, for politicians not to do anything.
And the regulators not to do anything.
Really, no one wants to pay for it. So I would say create a whole new thing, create a whole new thing, connect all these different dots. And then then that maybe has its own funding to specifically deal with this problem. In the same way we've dealt with radon as an example, there's a whole UK HSA website about radon where you can see if you're living on it. There are examples of actually how UK policymakers have done this sort of thing before and got it, got it right.
Um, I do, I'm cynical, but I honestly, I think it is a, it's a money, it's a money thing. Everyone is under huge pressure and it's about the political priorities of the day. You can't always see or taste or smell lead contamination, but you can sewage. So, so the public get really wound up by it. You don't know your child is suffering from lead exposure because no one's tested for it. So then it makes it easier in a way, for politicians not to do anything.
And the regulators not to do anything.
15:24
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
On to testing. And, um, because I think you've done some work and you had a podcast, I think in Untold Toxic legacy where you, uh, said the equivalent of one supermarket shelf worth of produce is tested every year for lead, I think is what you said, which is quite remarkable. Uh, why do you think that is?Why is that?Why is it so low?I think.
15:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's a very good question. So yeah. And that is for the whole of the UK, I should say. So we test around 33,000 products 400 and. 50 of them are tested specifically for metals including lead. Um I don't know why. Why are we testing so few products for lead. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. And another point I would raise is we have lead thresholds, but our thresholds are higher than the European Union, for example, who have lowered theirs because there is just a growing general consensus now that no level of lead is okay in food.
We accept you can't get get rid of it entirely, but you want it as low as possible. Why have we not caught up with the EU?Why do we have the levels we do?We don't have a lead threshold for eggs. So to go back to a very specific example, the egg, which is where I began with all of this, who's responsible?Who's responsible for making sure that people in Wales are not selling contaminated, poisonous, toxic eggs at the end of their driveways to their neighbours in local farmers markets.
The Food Standards Agency say to me, it's up to local food businesses and local authorities, local food businesses aren't testing for lead, local authorities aren't, and you don't even have a level. So what would they be testing against?The the lack of testing in food is extraordinary. There was one study that was done in 2010 after the European Union became concerned about this, and they put a call out to member states and said, you will need to do some sort of report or investigation looking at this issue.
And the academic who did this report for the Food Standards Agency has taken. I've interviewed him. He found really quite high levels of lead in the animals that he studied, and the Food Standards Agency presented his report with the line no risk found to consumers. That's not what he would say. There is a there is a total reluctance to engage with this at all. And that's about the only serious testing I can see. Um, has been done.
And then I spent a lot of time looking through the National Archives where you can actually find over the last 20 years I found I can't remember over 700 examples of either vets or farmers raising concerns with authorities and saying, there's wrong with my animals. So cows, blind, cows twitching, seizing up, not growing. They're studied, but I think it's the UK Veterinary Authority. I might have got that wrong, but on behalf of the Food Standards Agency, Plant and Food Authority, and they find they found really toxic levels of lead.
And in those 700 or something reports, the reason they concluded those animals had toxic levels of lead was because they were being reared near abandoned lead mine sites. This evidence is not easy to find, but it is actually there. Government departments have known about this as a huge problem, and when I read those reports and I read about a red tractor farm where a cow has had has lead levels in its kidneys that are three times what they should be. There's a total there's a sort of complete lack of curiosity as to, well, okay, if there are lead levels on this farm that are high enough to do that to a cow, what about the people living on that farm or the people living next to that farm and those farmers, after these investigations are given a leaflet and they are told, don't, don't you know you really shouldn't sell that?And you might want to check, check your your soil.
It's entirely voluntary. And what really should be happening is that farmers, if they were told your land is potentially contaminated, they should be declaring that on their food chain information sheets and they should be discarding of the offal. Again, these are two simple things that I don't think would massively impact their livelihood on that front that you could do to sort of help, help reduce the amount of lead that might be being sold in various markets. But the thing I would be most concerned about are these hotspots where local communities are eating a lot of the produce that they are creating themselves, and no one is testing it and they have no idea, and there will be children there that might get diagnosed with behavioural problems, and no one would ever think to connect it to the food that they're eating.
We accept you can't get get rid of it entirely, but you want it as low as possible. Why have we not caught up with the EU?Why do we have the levels we do?We don't have a lead threshold for eggs. So to go back to a very specific example, the egg, which is where I began with all of this, who's responsible?Who's responsible for making sure that people in Wales are not selling contaminated, poisonous, toxic eggs at the end of their driveways to their neighbours in local farmers markets.
The Food Standards Agency say to me, it's up to local food businesses and local authorities, local food businesses aren't testing for lead, local authorities aren't, and you don't even have a level. So what would they be testing against?The the lack of testing in food is extraordinary. There was one study that was done in 2010 after the European Union became concerned about this, and they put a call out to member states and said, you will need to do some sort of report or investigation looking at this issue.
And the academic who did this report for the Food Standards Agency has taken. I've interviewed him. He found really quite high levels of lead in the animals that he studied, and the Food Standards Agency presented his report with the line no risk found to consumers. That's not what he would say. There is a there is a total reluctance to engage with this at all. And that's about the only serious testing I can see. Um, has been done.
And then I spent a lot of time looking through the National Archives where you can actually find over the last 20 years I found I can't remember over 700 examples of either vets or farmers raising concerns with authorities and saying, there's wrong with my animals. So cows, blind, cows twitching, seizing up, not growing. They're studied, but I think it's the UK Veterinary Authority. I might have got that wrong, but on behalf of the Food Standards Agency, Plant and Food Authority, and they find they found really toxic levels of lead.
And in those 700 or something reports, the reason they concluded those animals had toxic levels of lead was because they were being reared near abandoned lead mine sites. This evidence is not easy to find, but it is actually there. Government departments have known about this as a huge problem, and when I read those reports and I read about a red tractor farm where a cow has had has lead levels in its kidneys that are three times what they should be. There's a total there's a sort of complete lack of curiosity as to, well, okay, if there are lead levels on this farm that are high enough to do that to a cow, what about the people living on that farm or the people living next to that farm and those farmers, after these investigations are given a leaflet and they are told, don't, don't you know you really shouldn't sell that?And you might want to check, check your your soil.
It's entirely voluntary. And what really should be happening is that farmers, if they were told your land is potentially contaminated, they should be declaring that on their food chain information sheets and they should be discarding of the offal. Again, these are two simple things that I don't think would massively impact their livelihood on that front that you could do to sort of help, help reduce the amount of lead that might be being sold in various markets. But the thing I would be most concerned about are these hotspots where local communities are eating a lot of the produce that they are creating themselves, and no one is testing it and they have no idea, and there will be children there that might get diagnosed with behavioural problems, and no one would ever think to connect it to the food that they're eating.
15:28
15:28
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I apologize for being late. To the select committee. Um, but yeah, leading nicely on from the discussion we're just having actually, um, and we talked about the, you talked about the testing and the, uh. Uh, Suzanne, Samantha Power rather from the US agency for International Development has said that they test in the US and in other countries. What's your view on whether children should be tested in Wales.
15:29
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So. I really believe that the only way the dial is probably going to change on this is if children are tested and we find elevated blood lead levels in communities that are living in these areas, because at that point, this doesn't become a hypothetical risk. It becomes a very real problem. And at that point, I think it gives everyone the kind of political impetus to go, why?Why is that child?Why does it have elevated lead levels?Where is the lead coming from?And other countries have bio monitoring, so they know what their populations lead levels are.
We have absolutely no idea in the UK what our lead exposure levels are. And my if you have listen to the podcast, you'll know my reporting started in Wales with lead mines, but it's ended up in houses. I've looked at paint and plumbing. I've found children that died from consuming lead paint in their house. This isn't just a lead mine problem. Our lead legacy goes much further and deeper than this. Um, which is why I think the testing is so important because then you find the source, then you can work on remediating the source.
We have absolutely no idea in the UK what our lead exposure levels are. And my if you have listen to the podcast, you'll know my reporting started in Wales with lead mines, but it's ended up in houses. I've looked at paint and plumbing. I've found children that died from consuming lead paint in their house. This isn't just a lead mine problem. Our lead legacy goes much further and deeper than this. Um, which is why I think the testing is so important because then you find the source, then you can work on remediating the source.
15:30
15:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It is extraordinarily low. And I normally write about health. And whenever I've spoken to a doctor over the last few years, I've mentioned this and they all say, but we dealt with it. We banned lead. Why are you why are you harping on about lead?But we forgot to clear up the lead we had already used, and it doesn't go anywhere. So generation after generation are still potentially being exposed and GPS no one is. No one is looking at this.
No one is testing. No one is telling GPS except in leads which we which we could get into on another occasion. There are parts of of England where actually where children have died from lead poisoning, where there are GPS who have automatic pop up systems now. But it's still very limited. And I don't understand why it is so localised to one part of England.
No one is testing. No one is telling GPS except in leads which we which we could get into on another occasion. There are parts of of England where actually where children have died from lead poisoning, where there are GPS who have automatic pop up systems now. But it's still very limited. And I don't understand why it is so localised to one part of England.
15:32
15:32
15:32
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Evidence. I suppose the question I would have is just to really summarize some of the evidence you've given this afternoon and specifically on the the one ask that you would both have of the government. You know, the big change that you'd like the government to take, uh, with urgency. So if I can go to professor MacLean and then to Mrs..
15:32
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Um, the big change, the inflection point is to, uh, roll out. The risk based mapping and modelling across Wales, ready to be done. And actually, Gerald, touching on your question, in terms of testing. What we were able to do and we. Urban environment but we haven't really done yet, although there is. There was evidence in the 1970s from from the Aberystwyth area. Um, uh, what we were able to do is to indicate rural communities. Um floodplain, agricultural areas, um that we're testing should be targeted.
So rather than doing it in a slightly abstract form, we could actually say, um, because obviously not many people live on mine, very few. Um, but in terms of the, the catchments, the channels, the floodplains that are affected because these, um, the contaminations attenuate, decrease downstream, um higher concentrations towards the mine and they gradually decrease. So you can actually map where these communities are. And then you can target testing on it. So Ben, to answer your question, um, as I mentioned, uh, to, uh, the chair for the cost of, um, cleaning up, uh, one of the, the poster child, um, uh, mines like frongoch or the equivalent cost of doing that.
We could actually roll out this technology. Um, it would be the first time in the UK. Um, we'd have a world lead, uh, in this. Um, and I think the other point I would stress, um, and I think we've all sort of touched on it is joining things up and I would be more than happy to help you, um, to join up. Um, the regulators. M.o.w. Um, the coal authorities, uh, we haven't talked about industry, industry are very keen to, to help to, to work with us on this and I can, I can, I can help with that.
Um, to work with the local authorities to educate them, not in a patronising way, but what needs to be done and just to sort of end on, um, uh. Really help the, the local communities. And when and Laura was there, I think actually you, um, did you accidentally, you turned up the day that we were doing the, the, the. Test of fate. It was fate. Um, the testing we were doing, um, in this particular village and um it was, it was quite stressful because I, I know some of these people quite well.
Um, it's a real problem and actually to, in some instances to actually say, no, it's not an issue. Um, we can get round it. It was reassuring. So it's, you know, it's from very high level stuff to what we're talking about perhaps here down to individuals. Um, perhaps down, down to individual X, but uh, I'll leave. That, leave that to Laura.
So rather than doing it in a slightly abstract form, we could actually say, um, because obviously not many people live on mine, very few. Um, but in terms of the, the catchments, the channels, the floodplains that are affected because these, um, the contaminations attenuate, decrease downstream, um higher concentrations towards the mine and they gradually decrease. So you can actually map where these communities are. And then you can target testing on it. So Ben, to answer your question, um, as I mentioned, uh, to, uh, the chair for the cost of, um, cleaning up, uh, one of the, the poster child, um, uh, mines like frongoch or the equivalent cost of doing that.
We could actually roll out this technology. Um, it would be the first time in the UK. Um, we'd have a world lead, uh, in this. Um, and I think the other point I would stress, um, and I think we've all sort of touched on it is joining things up and I would be more than happy to help you, um, to join up. Um, the regulators. M.o.w. Um, the coal authorities, uh, we haven't talked about industry, industry are very keen to, to help to, to work with us on this and I can, I can, I can help with that.
Um, to work with the local authorities to educate them, not in a patronising way, but what needs to be done and just to sort of end on, um, uh. Really help the, the local communities. And when and Laura was there, I think actually you, um, did you accidentally, you turned up the day that we were doing the, the, the. Test of fate. It was fate. Um, the testing we were doing, um, in this particular village and um it was, it was quite stressful because I, I know some of these people quite well.
Um, it's a real problem and actually to, in some instances to actually say, no, it's not an issue. Um, we can get round it. It was reassuring. So it's, you know, it's from very high level stuff to what we're talking about perhaps here down to individuals. Um, perhaps down, down to individual X, but uh, I'll leave. That, leave that to Laura.
15:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think, I think we're running out of time. And I think I would say testing people, which I've already made my, my, my case for I think, but more broadly, it is just test, test, test, test, soil test, water test, food test. People make it part of a home survey, make testing a regular thing, not something that retired professors have to do in their free time. Make it proper, proper, systematic testing. If I, as a journalist can find all these case studies from driving around in my car at the weekend and knocking on people's door, what would what would proper proper systems actually find?
15:36
15:36
15:36
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
As opposed to the no. Yes. So you can get into a real. But I think I will bring the session to a close now, but I just want to say thank you so much to you both for professor Mark MacLean and Laura Hughes, because the evidence today has been fascinating, interesting, but really to the point. Um, so, you know, we we've got a lot of food for thought here. Um, and I'm not sure that people like Ben Lake will let us just leave it lying now.
So I think we will probably be revisiting this in the future. But I just want to say thank you so much for your time and also for your enthusiasm and your commitment to this. It's really it shines out. So thank you very much. I will now bring the session to close order.
So I think we will probably be revisiting this in the future. But I just want to say thank you so much for your time and also for your enthusiasm and your commitment to this. It's really it shines out. So thank you very much. I will now bring the session to close order.