Capper Pass

The RIO TINTO Campaign site

Capper Pass: has Rio Tinto misled the public?

December 1999: Capper Pass was a major tin smelter in the United Kingdom that closed in 1991. The company has continually claimed that the smelter was operated in accordance with all relevant occupational health and safety and environmental regulations. In the last month it has now admitted that it was wrong - that there were major and persistent breaches of OHS and environmental requirements. Has Rio Tinto, and in particular its chairman Robert Wilson, misled the public and even the company's own shareholders?

Compare the following statements:

1. Rio Tinto in "Rio Tinto: The Facts" - distributed to shareholders at the 1998 Annual General Meeting and on the company website:

"During operation and closure, Capper Pass always complied fully with relevant environmental regulations. An environmental assessment of the site after remediation showed no unacceptable risks to human health from residual metal concentrations in the soils at the site."

2. Rio Tinto in a letter to a British Member of Parliament in November 1999:

"In attempting to provide answers to Mr Russell our investigations have recently shown that, contrary to our previous understanding, there were regulatory infringements at the site, as evidenced by service of an Improvement Notice. Obviously, this is regrettable."

The main reason for Rio Tinto's recent admission is the work done by David Russell, from Towells Solicitors in the UK, who has been acting on behalf the families of ex-workers who have died from cancers allegedly associated with the exposure at the Capper Pass smelter. David Russell has obtained volumes of incontrovertible proof that Rio Tinto engaged in major breaches of OHS and environmental regulations at the site.

Want to know more, and see the proof?

For a summary of the Capper Pass case to September 1999, please click here.

On 7 October 1999 David Russell wrote to the company alleging that the company had knowingly made false statements with respect to Capper Pass. He then went on to cite numerous statements from the Health and Safety Executive (the regulatory authority on workplace health and safety in the UK) on the problems at Capper Pass. For a copy of that letter, please click here.

The final proof? For a copy of the Improvement Notice served on the company in July 1988 which specifically records breaches of health and safety law, please click here.

The case has major current implications for Rio Tinto:

the admission of OHS problems increases the exposure of the company to large scale compensation claims from ex-workers and their families for illnesses that have arisen from the employment at Capper Pass.
the emissions to the environment may have been responsible for cancers and other health problems in the surrounding community - again exposing the company to major liability and compensation claims.
in making statements to shareholders and the public which are demonstrably false it can be argued that the company has misled those people.

Rio Tinto attributes its mistaken statements with regard to Capper Pass to the absence of current staff with first-hand knowledge of the operation. But Capper Pass was one of Rio Tinto's major assets, and one of only a few in the UK (the other major asset being Anglesey Aluminium). Can Rio Tinto's London head office really claim, in 1998 and 1999, to be ignorant of events that occurred in the UK as recently as 1988-91? If so, what does this say about Rio Tinto's level of accountability for its other operations - especially those in developing countries?

Of particular importance is the role played by Rio Tinto Executive Chairman Robert Wilson. He has been a member of the Board of Directors since 1987. He was on the Board at the time major OHS breaches occurred. He was on the Board when the decision was made to close the smelter in 1991 - eliminating the need for a massive program to fix up the problems. In May 1999 he personally told shareholders at the London AGM that the company had, at all material times, complied with environmental and Health and Safety regulations at its Capper Pass operation.

Can Robert Wilson genuinely claim he was personally ignorant of the major problems at Capper Pass? If so, what does this say about the diligence of himself and other members of the Board in supervising the company's major UK operations, let alone more distant operations in other countries? What does it say about the company's commitment at senior level to workplace safety? And if he DID know about what happened at Capper Pass, what does that say about his ethical standards? Making misleading statements to shareholders and the public can be an offence under company law.

Has Rio Tinto and/or Chairman Robert Wilson broken the law?