Windscale (Inquiry) (Hansard, 8 February 1978)

§ 8. Mr. Hooley
asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report of Mr. Justice Parker on the Windscale inquiry.

§ Mr. Shore
I received it on 26th January.

§ Mr. Hooley
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this will be a classic document in the ongoing controversy about nuclear fuel? Will he therefore undertake to publish it in full and also to consider the possibility of publishing a popular digest for those who cannot afford the full document? Will he give an assurance that the House will be able to debate the document before he comes to any firm conclusion about its findings?

§ Mr. Shore
It is normally the practice to publish a report. My hon. Friend's further suggestion that there might be a popular version is something to which I shall give some thought. I am very much aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to have a debate before a decision is taken. There are difficulties, but I am considering them very carefully.

§ Mr. Emery
Does the Secretary of State accept that while there is obviously much concern about this matter there has been much ill-informed and inaccurate information which has been used by certain pressure groups in a most emotive manner to detract from, and even, perhaps, to undermine, the ability of the Windscale reprocessing scheme to obtain approval, which, after all, could bring major economic benefits to the country? Will he therefore underline that 1439 what he is interested in is factual information rather than emotive information and come to his decision as quickly as possible because of the economic aspects, which are of great importance?

§ Mr. Shore
I have no doubt that among the vast amount of material received and considered by the Parker inquiry was some ill-informed information, but I think that the great mass of it was serious information by people with doubt in their minds about what is a major matter of public interest. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that a decision is needed without undue delay. It was precisely that promise which I gave the House over a year ago when I set up the inquiry. I shall do my best.

§ Mr. Crawshaw
Is my right hon. Friend aware that people like myself who feel that the way ahead is through progress in the atomic area now appreciate that there is genuine concern among many members of the public about this issue? Is he also aware that the cause of those who wish to go ahead with this matter is not helped by those who say that such a disaster will never happen? Surely it would be much better for the public to know what are the consequences of the worst sort of disaster that could happen. If they realised the limitations of such a disaster, their minds might be made up more easily in favour of going ahead in this area.

§ Mr. Shore
I am sure that it is right that the public should have the fullest information available before we move along, or take important new steps, in the development of nuclear energy. That was one of the many reasons in my mind when I established the Parker inquiry, because I felt that it would open up the subject in a way that had not been done before.

§ Mr. Heseltine
Does the Secretary of State recognise that we realise the traditional difficulty in which he finds himself because of the statutory inhibitions that would affect him if he were to be seen to be taking into consideration factors which had not been put before the Parker inquiry? Does he also recognise that the decision that flows from the Windscale inquiry has to be a political decision and that in practice Ministers will be able to discuss this matter with the advantages of departmental briefs, all of which will not be based upon the evidence submitted 1440 to the Parker inquiry? In practice, factors will be taken into consideration on a wider scale even than the inquiry itself.
One accepts that, but it is difficult to argue that the House is not entitled to express its views in advance of what, perhaps, is one of the most significant decisions that this country has ever had to take.

§ Mr. Shore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition and, indeed, statement of the problem as it is bound to present itself to any Secretary of State for the Environment, taking account not of the precedents but of the Act itself and the statutory regulations that have been laid under it. Nevertheless, I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is much merit and benefit to be obtained if we can assist the House with the discussion of this issue. As I said earlier, I am studying both the report and the way of handling it, and I hope to come to a conclusion as soon as I can.