HC Deb 06 March 1978 vol 945 cc981-91
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Windscale inquiry. This related to the planning aplication by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. of 1st March 1977 to develop reprocessing facilities for irradiated oxide nuclear fuels at Windscale.

On 25th March I called in the application for my personal decision and ordered the public inquiry so as to secure a full and thorough investigation of all the important issues raised by the application. The inquiry began on 14th June and ended on 4th November. The inspector, the Hon. Mr. Justice Parker, presented his report to me on 26th January last.

At the outset I asked the inspector to examine in particular a number of issues, which were broadly these: first, the implications of the proposed development for the safety of the public; secondly, the implications for other aspects of the national interest; thirdly, the implications for the environment of the construction and operation of the proposed development in view of measures that can be adopted under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to control the disposal of wastes, and under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 to provide for the safety of operations; and, fourthly, other more conventional planning implications for the locality.

The inspector's report analyses in a masterly way all these issues and others that were raised by the objectors and concludes with the recommendation that outline planning permission should be granted without delay, subject to conditions. In my view, the conclusions reached by the inspector are persuasive and broadly acceptable, and under the normal procedure I would now proceed straightaway to take my final decision.

I have, however, been conscious of the strong, widespread and proper desire of right hon. and hon. Members to debate the broad issues of national and international significance which I asked the inspector to examine before a decision is made. I believe that great benefit to our democracy would flow from such a debate. This case is, indeed, unique in the issues which it raises, and I have therefore decided to proceed in a way that will enable the House to have such a debate and to be involved in this major decision.

To do so I must take an unusual course. We want a debate in which Ministers could take a full part and which would lead on to a decision without running into a protracted further process of consultation and possibly the need to reopen the inquiry. I think that this aim would be generally agreed. To achieve it, I must first dispose of the planning application in the other manner which, I am advised, will be consistent with my objective. This will be done in the form of a refusal to grant planning permission on the present application.

However, subject to the debate which my right hon. Friend will arrange before Easter, I propose to lay before Parliament shortly afterwards a special development order under Section 24 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which would, in effect, authorise the project. The order will contain the terms of a planning permission for the proposed development at Windscale, subject to conditions on the lines recommended by the inspector. The special development order, which is a Statutory Instrument, will be subject to negative resolution procedure.

I have today issued my decision letter on the planning application and published the inspector's report. Copies of both are available in the Vote Office.

In conclusion, I should like to express my gratitude to the Hon. Mr. Justice Parker and to his assessors, Sir Edward Pochin and Professor Sir Frederick Warner, for their very valuable work on the most important planning inquiries ever held. My appreciation extends not only to them but also to the parties to the inquiry for the care and time that each contributed in presenting their case and thus assisting the inspector and myself—and, indeed, the House—towards a clarification and a resolution of the issues.

Mr. Heseltine

The official Opposition were consulted about the procedure which the Secretary of State has announced and, in the exceptional circumstances, agreed to it. I ask the Secretary of State to understand that I have not seen the inspector's report or its conclusions, and that in these circumstances I obviously cannot comment on it today.

I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that there can in practice be two debates on the subject, the first being the general debate which it is the intention to arrange before Easter, and the second under the negative procedure which would follow the laying of a special development order.

Mr. William Hamilton

It is one and half hours.

Mr. Heseltine

That must be right. Finally, has the Secretary of State considered whether, in exceptional circumstances, and cases of this sort, a proper legislative procedure is required which would enable debate to take place in Parliament as a matter of course, rather than having to resort to what is in practice a device?

Mr. Shore

My reply to the hon. Gentleman's first question is "Yes". The procedure involves a major debate, the order will then be laid and, subject to the ordinary parliamentary procedure, it could be prayed against.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we could find more satisfactory ways of conducting inquiries into these very difficult and complex matters involving the House and at the same time having a really open and thorough examination. I do not believe that we have yet reached a final and satisfactory solution. We are certainly seeking one.

I believe that the proposal that I have put to the House today, combined with the very prolonged and open inquiry that Mr. Justice Parker undertook, will ensure not only that all the parties to the inquiry have every opportunity to have their case presented and deployed but that this House will also have an opportunity to make its views heard on this important national issue.

Mr. Abse

I thank the Secretary of State not only on my own behalf but on behalf of more than 200 hon. Members who signed a motion requesting that we should have a debate before the final decision was made. The Secretary of State's response means that we have a droll position in which he is saying "No" in order that ultimately, apparently, he will be able to say "Yes".

Is it not clear, in view of the fact that our close and trusted friend the United States of America—to whom the Foreign Secretary referred a few minutes ago—has made it abundantly clear that it does not wish any reprocessing plant to proceed because of the dangers of nuclear proliferation, that we should be assured that, before the order is laid before the House, following the debate that is contemplated, there will be no implementation of it until such time as the Downing Street initiative for the international fuel cycle evaluation has completed its work? It would then be seen throughout the world that Britain had not become a hawk, sabotaging the efforts and initiatives of the United States to avoid nuclear proliferation.

Finally, since there are many who believe that a decision to move forward could be the penultimate decision to that on the fast-breeder reactor and the plutonium economy, and since that could mean, in the opinion of many, that the next generation could be the last generation, may we have an assurance that when the order is to be laid there will be a full-scale debate? Can we further have the assurance that there will be an ample postponement after the initial debate, and that the ensuing debate will be a full-scale one, and not an attenuated debate of one and a half hours? Should it not be one in which the whole House can express its opinion, after the nation, through the efforts of the Press and the other media, has been able to indicate its opinions?

Mr. Shore

The scale of the debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But, of course, I believe that we shall be able to judge these things very much better after we have had the first debate, which it has already been agreed to have. I hope that the procedure will be satisfactory, whether it is droll or not. Indeed, the procedure is precisely designed to meet the kind of anxiety that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed.

I do not think that it would be sensible for me to eminent on the statements made by my hon. Friend in advance of his having the opportunity to read and study the report. I think he will find evidence, observations and conclusions drawn by the inspector which do not by any means wholly support his own conclusions.

Mr. Grimond

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his decision to allow the House to have a debate on this issue. I am aware that the procedures have been agreed but I ask him two questions about them. If during the debate the Government are defeated, or the proposal is defeated, I understand that that is an end of the matter. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to have a free vote?

Secondly, if the House is in favour of the proposal and the report of the inquiry, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman issues a special development order. Does that short-circuit all further planning procedures? Am I right in thinking that that will not merely give outline planning permission but authorise the project? As there is some anxiety about delay, what is the effect of this procedure on the time-scale of the project? For all I know, it may possibly speed up the process.

Lastly, who will pay for this large and expensive inquiry?

Mr. Shore

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial welcome. Obviously the Government will be greatly influenced by the debate that takes place in the House. In a sense, that is the purpose of having the debate. I shall not venture further into that. I believe that everyone should have the opportunity of considering what it is that Mr. Justice Parker has recommended and examining carefully his reasons for reaching the conclusion that he reaches. The SDO, when it is laid, will embody the major recommendations and findings that are within the report. As the original Parker Report gave, and as the applicants asked for, the SDO will give us outline planning permission to go ahead with the proposed Windscale project. I do not believe that the procedure that I have recommended is open to any serious criticism on the ground of delay.

No award of costs has been made, and Mr. Justice Parker has made it clear that he is not making any recommendation in that respect. Therefore, the costs of the inquiry will naturally fall to those who have taken part in it.

Mr. Palmer

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many, both inside and outside the House, who are concerned for Britain's industrial future will greet with relief the recommendation of the Parker inquiry? In view of the complicated procedure that is now proposed, what will be the standing of the Answer given to the House on 12th March 1976 by the Secretary of State for Energy that the Japanese contract should proceed?

Mr. Shore

I believe that once the novelty has worn off it will be seen to be not a complex procedure but a very simple one for meeting the wishes of the House.

I understand my hon. Friend's expression of relief. He has been strongly associated with the wish to see the project carried forward. It is far better to have an inquiry and a debate than for the matter simply to be decided by the planning authority without the House having an opportunity to make its contribution.

As for the Japanese contract, it has always been understood that it would not go forward until planning permission had been granted by this country, and that remains the case.

Mr. Emery

Irrespective of any views that anybody may take, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole House must be grateful to Mr. Justice Parker for the extensive nature of the report? In view of the considerable emotional feelings and fears about nuclear power and nuclear energy, will the right hon. Gentleman point out that over the past 15 years there has been not one fatality or serious accident due to radiation in the whole of the nuclear power industry? That is surely of significance in allaying people's fears.

Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if the debate held before Easter proves to support the Government's view and Mr. Justice Parker's view, the order will be laid quickly so that we can proceed without any further extended delay?

Mr. Shore

Yes, it would be my intention, subject to the debate, to lay the order shortly after the debate has taken place. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has expressed his gratitude, which I am sure is shared by the whole House, to Mr. Justice Parker for the great contribution that he has made in undertaking the extremely onerous task of hearing so much exacting material over so long a period during the course of the Windscale inquiry. As for the fears that have been expressed, I believe that the report will be helpful in setting in context the risks that are involved in nuclear power compared with the risks involved in other fuel industries. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said about the excellent safety record that our nuclear power industry has enjoyed.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is to be a debate on this matter, and I shall call only those hon. Members who have already risen to ask a question.

Mr. Noble

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us found the original planning inquiry unsatisfactory in view of the nature of the decision? Bearing in mind the moral, environmental, civil liberty and defence implications of the decision, does my right hon. Friend accept that we find the proposal for a further debate to be unsatisfactory? Will he take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)—that we should not take a decision in this country until the international negotiations are completed?

Mr. Shore

I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend finds the planning inquiry unsatisfactory. The terms of reference of the inquiry were, in a sense, deliberately drawn widely. I believe that he will find that all the matters that properly concern him and others have been extensively examined during the 100 days of the inquiry. I do not think that he will find that any matter of substance has been omitted from the inquiry. I do not believe that the House as a whole will find the arrangements for debate to be unsatisfactory. It is my view that the House should be associated with the decision and should make its own special contribution to it. I do not believe that we should procrastinate and delay unduly in coming to a decision.

Mr. Costain

Does the Secretary of State appreciate—I am sure that he does—the special position of a Secretary of State as regards planning inquiries—namely, that he has to be as neutral as a judge? Therefore, is the right hon. Gentleman intending to take part in the debate and the vote? If that is his intention, does he not think that it will affect his position as regards future planning permissions?

Mr. Shore

I hope that my statement dealt with one of the advantages of the SDO procedure—that it relieves me of operating in this case in the quasi-judicial role which I otherwise adopt in respect of ordinary planning applications. It is by, as it were, refusing the planning application and opting for the alternative of the SDO that I am released to take part in the debate.

Mr. Norman Atkinson

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the third area of implication to which he referred in his statement is not exclusively Windscale's and that the planning application itself was a geographical one, the Parker inquiry not coming to conclusions about certain areas of reprocessing, and certainly not on the disposal of nuclear waste material in areas other than those immediately associated with Windscale?

Therefore, will my right hon. Friend be particularly careful when drawing up the motion that he will put before the House for debate to ensure that we can eliminate the necessity to go through a number of separate inquiries with regard to locating sites for the disposal of nuclear waste? Whether it be by classification or other methods, this House should take the decision in principle so that we do not need any future repetition of the Parker inquiry with regard to the disposal of waste.

Mr. Shore

I am not certain that I fully understood all the implications of my hon. Friend's question. The disposal of waste is one of the matters considered in the Parker Report. It has short-term, medium-term and, indeed, very long-term implications. However, I do not think that my hon. Friend need fear that the recommendations on the disposal of waste will themselves lead to further and unnecessary inquiries.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Will the Secretary of State be good enough to clarify the planning position and procedures? Further to what he said in answer to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), in particular his references to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Parker, is the position that the SDO will embody the formal conditions binding in planning law in the planning permission granted by the SDO which, the right hon. Gentleman will accept, is an unusual procedure? Further, will it be an outline planning permission and, therefore, subject both to those conditions and to the standard conditions obtaining in respect of outline planning permission when it comes to stage 2 approval?

Mr. Shore

The application itself was for outline planning permission. Therefore, the SDO and the inspector's recommendations relate to it. The SDO will itself embody the formal conditions. They will be stated within the SDO. I hope that helps the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Forman

Will the Secretary of State accept that we welcome his decision belatedly to bring Parliament properly into this debate? It should have been brought into the debate a long time ago. Does he also accept that there is some strength in the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) that it would be a nonsense for the Government to go ahead with the laying of this SDO without waiting to see the results of the international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation, bearing in mind that there might be an alternative fuel cycle based on thorium and uranium which would make a nonsense of our present plans?

Mr. Shore

The hon. Gentleman had better read the report. He will find that a great deal of it is devoted to arguments connected with the international fuel cycle examinations that are now going on. I do not believe from what I have suggested that I can be accused of belatedness. After all, the examination had to be carried out and the report had to be made before it was possible to consult the House or, indeed, anyone else on the fullness of the inquiry.

The difficulty of this whole procedure is that it is always possible to come to the House at an earlier stage in a planning matter and discuss the broad policy issues involved. But I am not sure whether the House would feel satisfied—bearing in mind that it discussed the broad planning issues in the past—that it was therefore fully seized of all the facts or would feel that it was entirely right for the Secretary of State to go ahead with the planning permission thereafter.

Mr. Hooley

Will the terms of the SDO be drawn up in the light of the debate in this House or will they be based solely on the Parker recommendations?

Mr. Shore

My impression is that the House will wish to discuss the major national and international questions that arise from the Windscale inquiry. I would be surprised if the House wished to devote a great deal of its time to the more detailed and technical matters relating to the construction of the plant. Even if it were to do so, I would not wish to say in advance whether the contributions made on this subject would be such as to make me promise to make changes in the anticipated terms of the SDO.

Mr. David Mitchell

Does the report cover the effect of high explosive attack on the plant? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that if such an eventuality were to occur it would not lead automatically to a national disaster?

Mr. Shore

I have no reason to believe that the danger of high explosive attack on the proposed Windscale plant would be greater than on other installations such as the Magnox reprocessing plant or any of our other nuclear power installations. Therefore, I cannot help the hon. Gentleman in that regard, but I would advise him to read the report.

Mr. Younger

Since the Secretary of State is holding up his decision until after further debate has taken place, would it not also be right to hold up any further progress on the application for planning permission for sites for nuclear dumping, which is causing great concern in South-West Scotland and several other parts of the country?

Mr. Shore

I am aware of no applications with regard to sites for nuclear dumping. What I am aware of is a research programme that is looking at particular formations as to their possible suitability for the future.

Mr. Raison

Will the Secretary of State think carefully about the answer that he has just given to his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley)? Will he accept that, if during the course of the debate there seems reason to believe that the House or the public are not happy about all the Parker proposals, it will be possible to debate the SDO when it finally comes before the House for decision? Can he hold out any hope for bodies such as the Town and Country Planning Association, which have had to spend a lot of money giving evidence to this inquiry and have found it a heavy burden to bear?

Mr. Shore

I shall consider further—perhaps for future inquiries—the implications of a protracted inquiry of this kind and the cost that it imposes on those taking part. I would not wish to make any promise about that at present. As to what might emerge from the debate with regard to the details of the planning application, I think I had better rest at the moment and say that I shall consider this in the light of the debate itself.

Back to