§ Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland)(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the operations of the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. plant at Sellafield and the terms and conditions of the licence under which those operations are permitted.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave)My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would normally have wanted to answer the question himself, but he is chairing the House Consultative Committee and has asked me to reply.
The Sellafield works of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., which are an essential part of the United Kingdom's nuclear power programme, operate under the terms of a site licence issued by the Nuclear Installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive and in accordance with the authorisations for the disposal of radioactive waste issued by my Department and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The latter are published in an appendix to the company's annual report on discharges, and, according to the Department's information, it has kept within them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment set out fully in a written answer on 2 November the substantial reductions in discharges which the company has recently made the further reductions which we have required it to make over the next couple of years. The authorising Departments keep a continual watch on the situation and all the available scientific and monitoring data, and will take whatever action is necessary to ensure continued protection of the public.
A discharge occurred over the weekend of 12–14 November which caused some contamination of a short stretch of beach near the site, which was discovered on 19 November. BNFL has stated that this did not represent a danger to the public and the beach was reopened last night. As a precaution, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is carrying out its own monitoring in the area, including monitoring of the beach and fish. Inspectors of my Department are making a formal investigation to discover how the incident occurred and whether there has been any breach of the conditions of the authorisation.
§ Dr. CunninghamI am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I understand why his right hon. Friend cannot be here today.
If the Minister is not satisfied with BNFL's explanation of the circumstances of this most recent incident, should he not ask the Nuclear Installations inspectorate to carry out an independent inquiry? As it is the Government's view that the BNFL is operating within the terms and conditions of its licence—that is important for the industry as well as for my constituents and for wider environmental reasons—may I ask whether they would vary the licence conditions in any way if they were not satisfied with the company's performance? If that were to be done, would it not be much better for the Government to make a proper, considered statement to Parliament on the matter rather than what I can only call the vague and somewhat contradictory statements by the hon. Gentleman in the media over the weekend, which have confused my constituents, the industry and those who are responsible 20 for monitoring what happens? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that when the monitoring that is to take place independently of BNFL is completed, a full report will be published?
§ Mr. WaldegraveIn answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question, I can confirm that the results of the report will be made available. His suggestion about involving the NII in any further investigations that may be necessary was helpful, and I shall consider it with the other Departments concerned.
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman found my comments over the weekend confusing. That is always a danger when one section of the media reports on another section and does not read the original text. There is no question of BNFL operating outside its authorisation or licences. Under Governments of both parties standards have been improved and BNFL has always endeavoured to meet tighter and more rigorous standards. That process must, and will, continue.
§ Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd (Morecambe and Lunesdale)Should not the Government be congratulated on reacting in a prompt and calm manner to as yet unsubstantiated allegations that these discharges have induced cancer? Is my hon. Friend aware of an interesting letter in The Times on 15 November which showed that in the 1920s—long before Sellafield was conceived—much medical opinion in west Cumbria was concerned about the incidence of cancer, which even then was higher than the national average?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI have read the letter to which my hon. Friend referred. Anything to do with previous allegations about a link between cancer and Windscale is now subject to the inquiry to be headed by Sir Douglas Black, which was announced by my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)Would it not be better for the health and safety of the people of Cumbria and those on the west coast of Scotland, where the incidence of radioactivity in fish has risen dramatically, if this processing facility, which is laundering much of the world's dirty nuclear washing, were closed? Should not this discharge be stopped at least until independent research has confirmed that there is no danger?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI doubt whether that would be right or necessary. Large expenditure has been undertaken in the last few years, with the full co-operation of BNFL, which will produce further major improvements in the discharges. I re-emphasise that BNFL has operated within national and international safety limits.
§ Mr. Peter Rost (Erewash)When BNFL's current investment programme is completed, will not the need for any low-level discharge be substantially reduced or eliminated?
§ Mr. Waldegrave"Substantially" is exactly the right word.
§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)How many claims have been made, either by the work force at Sellafield or by people in the area, in respect of leukaemia, cancer and other diseases? In how many cases has liability, if any, been admitted? In how many cases where liability has not been admitted has compensation been paid? What is the purpose of paying compensation where liability is not admitted?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI shall write to the hon. Gentleman separately on those points.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)If the inquiry recommends that the Government's time scale is too long, will the Minister undertake that there will be a clear Government directive that the discharges be stopped immediately the report is presented to Parliament and that, if necessary, the relevant provisions will be implemented under the Control of Pollution Act or other legislation?
§ Mr. WaldegraveOf course. If it were shown, as it has not yet been, that the plant was operating in contravention of the Department's authorisation, action would have to be taken. There is no evidence yet to show that.
§ Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)If more money than the £80 million to which the Minister has referred in connection with the development of ion separators and the other filtering technology were available surely there would be no necessity for any fluid discharge of nuclear waste into the sea at Sellafield? Can the Government give an undertaking that they will not only reject any propositions to reduce the £80 million but will make more capital available, so that full development of the technology is possible, thus putting an end to any discharges into the sea?
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe £80 million is committed to the SIXEP plant, as it is known, which will be on stream next year. A further £20 million is being committed to evaporator plants. I assure the hon. Gentleman that shortage of money is not a problem. To some extent, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. at Sellafield suffers from some of the penalties of being first in the field in having older machinery than other plants in other parts of the world. Where it is necessary to spend money to make the improvements that can be made, that will be done.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Why was it necessary for my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to suggest that this matter should be referred to the Nuclear Installations inspectorate before the Government even considered doing that? Some of us who have been interested in such matters for many years assumed that an automatic reference to the NII occurred in such cases. Why has that not happened in this instance?
§ Mr. WaldegraveIf there were an allegation of a breach of the authorisations issued by my Department, the primary responsibility would fall on my Department in the first instance. In offering to investigate the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I do not think that I have done other than greet it with reasonable courtesy.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. A private notice question is an extension of Question Time. I shall call the hon. Gentlemen who have been trying to catch my eye.
§ Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)Will my hon. Friend note that he gave us cause for concern when he referred to the age of the process at Sellafield? Other discharges of nuclear waste take place into the Channel by the French at Cap de la Hague. That is a more modern plant—operated by Cogema—than that at Sellafield. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the engineering process at Sellafield is not so old-fashioned as to be inefficient?
§ Mr. WaldegraveIt is necessary to spend considerable sums—up to £100 million—to bring the Sellafield plant up to the latest level of technological performance. My Department must note the performance of similar plants in other parts of the world.
§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)Will the Minister confirm—or deny—the last paragraph in an article in the New Statesman, which said, when referring to waste, that if the pipeline at Sellafield were extended into open waters the discharges would be illegal under international law?
§ Mr. WaldegraveA basic rule is that one should not answer hypothetical questions. If the pipeline were somewhere else, doubtless the conditions would be different.
§ Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)Does the Minister accept that no minimum amount of plutonium is safe for human beings? If so, will he tell the public the truth and ensure that the inquiry publishes details of all the discharges that have been made into the sea off Cumbria, not only of Plutonium but of caesium and strontium, since the plant was set up?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI assure the hon. Gentleman that those details are published regularly.