HC Deb 09 May 1984 vol 59 cc877-8
15. Mr. Simon Hughes

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses have been received to his Department's consultation paper on disposal facilities on land for low and intermediate level radioactive waste.

Mr. Waldegrave

I am glad to say that 115 submissions were received from a wide range of organisations and individuals. These are currently being considered, and a summary of the points made will be published alongside the final version of the assessment principles for disposal facilities.

Mr. Hughes

Does the Minister accept that the present non-definition of "as low as reasonably attainable", which is used for the doses of radioactive materials in the atmoshpere, is unsatisfactory? We need a definition in statutory instrument form so that we can debate it properly. When we get the definition right, we should also get the disposal siting right—at least 2 miles from where people live.

Mr. Waldegrave

I note the hon. Gentleman's second point, which will be considered with the other points made in the Liberal party's submission. I do not think that his point was correct. The ALARA principle, if used toughly, could be more effective in controlling emissions to the environment than would a single number, but that is a subject for debate.

Mr. Holt

Does my hon. Friend recall that last week a petition signed by 85,000 people from Cleveland was handed to the Prime Minister? For how much longer must the people of Cleveland wait before NIREX puts in an application, the House has an opportunity to debate the matter, and we remove the threat of nuclear waste dumping near large conurbations?

Mr. Waldegrave

I am well aware of the views of my hon. Friend's constituents, because he has been assiduous in putting them forward. It is for NIREX to bring forward proposals, and I have no new information for my hon. Friend today as to when that will happen.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

As ALARA and ALATA relate to sea discharges, does the Minister accept that the people of Cumbria and the people of western Europe and the United States of America all demand lower nuclear discharges to the sea? As to land discharges, would it not be better to have an international initiative and group all land nuclear waste in an island somewhere in the north Atlantic away from major centres of population, so as to ensure that hon. Members need not repeatedly return to the House demanding that nuclear waste is not deposited in their constituencies?

Mr. Waldegrave

I understand the hon. Gentleman's first point. As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) knows, there are proposals to diminish authorisations. Although the hon. Gentleman's second point sounds attractive, there might be considerable difficulties in the ship-borne passage of waste. However, the idea has been put forward and, I believe, considered.

Mr. Barron

Does the Minister accept that the level of nuclear waste and its disposal, whether on land or at sea, have great implications for British people that justify not only a debate in the House but a full public inquiry so that all organisations that are worried about radioactive waste can make submissions to the inquiry and we can make a proper decision in the interests of all British people, not just of people in some areas?

Mr. Waldegrave

I agree that any proposal must be followed by a full public inquiry, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear. The subject has been debated in the House, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

In view of the growing opposition to the dumping of waste at Billingham, which the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) mentioned, will the Government make clear whether it is their policy that only one site should be considered for the dumping of intermediate level waste?

Mr. Waldegrave

My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we shall use the procedure of the European environmental impact assessment, even though the directive for it has not yet been passed. That procedure includes provision for a comparison of alternative sites.

Dr. Cunningham

Will the Minister confirm that the principle of ALARA refers to sea discharges of nuclear effluent, not to the disposal of nuclear material on land, and is not the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) confusing two entirely different issues?

Will the Minister define ALARA to the House, because there is great confusion in the industry about what it will mean in practice? Will he also agree to remove the NIREX proposals for the storage of medium-level waste at Elstow and at Billingham, where all political parties in the community have overwhelmingly rejected the proposals, and review the entire NIREX approach to the problem of the storage or disposal of waste?

Mr. Waldegrave

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. One always wishes to help a Member who is confused. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, it is fair to say that although the assessment principles will not be agreed until the autumn, they require my right hon. Friend to review the position. The matter is not closed.