§ 2. Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent meetings he has had with British Nuclear Fuels regarding the monitoring of waste products; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government (Mr. William Waldegrave)My right hon. Friend visited Sellafield in October 1985. There has been no formal ministerial meeting with BNFL since then.
§ Mr. SkinnerWhy does the Minister not go up to Sellafield and tell the management that the British people are fed up to the back teeth with hearing the management continually pour out lies about all the outbreaks that are taking place? There has been another outbreak in the last 24 hours, and the management has had to admit today that two workers have been slightly contaminated, which it denied yesterday. Will the Minister go up there and tell the management that there should be a proper truly independent public inquiry and that if it is found necessary to close the plant every worker will be paid for as long as the inquiry lasts?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI find the hon. Gentleman's concern about environmental pollution a little selective. We do not have the benefit of his advice in the House when we are debating pollution from coal-fired power stations. It is right that people inside and outside the House should recognise that the record at Sellafield has been good despite the problems, which my Department recognises and discusses with the management.
It is also right that those inside and outside the House should accept that some of those who attack Sellafield do so, not because they are worried about pollution, but because they see in the civil nuclear industry a dangerous competitor to the coal mining industry.
§ Mr. Skinnerrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. FranksWill my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members, particularly those who represent Cumbrian constituencies, are sick and tired of the lack of real information from Sellafield about incidents? Will he instruct BNFL that the public need to be reassured, not in the jargon of arrogant scientists, but in language that the layman can understand and accept?
§ Mr. WaldegraveMy hon. Friend is entirely right. The record is good, but there is no question but that we have to do better at getting that across to the people. We must make it clear that the public concern is being met and that the public institutions which exist to check that the record is good are open to public inspection.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursDoes the Minister accept that B30, where yesterday's incident took place, is about to be decommissioned because it is an old plant and is to be replaced by pond 5? I hope that no such incidents will take place in the future. Does he also accept that if the plant were to close there would be a loss not only of 11,000 jobs in West Cumbria but of a further 15,000 to 20,000 jobs which are indirectly involved in and dependent on the nuclear industry? In the light of that, is it not unacceptable that many people in Britain, including environmental groups, demand closure of the plant when they know that perfectly reasonable and sensible options are open to the industry to resolve the problems? Is it not fair to say that if the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate does its work in the way that it should there should be no problems in future?
§ Mr. WaldegraveNo one has a better right than the hon. Gentleman to speak on this matter, because he understands the real environmental concern and knows that they can be met. My Department strengthened the Radio Chemical Inspectorate last year and insisted on a greater monitoring programme by the plant. We are in discussion with my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a new authorising limit, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is no problem here which cannot be dealt with. It will be dealt with and, in all the important cases, is already being dealt with. The hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about pond 5. That is another of the major steps to improvement at the plant.
§ Mr. FormanIs it not clear that nothing useful will be achieved in this important matter by the hysterical approach of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? In view of that, will my hon. Friend take the trouble to put in Hansard the figures for the increased numbers of staff in the relevant inspectorates, which is important, and also 298 the details of the long-run epidemiological monitoring, which is necessary to see that there is no damage to human health?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI shall be delighted to do as my hon. Friend requests, and I shall see that it is done. After the Black report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services set up the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment to monitor those matters on a permanent basis. That was a sensible thing to do, and it received support from all those whose concern about this is serious and not merely hysterical.
§ Mr. EvansIs the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us who have supported the nuclear industry all our political lives will reject his argument that those who express concern about the enviromental aspects of nuclear power are somehow trying to promote the coal industry? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a false argument and only creates false impressions? Will he accept that some of us are growing increasingly worried about the competence and sometimes the arrogance of some of the higher levels of management in BNFL? Does he agree that it would be far better if management were more open and honest in giving answers on matters of direct concern to the public?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI took great care to differentiate between people's concerns. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), whose constituents are near Sellafield, has more right and reason to be concerned about this matter than have many other hon. Members. I recognise that there are proper concerns, which are shared by Conservative Members, to ensure that the right thing is done and is seen to be done. In so far as the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) supports that aim, I certainly agree with him. I would not wish to say that everyone's concerns are hysterical. We must recognise that some people are deliberately stirring up the issue.
§ Mr. HickmetGreat concern is felt about the announcement of the proposals by the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive on the storage of nuclear waste. Why has there not been an announcement since that list was delivered on 8 January? Will there be an announcement shortly? Are alternative solutions being considered?
§ Mr. WaldegraveMy hon. Friend can expect an announcement shortly. The matter has been under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Ministers collectively.
§ Mr. D. E. ThomasDoes the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us with nuclear power stations in our constituencies are concerned when nuclear waste is entrusted to the BNFL and incidents such as we have heard about occur? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that Sellafield is open to international and European inspection? What discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with the Scottish and Welsh environmental departments about environmental aspects, and with the Irish Government, who have expressed serious concern about pollution in the Irish sea?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish and Welsh Offices and the Republic of Ireland are closely involved in this matter. Some months ago we set up with the Government of the 299 Republic a joint committee at official level, which has been working well and exchanging information. There is no reason to hide anything. There are good arrangements for inspection. Information is published and available and is reported to all the international organisations with an interest in it.
§ Mr. FoulkesDoes the hon. Gentleman accept that parents in south-west Scotland, including my constituency, are genuinely worried about the effect of radioactive discharges from Sellafield and possible links with the high incidence of leukaemia? Does he agree that it does neither the work force at Sellafield nor parents any good for the management at Sellafied, after four incidents this year, to give yet more bland reassurances? They do not reassure parents. Will the hon. Gentleman meet Scottish Office Ministers to consider what urgent action can be taken to allay the genuine fears of parents in southwest Scotland?
§ Mr. WaldegraveThe first responsibility of all of us who have the privilege of being hon. Members and having all the information easily available to us is to do our part in allaying unnecessary fears. I know that the hon. Gentleman will do that. I shall certainly be delighted to meet my opposite numbers in the Scottish Office to discuss whether anything further should be done. We meet regularly on this issue.
§ Mr. DickensIs it not a fact that there is always a measurable risk in terms of health and safety at plants, whether petro-chemical plants, oil-fired power stations or steelworks? Is not the safety record of the nuclear industry second to none? Are not the safety measures which are rightly imposed on the industry also second to none? Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the general public should not be alarmed, because the nuclear industry is a controllable industry on which we shall have to rely in future years?
§ Mr. WaldegraveMy hon. Friend is entirely right. There is no great industrial activity that does not contain some risk. I have to say that the nuclear industry is asked to work, and does work, to far higher tolerances of safety than any other industry. If one compares the number of people injured or even killed in other tragically high risk industries, or even higher risk industries, such as railways or mining, one finds that the record of the nuclear industry is second to none.
§ Mr. Simon HughesDoes the Minister realise that the country will regard his replies as extremely complacent, just as they regard the attitude of the chief spokesman for the Labour party as completely hypocritical? [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. In fairness, I have not yet called the chief spokesman for the Labour party, and the hon. Gentleman must not cast such aspersions upon anybody in the House.
§ Mr. HughesThe remarks made by the chief spokesman for the Labour party—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the hon. Gentleman would help the House and himself if he withdrew the statement.
§ Mr. HughesMr. Speaker, at your behest I shall withdraw the remark. The remarks made by the chief 300 spokesman for the Labour party in public are entirely unacceptable, because if the House had followed the advice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal party and all of his colleagues, who unanimously and alone in 1978 opposed the extension of reprocessing, we would not have had the problems that we have had since then. Will the Minister—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Briefly, please.
§ Mr. HughesWill the Minister accept that unless there is a suspension of reprocessing, and until there is international inspection and a chance for the House to debate the Select Committee report, there will be no confidence in the Government, in BNFL or in its chairman?
§ Mr. WaldegraveI advise the hon. Gentleman to read the eloquent speech of the leader of the Social Democratic party on the occasion of the debate on the THORP reprocessing plant. He might learn something that would be helpful to his contribution to these debates.
§ Dr. CunninghamWill the Minister accept that, with my hon. Friends, I regard the blaming of the work force for the problems of the management of the nuclear industry as unacceptable? We also regard mass unemployment, as advocated by the Liberal party spokesman, to solve the problems as unacceptable. Will he recognise that the series of incidents, however minor in radiological terms, which have occurred in the past few weeks at Sellafield can do nothing other than undermine public confidence in the industry and its future? In view of the Minister's remarks about the need for more openness, will the Government undertake to review the workings of the Official Secrets Act as it applies to the civil nuclear industry? Will the Government invite the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate—that arm of the Health and Safety Executive which is the public's statutory and independent watchdog in these matters—to carry out a rigorous, independent safety audit of the old part of the Magnox fuel reprocessing facilities at Sellafield? Will they ensure that such a report is made public and debated in the House? Will the Government reject the opportunist and contemptible remarks and inconsistent attitudes of the alliance, as demonstrated by the SDP and the Liberal party?
§ Mr. WaldegraveFor a moment I was not sure to whom the hon. Gentleman was pointing. It behoves us all to reject some of the irresponsible riding of bandwagons that there has been on this subject. It brings no pleasure to my Department or anyone else to have to read in the newspapers about the problems of Sellafield. We must all recognise that with an enormous plant, some of which is old in industrial terms, there will be some problems from time to time. We must keep a sense of proportion about the matter. We have a group examining the publication of information about environmental matters in general. I shall ensure that this matter is dealt with by that group. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Health and Safety Commission may well consider his suggestion carefully. It would seem to have some merit.