HC Deb 14 January 1986 vol 89 cc1049-56

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

12 midnight

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

I welcome the opportunity to raise on the Floor of the House the terms of reference of the public inquiry into the proposed fast reactor reprocessing plant at Dounreay in Caithness.

In the latter part of May last year, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy announced that Britain would seek to play its part in a collaborative European programme on fast reactors by seeking to have a reprocessing plant sited at Dounreay. On 3 June, the then Secretary of State for Scotland called in the joint planning application of British Nuclear Fuels and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority because he believed that the proposed development had implications of greater than regional importance which he wished to see examined at a public inquiry.

The Secretary of State subsequently appointed Mr. Bell as the reporter, and the date for the inquiry was originally set for 17 February. At a pre-inquiry meeting held on 12 December to discuss procedure and general preparations for the inquiry, the reporter allowed a postponement for seven weeks because of the uncertainty of the applicants about what would be the port of entry for spent nuclear fuel that would have to be transported to Dounreay.

I do not think that anyone who has followed the issue would disagree that there has been general discontent in Scotland and further afield about the remit of the reporter. That discontent led a number of bodies and individuals to seek meetings with the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).

In July a petition signed by more than 30 organisations and individuals was sent to the right hon. Gentleman. It sought a meeting, but that was refused. A request for a meeting from two Members of the European Assembly was rejected by the Under-Secretary in a letter in September. I twice formally sought a meeting, along with other hon. Members, not only from my party, to try to demonstrate the broad agreement, particularly on the Opposition Benches, over the terms of reference of the inquiry.

In a letter dated 11 November, the Under-Secretary said: As the responsibility for the final decision on the application will rest with the Secretary of State, following the inquiry, I do not believe it would be appropriate for George Younger or myself to meet you to discuss issues concerning the case in advance of the eventual decision. The Secretary of State will act in a quasi-judicial role and to the extent that he might have been addressed on the merits of the proposal, so it would have been proper for him or the junior Minister to refuse to meet delegations to discuss the merits of the case.

There is an important distinction to be drawn between representations on the merits of the proposal and representations relating to the form and the nature of the inquiry. It is on the form and nature of the inquiry that these representations for a meeting were made. The previous Secretary of State for Scotland failed to draw that distinction, as will be evident from the letter I have just quoted, and it is because of that that I have sought to raise the matter in the House.

We have a new incumbent in the Scottish Office who has perhaps the added advantage over the previous Secretary of State in that he is not only a right hon. Member but a right hon. and learned Member. He will note this legal distinction and perhaps be more willing to listen to the representations that have been made about the terms and nature of the inquiry. What is principally proposed by those seeking a wider remit is a joint planning inquiry commission. The basis of statutory authority for referral to a planning inquiry commission, is found in section 45(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1972 which states, Any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of this section"— that indisputably applies to this application— may be referred to any such commission under this section if it appears expedient to the responsible Minister or Ministers that the question whether the proposed development should be permitted to be carried out should be the subject of a special inquiry on either or both of the following grounds—

  1. (a) there are considerations of national or regional importance which are relevant to the determination of that question and require evaluation, but a proper evaluation thereof cannot be made unless there is a special inquiry for the purpose;
  2. (b) the technical or scientific aspects of the proposed development are of so unfamiliar a character as to jeopardise a proper determination of that question unless there is a special inquiry for the purpose."
These provisions in the section are fulfilled in this case. The joint planning inquiry commission is provided for under section 47 of the same Act in circumstances where interests in both Scotland and England are affected. Because of the national policy implications, these are United Kingdom considerations and therefore a joint planning inquiry commission is appropriate.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

The particular importance is that a decision taken in a planning inquiry about Dounreay will clearly have an effect as a precedent on the prospective applications for developments of similar sites elsewhere on the coasts not only in Scotland but in England. It is not just in relation to this particular inquiry that there is great concern throughout the United Kingdom, but also because it will clearly be used as a marker and a remit for future public inquiries even under technically English as opposed to Scottish legislation.

Mr. Wallace

My hon. Friend has added yet another argument why the joint planning inquiry planning commission is appropriate. In correspondence to me in response to parliamentary questions the Minister has taken the view that the considerations spelt out in the sections to which I have referred, do not apply in this case. This is an application of national and, indeed, international importance. The proposals form part of a joint European collaboration project, the terms and implications of which have never been debated by this House. Unlike the inquiries over the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Windscale or the Sizewell inquiry, because of the narrow terms of reference imposed on the proposed local public inquiry, there will be no opportunity for objectors or interested parties to assess or question the policy issues underpinning this development.

It has international importance, because, as I discovered on a visit to Norway last year and from other representations which we received from Denmark, there is fear that any liquid emissions or discharges from a proposed reprocessing plant could, because of tidal currents affect the west coast of Norway and Denmark. It raises issues of proliferation. The Government maintain that there are sufficient safeguards in various international treaties and that there would be no breach of our obligations under the non proliferation treaty.

Writing in the house magazine of the French utilities industry, M. Lammers said that the Superphenix fast reactor in France will produce in the mantle of its core enough plutonium of ad-hoc quality to make about 60 bombs each year. Under these conditions, Superphenix becomes of course the technical basis of the French nuclear military force. I shall not go into the merits of that case—although plutonium from the Superphenix will undoubtedly be reprocessed at any such plant. However, an important issue is involved. The Government say that there are sufficient safeguards, but a man involved in the French energy industry says that the Superphenix is implicated in French military nuclear planning.

What about our commitment to fast reactor technology, of which reprocessing is an important and essential part? There has been general understanding that we would not go down the road towards commercial fast reactors without a full-scale public inquiry. It appears that we are now going a long way down that road with only an inquiry with the narrowest of remits.

In view of the low cost of uranium and the great stockpiles of plutonium in Europe, are we making a worthwhile use of our resources in this plant? Before going down the road towards the fast reactor economy, we should bear in mind the comments of the sixth report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, which warned against becoming overdependent on an economy based on plutonium before we properly consider the alternatives. We need a forum to consider the role that could be played by alternative energy sources.

I do not expect the Minister to go into the merits of the arguments on national energy policy, but important issues for this generation and future generations must be discussed and taken into account. A local planning inquiry is not a suitable forum to consider those issues fully.

Environmental considerations are causing considerable concern in my constituency, not least because of what happened at the Windscale plant. The criminal operation of that plant by British Nuclear Fuels lead not only to its successful prosecution but contamination of the Irish sea. Until now, the Dounreay establishment has been operated solely by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, but the present planning application is a joint one by BNFL and UKAEA.

In a letter sent out before the 12 December meeting, the reporter, Mr. Bell, said: I regard my remit as extending to the consideration of all land use, environmental and safety questions which can be regarded as the foreseeable consequence of approving this development, provided these consequences are not too remote. How far can these environmental considerations be looked at in a public local inquiry? I do not believe that it will go far enough. Is an accident a "foreseeable consequence"? It is important to have a proper risk assessment of all the possible consequences of an accident or, in these days of sabotage and terrorism, deliberate interference with the plant. Do the environmental considerations extend as far as the level of discharges? It has been suggested that that is a matter for the Scottish Office, which already determines the level of discharges having regard to internationally agreed acceptable levels. This would exclude any consideration of whether these international levels are acceptable. There can be no safe dose of radiation. It is a matter of subjective opinion—no doubt based on the highest quality scientific evidence—what constitutes acceptable levels. These matters should be open to public debate and scrutiny. Again, a joint planning inquiry commission would refer to circumstances where the technical or scientific aspects of a proposed development are of so unfamiliar a character as to jeopardise a proper determination of that question unless there is special inquiry for that purpose. I do not think that it can be reasonably or honestly said that the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel as part of the fast reactor fuel cycle is a matter which the Scottish Office or indeed Britain is exactly familiar with. I do not think that this type of application is of a familiar character. It is of a unique character and one which can only properly be scrutinised and challenged if one has a special inquiry for the purpose.

Admittedly, there is a plant already in existence at Dounreay, which reprocesses some spent nuclear fuel, but the volume of fuel which would go through the proposed plant is 10 times as much as that going through the existing plant. Although the authorities at Dounreay maintain that they can keep discharge levels down to the present rate, that again is a matter for consideration; and I very much doubt whether proper and effective scrutiny of that claim can be made by a public local inquiry.

Then there is the whole question of transport. The inquiry was postponed because of doubts as to what the port would eventually be. In a comment in the Glasgow Herald of 8 January of this year, Mr. Peter Davies, head of the European demonstration fuel reprocessing plant inquiry team for the Atomic Energy Authority, said: If British Rail decided to abandon the North Highland line, our plans would fail. There is no way that this inquiry can impose a transport inquiry on us. So there is this whole question of transport and of the port of entry, particularly from the point of view of my constituents who are worried about the transportation of radioactive material through what I am sure the Minister knows can be a rather stormy Pentland Firth to Scrabster or Wick. It is a matter of considerable importance. In the light of that claim by a senior employee of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, can the Minister indicate the extent to which transport is a relevant consideration? Is it correct to say that a transport inquiry cannot realy be part and parcel of the local public inquiry which is currently to go ahead?

The further advantage of a joint planning inquiry commission is that the commissioner can commission his own evidence, which can to some extent overcome some of the secrecy which unfortunately has been part of the nuclear authority's approach to the present inquiry, and can also help to overcome some of the funding problems.

As I indicated when I quoted from the Act, it is a matter of whether the Secretary of State considers it expedient. He, one fears, wishes to get a quick answer to this because perhaps of other matters—for example, the French desire to site the reprocessing plant in France. Nevertheless, the whole planning procedure which is meant to be there, particularly for local inquiries, to air the fears and the objections of people, not only local people but those further afield who have an interest, comes into disrepute if it is felt that the procedure does not match up to the scale and importance of the issue before it.

If our planning procedures do not have the confidence of the people generally, we could be building up for ourselves a considerable amount of trouble in the future.

It may be said that the Windscale and Sizewell inquiries went on for too long. They were not joint planning commission inquiry commissions, and I would invite the Minister to reconsider the matter and to take what would be a unique step in setting up a joint planning inquiry commission. The issues involved are of sufficient national and international importance, and relate to matters of scientific and technical interest which are unique. They could certainly not be described as familiar. They warrant the major step of having a planning inquiry commission.

12.20 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram)

I am glad to have this opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on this matter, about which we have corresponded on many occasions during the past months.

I shall deal with as many of the hon. Gentleman's points as possible. I must, however, register an apology in advance. Some of the points raised impinge directly on the subject matter of the public inquiry itself. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is particularly important for me as a Minister with planning responsibilities to refrain from comment on matters which the reporter is charged with looking into, because it will be my duty subsequently to consider his report and to give my view to the Secretary of State about the planning decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise my difficult position, and the need for me to exercise great care in what I say.

I should like to recall the events leading up to the inquiry. On 31 May 1985, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels plc submitted a planning application to Highland regional council for permission to site the plant, known as the European Demonstration Reprocessing Plant, at Dounreay. In accordance with the requirements placed on the council, the application was notified to my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State. Shortly thereafter my right hon. Friend announced that he would in due course call in the application for his own decision, and would arrange for a public local inquiry to be held. He asked the planning authority, the Highland regional council, to proceed in the meantime with the initial statutory publicity and consultations. He also asked the developers to prepare an environmental assessment of their proposals to supplement the information which they had already supplied along with their planning application to the regional council.

In September, my right hon. Friend called in the application, as he had promised to do. He made it clear that he had done so because he considered that the proposal could have planning and environmental implications extending within and beyond the area for which Highland regional council was responsible as planning authority—matters which he wished to be examined at a public local inquiry. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that action, and the recognition—which did not in any way prejudge the planning merits of proposed development—that those aspects would be of wider than simply local concern. The hon. Gentleman has reflected that tonight. Following receipt of the applicants' environmental assessment, my right hon. Friend appointed a reporter to hold the public inquiry. He also appointed a technical assessor to assist the reporter in view of the scientific and technical aspects of the proposed development which might need to be considered. The hon. Gentleman has made much of the reporter's terms of reference, which are quite simple. I should like to recall what they are. The reporter was appointed under planning legislation to hold a public local inquiry into the planning application, and to report on the inquiry to the Secretary of State with recommendations, or with his reasons for not making any recommendations. It is clear from the terms of reference that no limitation has been put on the reporter's discretion to examine any matter which he considers relevant to whether planning permission should be granted. That is the question before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and it is for the purpose of helping him to determine that question that the reporter has been appointed to hold the inquiry.

The reporter has subsequently interpreted his remit as covering all land use, environmental and safety questions which are not too remote from Dounreay. He has said that the inquiry will also be concerned with relevant socio-economic issues affecting Highland region and the adjacent islands. At the pre-inquiry meeting held in Thurso on 12 December the reporter also decided to postpone the starting date of the inquiry by seven weeks to 7 April to allow time for the developers to be more specific about their preferred options for the transport arrangements, which, although they are not part of the planning application, are essential to the development. The inquiry will provide an opportunity for all the relevant concerns of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to be considered.

The hon. Gentleman has asked in correspondence, and tonight for the application to be referred to a planning inquiry commission, rather than to be dealt with by normal planning inquiry procedure. Both aspects have been dealt with in correspondence which I have had with him and in replies given to the House, one of which I gave to the hon. Gentleman.

As the hon. Gentleman said, a planning application may be referred to such a commission where it appears to the Secretary of State in considering whether or not to grant planning permission for a proposed development either that a proper evaluation of relevant issues of national or regional importance cannot be made without a special inquiry, or where the technical or scientific aspects of a proposal are of so unfamiliar a character that a proper determination of the case would be jeopardised unless there were a special inquiry. I do not have any evidence that either of these criteria apply in this case. The reporter can consider the technical and scientific aspects of the proposal, and he has a technical assessor to assist him. The hon. Member also mentioned a joint planning inquiry commission. This provision would apply only if there were planning matters involved affecting the responsibilities of planning Ministers in Scotland and England, and in terms of the responsibilities of planning Ministers, it does not apply in this case.

Mr. Wallace

Is the Minister saying that he believes that the technical and scientific aspects of the proposed development are familiar? Does he agree that this is an unique application and that there is no experience in planning terms of a fast reactor reprocessing plant in Scotland?

Mr. Ancram

I have already said that, having considered the matter, I do not have any evidence that the criteria that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and which I have repeated, apply in this case. It would have to be on that judgment that such a decision would be made.

The hon. Gentleman also said that, regardless of what inquiry procedure is adopted, he would wish the remit of the inquiry to be extended to consider matters of Government policy. Hon. Members may recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy wrote on 21 May 1985 to the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority enclosing a statement of the Government's general policies on the United Kingdom's participation in the European fast reactor collaboration and on the regulatory procedures which would apply to the building of a European demonstration reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom. In making that statement available to this House on 24 May, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy made it clear that the Government see advantage to the nation and to the European collaboration in siting the reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom but that such siting would be subject to the agreement of our European partners in the collaboration and to the necessary planning, safety and environmental consents being granted.

That statement is available to the inquiry, as is a statement of the Government's radioactive waste management policy. Government witnesses will be available at the inquiry to clarify, if need be, these matters of Government policy. It is another matter to suggest that Government policy should be looked into by the reporter as part of his remit. I am afraid that I am not able to agree with the hon. Member's suggestion in that regard. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State made it clear that the inquiry will not be extended to an examination of the merits of these matters of Government policy. The purpose of the inquiry is to consider the simple question of whether planning consent should or should not be given for the proposed development. The reporter has indeed made it clear in his letter of 9 January to parties to the inquiry that he will make his recommendation on the basis of planning considerations, including the safety aspects and does not consider that there is any presumption that the national interest would justify automatic approval.

The inquiry will also have before it statements of the regulatory procedures governing radioactive waste management, the licensing of nuclear installations and the transport of radioactive materials prepared respectively by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate, Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate and the Department of Transport. Witnesses will be available to give evidence at the inquiry on these matters.

The hon. Member mentioned nuclear discharge and safety and asked whether they could be considered. The reporter will be able to consider the safety and environmental aspects of the proposal. The regulatory bodies that I have mentioned have made statements available to the inquiry, and they will provide witnesses.

The reporter has asked the applicants to clarify certain aspects of the transport arrangements, although they do not form part of the planning application. It will be for the reporter to determine how far he needs to examine the proposed transport arrangements. Further information and evidence from these and other parties to the inquiry will no doubt become available in due course. I have every confidence that the inquiry will provide an opportunity for a wide-ranging examination of all of the issues relevant to whether planning permission should in due course be granted.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.