HC Deb 15 July 1987 vol 119 cc1133-9 3.31 pm
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about armed forces exercises involving radioactive contamination.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman)

The Ministry of Defence takes a responsible attitude towards all aspects of safety, including nuclear safety. The safety and health of the public and Ministry of Defence employees is of paramount concern.

The risks of a nuclear accident are extremely remote. In the 30 years during which nuclear weapons have been deployed in this country, we have never had an accident resulting in the release of radioactive material. Nonetheless, we take the prudent precaution of maintaining a highly effective organisation, known as the Nuclear Accident Response Organisation. We maintain detailed contingency plans against any nuclear emergency; and we undertake a series of exercises to ensure that our response forces are trained for the tasks they would have to carry out.

To be effective, training of the military and civilian staff involved has to be as realistic as possible. On occasion, therefore, but only when there is a clear and compelling training advantage to be gained, we do use live contaminant of very low levels of radioactivity.

Such activities take place only on Ministry of Defence property; are subject to stringent safety requirements; and present no hazard to the response forces involved or to the general public. Furthermore, the material's short half-life means that any residual contamination has decayed to negligible levels within three months.

The precautions regarding the health and safety of the personnel involved are equally stringent. Access to the contaminated area is strictly controlled. Individuals are required to wear protective clothing and are rigorously checked when leaving and entering the area. If there is the slightest indication of contamination, full decontamination procedures are undertaken.

In summary, although we believe the probability of an accident involving the release of radioactivity to the environment is extremely remote, it is clearly prudent that we should maintain an organisation to respond to such an emergency, and that the personnel involved should be properly trained. Where there is a clear training advantage, we do use very low-level radioactive material, but only under stringent safety procedures.

Mr. Wallace

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that many people will accept that, as long as we have nuclear weapons, it is important that there are contingency arrangements in the event of an accident. Nevertheless, I am sure that the press reports this morning must have given rise to widespread fear and concern regarding what would appear to be the somewhat casual attitude that has been adopted in the past.

Will the Minister give some assurances with regard to the sites that have been used, particularly the one referred to in Staffordshire? Although the releases have been on Ministry of Defence land, the Minister, as well as everyone else, knows that radioactivity cannot readily be contained and does not necessarily recognise the boundaries of Ministry of Defence land. What further monitoring has taken place in that area and the surrounding areas?

With regard to the personnel who were involved not only in that incident but who, it would appear, have repeatedly had to go into a hangar at RAF St. Athan, over a number of years, what degree of radioactivity have they been exposed to? It would appear that the medical checks on them have been cursory. What continuing checks are being done? With regard to the future, can the Minister give us an assurance that, as has been said by one of his—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. [Interruption.] I do not need any help.

Mr. Wallace

Will the Minister give us an assurance that in future the type of casual approach that has been—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is quite unseemly for senior Members below the Gangway on both sides to shout at each other.

Mr. Wallace

Can the Minister give us an assurance that the casual approach reported this morning to both areas and personnel will not continue?

Mr. Freeman

I entirely reject the suggestion that the Ministry of Defence has taken a casual attitude. The hon. Gentleman has the matter out of context. The damaging effect of the ingestion of radioactive material by the Service men or civilians involved who were not wearing protective clothing would be broadly equivalent to smoking one cigarette.

Sir Antony Buck (Colchester, North)

Is my hon. Friend aware that responsible Members—I suspect in all parts of the House—welcome what he has had to say? It is appropriate that there should be training of this type and that there should be true professionalism in our armed forces to enable them to deal with any contingency in the event of the most improbable or unlikely accident that could just happen. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Before the Minister answers, may I say to hon. Members below the Gangway that if they have any disagreements they should take them outside?

Sir Antony Buck

I say again that what my hon. Friend has said will be welcomed by all responsible Members. The Minister's answer shows that we are maintaining our forces in a state of true professionalism in all types of military activity so that they can be an effective shield that will prevent the holocaust against which they are training from ever happening.

Mr. Freeman

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. The general public would expect the Ministry of Defence to organise training exercises such as this involving the use of very low-level radioactive material.

Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Riverside)

Will the Minister agree that there should be a full debate before the summer recess on this very worrying situation? Will he tell us whether there have been any recent nuclear waste issues in a defence context? Can he tell the House whether this is part of NATO exercises and whether any of the Warsaw pact countries are involved in similar exercises?

Mr. Freeman

Many of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, including the matter of a debate and what the Warsaw pact forces do or do not do, are not matters for me. These are not NATO exercises or part of NATO training. They are routine but relatively infrequent exercises involving uniformed and civilian staffs of the MOD and the response organisations in the civilian community. They are doing a necessary job in preparing for the unlikely event of a nuclear accident.

Mr. William Cash (Stafford)

Will my hon. Friend accept that we in the constituency of Stafford welcome his statement? We are glad to hear that, irrespective of where this incident may have occurred, rigorous controls are exercised over the way in which these matters arise. Does he also accept that serious concerns which arise are noted by people in my constituency but that they do not arise in this case?

Mr. Freeman

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that his constituents and the constituents of every hon. Member can sleep safely in their beds. There is no harmful effect from the use on exercises of this low-level radioactive material either to uniformed or civilian staff on MOD property or to his constituents.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

As usual, the Minister has given us the bland and complacent answers that we have come to expect from Ministry of Defence spokesmen. Can he answer the following questions? When such exercises take place, which authorities are informed, at what stage and at what level are they kept in touch? What radioactive materials are used in such exercises and at what rate does their radioactivity decrease? What happens to the contaminated land after the exercises have taken place, and at what stage are the public allowed access to that land? What procedures do the Government have for monitoring the long-term health of the personnel involved? Is it not the case that—

Hon. Members

Reading.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Briefly, please.

Mrs. Clwyd

Is it not the case that British emergency services are not permitted access to United States nuclear weapon storage silos? Is not—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady is not a new Member. She should not be reading questions, and she should be brief.

Mrs. Clwyd

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would be much quicker if the barracking from the Conservative Benches were less. Is not the appalling—

Hon. Members

Reading.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Please do not read notes.

Mrs. Clwyd

Is not the appalling implication that United States troops can prevent our emergency services from becoming involved in the event of a nuclear accident of this kind?

Mr. Freeman

There were many separate questions there. If the hon. Lady would care to table them all, I will answer them. I shall answer briefly two of the key questions. We are entirely satisfied with the liaison and cooperation between the British armed forces and the United States armed forces in dealing with a nuclear emergency or nuclear accident in the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady asked about our procedure for informing local authorities. We are satisfied with the liaison we have with local authorities and the emergency services in dealing with such incidents.

Sir Raymond Gower (Vale of Glamorgan)

In so far as there has been a change in the medical safeguards for personnel, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that this constitutes an improvement on the medical arrangements of some years ago? Can he also assure us that there is no danger to people living in the environment of an airport such as St. Athan in my constituency?

Mr. Freeman

As I have already said, I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no danger to his constituents living close to any military establishment where these exercises may or may not take place. As regards medical procedures, we have adopted the same procedures, which are very thorough. They are governed by regulations laid down both by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence. I can assure my hon. Friend that our Service men and civilians are properly looked after.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

Would the Minister show the same concern for civilian populations, particularly that in South Down which has for the past three years suffered from radioactive discharges into the sea from Sellafield, an establishment for which the Minister has part responsibility, and from Drigg radioactive material site nearby, which is causing daily pollution?

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is wide of the private notice question.

Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the Warsaw pact countries continue to build up nuclear, chemical and biological warfare potential, inevitably if British troops are to be properly protected, it will be necessary for them from time to time to carry out responsible training in these weapons? Can my hon. Friend assure the Opposition that British forces are more responsible in the way in which they carry out this training than the Opposition would seem to give them credit for?

Mr. Freeman

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Yes, the general public and the House woud expect our armed forces to carry out the necessary training to deal with the unlikely and remote prospect of a nuclear accident.

Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

Will the Minister accept that many members of the public are deeply concerned about the public health implications of these reports? Will he address himself to three brief questions? First—

Hon. Members

One.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has a constituency interest in this matter, but he should be brief.

Mr. Fisher

One, Staffordshire county council says that at no point was it informed by the Minister's Department about these tests. Secondly, will the Minister confirm that these tests have taken place only in Staffordshire, or are they taking place in other locations? Thirdly, what is the situation as regards raising livestock on this land? We have seen from the Chernobyl disaster that the trace elements of radioactivity in meat are serious and long-lasting.

Mr. Freeman

As far as Staffordshire county council is concerned, all those that needed to be informed about the exercise were informed, and all those that entered the area of low-level radioactivity wore protective clothing. As regards where such exercises are taking place, I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, for reasons that he well knows. Not only this Government but all previous Governments have not commented on the location of exercises of this nature. Finally, as regards grazing livestock, I have already said that the maximum damage to his health that might occur to an individual who was accidentally exposed without protective clothes to the radioactivity levels involved in this exercise, and who ingested such levels, is broadly equivalent to smoking one cigarette.

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

May I ask my hon. Friend one question? In the past, many hon. Members have directed only one question to Ministers and that allows many more hon. Members to speak. Does my hon. Friend realise that the vast majority of people in the country would think it quite wrong if the Ministry of Defence did not take these steps to ensure the proper protection of the forces and the public?

Mr. Freeman

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely the point.

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

Can the Minister confirm that none of this information would have been disclosed in the House of Commons without the report in The Independent? Secondly, can he give me a guarantee that all radioactive dust in Staffordshire has been cleared up and that there is absolutely no danger to the people involved? Thirdly, does he recall that the same assurances on safety that he has just given to the House were given to the atomic test veterans in the Pacific tests about total safety, yet they were damaged by those tests? As the Ministry of Defence has evaded the payment of compensation in that case, what rights will people have to compensation if they are damaged by contamination now?

Mr. Freeman

I reject entirely the suggestion that I am trying to evade answering hon. Members' questions. I have been as frank as necessary as required by the House.

With regard to the specific questions raised by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), I can state that the material used is of very low-level radioactivity. It is a liquid that is sprayed on the ground surrounding the simulated accident involving perhaps an aircraft or vehicle. It is promptly cleared up after the exercise is over. It has a half-life such that after three or four months no trace of radioactivity is left. The exercises were safe when they were carried out and the area is certainly safe after three months.

Mr. Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet)

Will my hon. Friend sympathetically consider that he could probably allay public concern entirely if he could give definite comparisons of the low level of the radioactivity that has been caused? For example, can he say that the level in the training tests is far less than the level from a television set or from double glazing or far less than the natural radioactive level in the environment? If he could give such comparisons, I am sure that he would allay all fears on both sides of the House.

Mr. Freeman

I thank my hon. Friend. That is a very helpful suggestion. If he can take the trouble to table a question, I will answer it promptly.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

If the Minister is so confident, could we have the chemical formula of the live contaminant to which he referred?

Mr. Freeman

If the hon. Gentleman would care to table a question, I will see whether I can answer it.

Mr. Dalyell

rose—

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of Staffordshire showed on 11 June which party they wanted to have in charge of the defence of this country? However, as there are certain legitimate concerns, will he write a detailed letter to all the Staffordshire Members precisely explaining the position?

Mr. Freeman

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side of the House. Then we must move on, as this is an extension of Question Time.

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)

The Minister has given us two clear statements today—that the exercises took place on MOD land and that the contaminant had a half-life approaching three to four months. The Minister will already know that there are vast tracts of MOD land in this country on which people can walk and where animals can graze. Will he undertake to place in the Library details of the specific locations where this type of exercise has taken place? Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will the Minister specify the type of contaminant element and the level of radiation that it was emitting at the time of the exercise? If he were to place details in the Library. I am sure that that would go some way to enable independent experts to allay the fears of the community, if the Minister is right.

Mr. Freeman

First, may I correct the hon. Gentleman? I did not say that the half-life was three to four months. I said that the half-life of the radioactive material was such that after three to four months there was no trace of radioactivity to be found. The hon. Gentleman asked where these exercises take place. I am not able to answer that question in the light of the wise convention followed by this Government and previous Governments. I do not carry the relevant chemical formula in my head, but I have given the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I shall respond to that question.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Staffordshire will welcome the reassurance that he has been able to give and the fact that Her Majesty's Government are undertaking these exercises and that the country will be better for them? The suggestion appeared in a national newspaper this morning that the material used to contaminate was spread over a half-mile radius. In answer to an earlier question my hon. Friend said that the material was confined to MOD property. Will he confirm that that would be the position even within a half-mile radius?

Mr. Freeman

First, I can confirm that the exercises take place on MOD property. The liquid is used only within a short radius of the vehicles or aircraft and within an area that is wholly within MOD property. The question of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has prodded my memory and I can tell the House that the contaminant used is, typically, radium 223 sulphate that is heavily diluted with barium sulphate and aluminium oxide. It is always of very low radioactivity.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Is the Minister aware that for those of us who have always supported nuclear power these nuclear war games are most embarrassing, even if there is no health risk? Will he confirm that materials other than those radioactive could have been used during the course of these exercises?

Mr. Freeman

No, Sir. I dealt with the material that is used in responding to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth). The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell Savours) knows that these are not nuclear war games. These are serious exercises that take place under strict regulations. They occur infrequently and are designed to improve the sophisticated techniques of the Ministry of Defence to deal with nuclear accidents.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

Is this not possibly the case of some disaffected ex-Service man spreading his bile through the national media? Would it not be more positive if the media had a more responsible view and that these issues were checked out—the scale of these issues—with the authorities concerned with national defence and security so that there should be no alarm raised where there is no alarm to be raised, as my hon. Friend has so capably demonstrated?

Mr. Freeman

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the moral is not to believe everything that we read in the newspapers, including The Independent.

Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan)

Is the Minister aware that the failure of his officials to make disclosures to the chief executive of Staffordshire county council does not allay the anxieties of individuals that authorities are not being consulted? Secondly, will the Minister give an assurance that the land that is being used—I am led to believe that this land can be anywhere in the country—does not afford access to the general public? I shall not put words in the Minister's mouth about Salisbury plain, for example, which is an example of land that is shared by the military and the public. Can the Minister give an assurance that excercises of this nature will not expose members of the public who are not in the armed forces to any danger? At present the hon. Gentleman has convinced neither the public not the military that they are safe from these exercises.

Mr. Freeman

I can give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks. There is no danger, there has never been any danger and there will be no danger to members of the general public, members of the armed forces or civilians in the Ministry of Defence, as a result of these exercises.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

No, I shall take the applications under Standing Order No. 20 first.