Nuclear Industry (Hansard, 25 January 1988)

§ 5. Mr. Matthew Taylor
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the release of information concerning the nuclear industry, in the light of the recent release of documents relating to the 1957 Windscale fire.

§ Mr. Parkinson
I am sorry; I cannot find the answer immediately.

§ Mr. Tony Banks
Do not worry. We will talk among ourselves.

§ Mr. Parkinson
Do. It would help.
The latest release of records included no new information on the causes or effects of the fire that was not already in the public domain. Four White Papers were produced within a year of the fire, and altogether some 70 reports have been published.

§ Mr. Taylor
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is justified public and scientific concern to see all the papers—if the Secretary of State can find them, that is —and that there is no justification on national security grounds for withholding them? In view of that tragedy, and the tragedy at Chernobyl, will he ensure, not only that all the papers relating to Windscale are released, but that those relating to the proposed test at Trawsfynydd on 12 February are released now? The safety advice given to the Central Electricity Generating Board by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate should be released and the test called off in the interests of public safety.

§ Mr. Parkinson
None of the limited number of papers retained deal with the causes or consequences of the Windscale fire. All the information made available on I January had been in the public domain—for those who cared to read it—for a very long time.
On the question of Trawsfynydd, which has very little to do with this question, the proper procedures were being followed to get approval for that test. There was a leak from a source which let the information out early with the intention of causing alarm and concern, but there is no need for alarm or concern.

§ Mr. Adley
On the question of dangers from energy generation, can my right hon. Friend say now —or will he drop me a note—how many miners have died or had their health destroyed by pneumoconiosis since 1957?

§ Mr. Parkinson
I do not know the answer to that question, and I am not sure that it is relevant to this question.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
If the remaining documents do not deal with the causes or consequences, will the right hon. Gentleman state what they do deal with in terms of a general heading?

§ Mr. Parkinson
As the hon. Gentleman knows, successive Governments have followed a policy of not revealing the details of papers that have been retained. He knows that the procedures for having a retention approved are strict. However, I can assure him that nothing relating to either the causes or the consequences of the fire is contained in the retained documents.

Dr. Thomas
In view of the continuing public concern about the safety of the nuclear industry, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is prepared to review the 7 information procedures of his Department and of the CEGB, especially as applied to the forthcoming test at Trawsfynydd? Does he agree that unless engineers can convince the public, by commonsense arguments, that tests should take place, in a democracy they should not take place?

§ Mr. Parkinson
What has alarmed the public is the comparison between the test of safety mechanism at Trawsfynydd and Chernobyl. As the hon. Gentleman knows—I explained it to him at our meeting on Friday —at Chernobyl the reactor was active, safety systems had been switched off and a deliberate experiment was carried out. This is a controlled test of a safety feature. The reactor will not be operative and the safety equipment will be working. What is being proved is that the natural circulation, built into the system and designed to produce cooling, works. That test will take place only if the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate approves of the proposals and it is carried out under its monitoring.

§ Miss Widdecombe
Does my right hon. Friend welcome the open information policy of British Nuclear Fuels plc, and does he agree that it will go a long way to allay public fears about nuclear safety?

§ Mr. Parkinson
My hon. Friend is right. Every incident that takes place, whether reportable or minor, is now recorded, and that information is filed in the Library of the House of Commons. It is also supplied to the local liaison committees and to local Members of Parliament. There is no attempt at concealment. In fact, we have the most open system in the world.

§ Mr. Prescott
Does the Secretary of State not recognise that what causes public concern about the experiments and controls is excessive secrecy and the leaks associated with it? That is what is causing concern at the Welsh plant. Will the Secretary of State confirm the CEGB view that the experiment that is to be conducted there is not necessary to a long-term safety review of the plant? If that is the case, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the experiment is being conducted in order not to extend the life of the old Magnox plants, thus reducing the liability of the high decommissioning costs and the effect on the price for the privatisation of electricity?

§ Mr. Parkinson
I am afraid that I find it hard to follow that convoluted logic. However, I advise the hon. Gentleman that the test is taking place because built into the Magnox system there is a safety measure that is designed to ensure that, even if the fans fail, natural circulation will produce cooling. The test is being proposed under the most strict circumstances to prove that that safety factor works. It is a safety mechanism that is being tested.