§ '( )—(1) The inspector appointed under section 11A(1) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 as amended shall have as one of his functions the undertaking on an annual basis of a review of the levels of radioactivity experienced by persons employed in any establishment maintained for the purpose of reprocessing radioactive material, or for the generation of electricity using any radioactive process, and, where he considers it appropriate, any other establishment in which research or other processes involving radioactive materials are undertaken, other than an establishment to which section 14(2) of that Act as amended applies.
§ (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the inspector shall examine relevant levels of radioactivity at each such establishment on an annual basis.'.—[Ms. Walley.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Ms. WalleyI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to consider also Government amendments Nos. 1 to 23.
§ Ms. WalleyI shall be brief, in the interests of making progress. The Bill has presented us with many opportunities and it is disappointing that the Government have decided not to make some real improvements to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. The way in which that measure has been dealt with is evidence of the Government's piecemeal approach.
There should be tighter controls for those who are exposed to certain levels of radioactivity, and the new clause is a first step towards introducing those necessary controls. It calls for an inspector to review the levels of radioactivity that are experienced by persons employed in areas where there are radioactive materials, subject to the exceptions which are set out.
The new clause is a starting point. It does not commit the Government to controls that we would like to see, but it paves the way for lower exposure levels. It is an issue which came to the fore during the consideration of the Bill in Committee. We look to the International Commission on Radiological Protection to recommend lower exposure limits, but there is much that can be done nationally. There is much that industry can do, especially as there is uncertainty about the risks of radiation.
It is well known that there are genuine fears that the risks of radiation are four to five times higher than those that were previously recognised, and that the United States National Academy of Sciences has suggested that the risks are six to eight times higher than those that were estimated in 1977. All this needs to be reflected in standards that are adopted nationally. We believe that the new clause could go some way towards bringing together environmental concerns about this most important issue.
It is worth referring to the implications of the Gardner report, which was published during the Committee stage. It identified two groups of workers who faced the highest risk of having a child who developed leukaemia. It is important that the report's recommendations are taken on 1105 board, certainly by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but also by other Departments, including those responsible for health and safety in industry. It is important to note that, for the first time, the trade unions involved in the industry have joined with the various environmental groups to force the pace for changes in the limits for exposure levels. The new clause would provide the opportunity to do that.
8 pm
I shall deal briefly with the Government amendments. I refer the Under-Secretary to our debates in Committee and the points raised as a result of the experience of officers in the metropolitan borough of Dudley in respect of the Pear Tree site. There appears to be a loophole in existing legislation because local authorities are not, as of right, consulted when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution authorises the disposal of radioactive substances. Dudley council had to seek a judicial review to get its views represented. I seek an assurance from the Under-Secretary that the promises and undertakings given in Committee have been fulfilled and that it is now possible for me to tell the leader of the Dudley council, with absolute certainty, that section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 has been changed so that local authorities will have an automatic right to a hearing before the Secretary of State takes the specified action under section 11(1). It is an important issue which has arisen out of the practical experiences of local authorities. If the Under-Secretary cannot give the assurance that I seek, I hope that it will be given in another place.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI accept the concern expressed by the hon. Lady, but I assure her that there is no category of substances or waste that receives so much attention and such extensive monitoring as radioactive substances.
I cannot accept new clause 21, for the good reason that its proposals duplicate existing legislation. The functions proposed by the new clause would be carried out by inspectors appointed under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. However, those functions are already carried out and effectively enforced under the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985, made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The regulations deal, among other things, with dosages to classified workers and with dosages generally in the workplace. They explicitly cover the substance of the new clause. They are enforced by the inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive, which reports to the Health and Safety Commission, which in turn reports to the Secretary of State for Employment. The new clause would duplicate existing legislation and I urge the House to reject it.
The Government amendments to part V are all technical and rectify minor omissions revealed in Committee or improve consistency between part V and other parts of the Bill.
I shall touch on one matter that involves local authorities as that was the substance of the hon. Lady's remarks. Although clause 85 amends the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 to provide that copies of enforcement and prohibition notices shall be sent to the local authorities that received a copy of the section 1 registration and the section 6 authorisation, it does not provide that copies shall go to authorities that receivers section 3 registrations in respect of mobile plant. Similarly, no provision is made for other public authorities that 1106 receive copies of notices to be informed of their withdrawal. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 rectify those omissions. There are other similar amendments, which I do not think will cause any controversy. I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.
§ Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury)My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) has had to leave the House, so I shall briefly respond to the Minister's remarks. He said that the new clause duplicates existing legislation. The case that my hon. Friend mentioned today, and which she also put before the Committee some weeks ago, highlights the problem—certainly with the working of existing provisions even if they are adequate in themselves.
I urge the Minister to reconsider the need for local authorities to be consulted and informed about what is happening in their areas. They should have the right to express an opinion and to have it taken into account before any decision is made. I hope that the Minister will take the matter seriously and keep a careful watch on what is happening, because it is causing concern to some local authorities. It is important that they have the right to be involved in such decisions.
As my hon. Friend is not here, we cannot withdraw the motion. However, we will not press it to a Division.
§ Question put and negatived.