HL Deb 26 January 1971 vol 314 cc854-62

4.13 p.m.

Debate on Second Reading resumed.

LORD WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is glad to return to the relative clarity of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill after the discussions on the Commonwealth. In most essentials, this Bill is the same as that discussed by your Lordships last May, and which was I think passed last May. I have first to make the same objection that I made then by proxy (the proxy being no less than the able and very formidable noble Lord, Lord Conesford), when I objected to the first line, which uses the word "fuels" in what I consider to be an entirely incorrect and inappropriate way. A fuel is something which is combustible, and which supplies energy by the process of combustion, and that is exactly what is not done by the nuclear, so-called fuels. Therefore, it is quite incorrect to use the term "fuel", and I only wish that the present Government will be prepared to go a step further than the last Government and use a better nomenclature and refer to this as a "nuclear source" rather than as a "nuclear fuel", which it is not. The first word of the second line, "Limited", in connection with nuclear energy is a little odd too, though it may be appropriate for a company. But to refer to nuclear energy as "limited" seems the reverse of the truth.

This Bill is undoubtedly one which has the approval of this House, as was shown last May, and I personally am not prepared to speak against the Bill now. I think that in essence it is a good Bill. There is, however, one point which was brought out yesterday in the Guardian in an article by Anthony Tucker which refers to safety precautions. I think this is something which we want to take vary seriously, and I hope that the noble Lord in his reply will be able to tell us something about it, and tell us what the Government propose to do. At the present time, when any construction of a nuclear station takes place the contractor has available, and in fact must use, the advice of the Atomic Energy Authority. The Atomic Energy Authority has an extremely capable group of people in its Hazards and Safety Branch. It has built up, over a number of years, an immense amount of expertise on the subject of safety and security. In consequence of this, most of our reactors have really worked extremely well, but there have been, even with all the precautions that have been introduced at the design stage, occasions when trouble has arisen.

There was the very well known case of the Windscale accident, which occurred on October 10, 1957. A Court of Inquiry was set up with the late Lord Fleck as its chairman in order to inquire into the reason for that near-disaster. It was a very serious accident. It occurred through over-heating inside the pile. This overheating was due to certain peculiar circumstances at Windscale. Oddly enough, I think it was due primarily to the fact that the temperature of the pile was lower than the temperature at which the piles are run nowadays, and consequently, by an odd paradox, this allowed overheating because of the release of energy by means of what is called a Wigner release in the pile. This caused overheating, which they then tried to control. The physicist in charge at the time apparently had not available the complete manual of instructions, and consequently steps were taken which, in his view, were quite reasonable, but which resulted in causing further over-heating. A very dangerous situation arose. Some of the elements were damaged inside the pile, uranium became oxydised, and a very serious disaster could have occurred.

LORD SHERFIELD

My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that this accident took place 15 years ago in the first air-cooled atomic pile; that technology has made tremendous strides since then, and that the accident is not really relevant to the present situation?

LORD WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I was not quoting this incident to suggest that a similar accident would occur to-day. As he has quite rightly said, technology has advanced so much that this particular accident is almost impossible to-day. What I was trying to point out was, first of all, that we nearly had an accident of a major magnitude. Actually, even at that time one reason why the results were not worse was, I believe, because the late Sir John Cockcroft insisted on the installation at Windscale of filters which were more efficient than were generally thought to be necessary. It was those highly efficient filters which prevented a great deal of radioactive contamination from being spread around the country. I believe that we were saved then by the prescience of Sir John Cockcroft.

The point that I am trying to make is that at the present time we have, in the Atomic Energy Authority, a branch which is highly competent in this whole field, and which ought to be brought in to advise in the early stages of design. One might say that full provision is made for ensuring that everything will be looked after, but if one looks at the Bill one finds that the actual proposal is really for an inspectorate which can only inspect after the installations have been designed. It could then see whether something had not been done correctly. I believe that errors have recently been found at the Hartlepools station. In spite of the fact that we are 15 years on, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said, there have been errors in design which have been noted by the inspectorate.

What we have to realise is that, although we have a great deal of experience in the design of reactors, new ideas are coming forward all the time and new reactors are being proposed. At the present time we have the advanced gas-cooled reactor, but we can move on from that—and we shall indeed do so. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to Dounreay, where we have an entirely different type of reactor. Unless we have the highest possible expertise on the safety side of the design of new reactors, we could have a disaster which would set back the whole development of atomic energy in this country. That would be appalling and the Government should ensure that we take every conceivable precaution to make certain that such accidents cannot occur.

I should like, therefore, to ask whether the Government are prepared to ensure that the present team which deals with hazards at the Atomic Energy Authority should be officially brought in at the early stages of design of all new reactors. I am not certain how far that can be covered by the Radiological Protection Act which was passed last year. In looking at that Act, I noticed that the responsibility for advising the board and telling them how they are to work and how they are to define their terms of reference is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Social Services. That will mean that what I am asking for cannot be done directly through the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the nuclear energy installations, and I wonder whether the Government can find a suitable way of ensuring that the services of this expert group of people will be used in order to make certain that the design is done correctly.

If I may make an aside on the matter of design, in recent years we have seen some very serious explosions in large tankers. I have a feeling—I cannot put it any higher than that—that those explosions were avoidable. I think that they could have been avoided, if knowledge on explosions of hydrocarbons, which was available at places such as the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, had been adequately known by the people operating the tankers. In other words, the explosions in the tankers could have been avoided not by new research, but by the use of existing knowledge. What I am anxious to see is that in this field of atomic energy, which will be of vital importance to this country, we do not run the risk of any dangerous hazard, and that we make certain that we use our best existing knowledge.

4.25 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should like to thank those who have spoken for the way in which they have received this Bill. It was a pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for once marching arm in arm with me, because one is accustomed to being at the opposite end of his rapier. I do not think I need comment (I hope he will agree) on anything he said, with which I found myself in complete agreement, but I should like to clarify one point that I made. We were talking about the availability of information to the House on any proposals for the disposal of shares. What I said was that before final decisions are reached on the basis of expert advice Parliament would be given an opportunity to consider the Government's intentions. Technically, I do not think the Government would be making recommendations to Parliament, because it will be within the power of the Government, once this Bill is on the Statute Book, to decide such issues.

The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, was good enough to give me notice of some of the questions that he proposed to raise. He asked, first, whether the Atomic Energy Authority would be sitting rent-free in those research and development enclaves within the establishments to be transferred to the Nuclear Fuels Company. He seemed to be under the impression that this is some kind of bonanza for the A.E.A.; but that is not so. I can assure him that all transactions between the A.E.A. and the fuel company will be on a commercial basis as soon as this Bill comes into operation.

The point about these research and development enclaves within the Nuclear Fuels Company's establishments is really covered by subsection (3) of Clause 4. That subsection provides that the Authority will not be required to pay the Nuclear Fuels Company any rent in respect of the lands or premises which it occupies at Springfields and Windscale. That is because the lands and premises concerned were provided out of Vote funds, and under Clause 1 they are to be transferred to the Nuclear Fuels Company solely for administrative convenience; that is, to keep the whole site under one landlord. Of course the Authority is not relieved of paying other running costs, such as rates, maintenance, gas, electricity and so on. It is purely a matter of convenience that the premises go over for the continuing use of the Authority; and at the present time there is no consideration that has to be paid and therefore no rent.

VISCOUNT THURSO

My Lords, I am not concerned only with the question of rents; I am concerned also with the full use of their other establishments. I should not want establishments which were technically owned by a company to be used by the Atomic Energy Authority if the Authority had appropriate premises elsewhere.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I quite sympathise with that point of view. I can only say that I have found from personal experience—as I have no doubt the noble Viscount has found—that between the Production Group and the research and development establishments there is the closest co-operation. They live literally cheek by jowl, and every kind of contact is encouraged. On research and development there will be a tremendous amount to be done. As the last Report of the Atomic Energy Authority showed, research has become more and more product-orientated and I am quite certain that there will be no tendency whatsoever to under-use the capacity of the Atomic Energy Authority. In addition to this very close contact which exists, there will of course be every advantage for the fuel company itself to get all possible advice from the research and development facilities within its area. For example, research and development at Springfields is concerned very largely with problems of production at Springfields. I do not think the noble Viscount need fear that any difficulty will arise here.

As to the noble Viscount's concern with rent, if I may revert to that subject for a moment, I am rather relieved that Dounreay is not being passed over to the fuel company, because if it were I do not know how one would disentangle this business of the premises that he built for the pension group up there. That brings me to the pension group point. The noble Viscount expressed the hope that the new companies would have their schemes administered in the Atomic Energy Authority office at Thurso. I am not sure that I can give any guarantee that this will be likely to happen. As he will realise, it is not definitely decided whether there will be separate pension schemes for the fuel company and the radiochemical company employees; but even if there were, I am advised that the effect on the numbers of employed at Dounreay would be very small indeed. So there again I think I can give the noble Viscount some consolation, at any rate.

VISCOUNT THURSO

My Lords, the effect on the women and girls at Thurso will be considerable.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am sorry; I am talking about the employees at Thurso. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, it is a fact that more than two-thirds of the total employees will in any case be maintained in the Atomic Energy Authority employment and will therefore remain under the Authority's scheme. Knowing how the control of these schemes works, I am sure the noble Viscount will see that the mere addition of another 10,000 or so, or the taking away of 10,000 employees from that scheme, will not make a very substantial difference in the numbers employed at what I think is called the pension centre at Thurso, at the perimeter.

The noble Viscount then asked about the structure of the new companies and drew attention to the desirability of having a public shareholding in them at the earliest possible moment. This will, I think, be a matter for the merchant banks to consider, and I am certain that they will take account of what the noble Viscount has said in this regard. The general conception of participation is twofold. In the first instance, there will be a two-way process of advantage between the companies on the one hand, and the participants on the other. Each will be joining together to further some interest of their own by participation. One would expect that those outside companies who had a common interest of some kind would be the first to participate. As I said in my opening remarks, though, this certainly does not rule out public participation, either later or indeed from the outset. Circumstances may differ as between the two different companies; but, as I also said, we aim for the maximum participation so long always as there is a majority holding on the part of the public.

The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, raised the very important question of health and safety. I had already seen the article in the Guardian. Perhaps the best I can say about this subject is that there is no intention whatever of permitting any relaxation in safety standards. I was not certain whether the noble Lord was recommending a general tightening up of existing safety standards or just wanted an assurance that there would not be a relaxation of the existing ones. Does the noble Lord want to intervene?

LORD WYNNE-JONES

Only on that particular point, my Lords. I was concerned with not merely the maintenance of existing standards, but with the assurance that in the design stage the expertise from the Atomic Energy Authority should be brought in.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, perhaps the first answer to that must be the obvious one: that, so far as the Nuclear Fuels Company is concerned, their headquarters will be alongside where the health and safety division are housed at Risley, and one would expect the closest possible contact there. I know this is not by any means the whole answer, but it gives an indication. Since in any matter affecting the reactor the fuel company will have to provide the fuel for it, one would expect, both from the point of view of its own production interest and from the point of view of its own customers, who will be the C.E.G.B. and the S.S.E.B., that there would be the closest examination of design from the very start.

I should add, however, that the new companies, like all other operators in the nuclear industry, will have to satisfy the Inspectorate of Nuclear Installations, which is a part of the Department of Trade and Industry, as to the safety of their plants. The Inspectorate, under the powers contained in Section 4 of the 1965 Nuclear Installations Act, make completely independent safety assessments throughout all stages of design, construction and operation of commercial nuclear installations; not just after the design has been completed, and certainly not just when the construction starts on the ground. The section ensures that the licensee of a nuclear site complies with all the conditions that the Secretary of State considers necessary or desirable in the interests of safety. The Authority's Health and Safety Branch has made an important contribution to nuclear safety in this country, and it is expected that the nuclear fuel and radiochemical companies will continue to have recourse to the branch for independent advice on safety aspects of the design of new plant.

But this is not a matter which needs to be dealt with, or indeed that it would be appropriate to deal with, by legislation. I know that the noble Lord did not suggest that this should be included in the Bill, but I think he rather suggested that there should be some form of direction. Whether this would be appropriate or not is not really a matter for the Bill. All I am saying to the noble Lord is that there has been the closest contact in the past. Of course, as always with experts, you may get differing opinions from time to time, but there has been the closest contact; and since the companies will be subject to the licensing and inspection of the Inspectorate, they will have every incentive to get the most thorough and soundly-based advice at all stages. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord, and I would once again thank the House for the reception it has given to this Bill.

On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.