HL Deb 21 November 1983 vol 445 cc17-20

3.34 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to repeat an Answer to a Private Notice Question being made in another place by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment. It reads as follows:

"The Sellafield works of British Nuclear Fuels Limited which are an essential part of the United Kingdom's nuclear power programme, operate under the terms of a site licence issued by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive and in accordance with authorisations for the disposal of radioactive waste issued by my department and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The latter are published in an appendix to the company's annual report on discharges, and according to the department's information, they have kept within them.

"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment set out fully in a Written Answer on 2nd November the substantial reductions in discharges the company have recently made and the further reductions we have required them to make over the next couple of years. The authorising departments keep a continual watch on the situation and all the available scientific and monitoring data, and will take whatever action is necessary to ensure continued protection of the public.

"A discharge occurred over the weekend of 12th-14th November, which caused some contamination of a short stretch of beach near the site to be discovered on 19th November. BNFL have stated that this did not represent a danger to the public and the beach was reopened last night. As a precaution, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is carrying out its own monitoring in the area, including monitoring of the beach and fish. Inspectors of my department are making a formal investigation to discover how the incident occurred and whether there has been any breach of the conditions of the authorisation."

My Lords, that concludes the Answer.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, will the Minister accept that the frank and forthright statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on the radio programme, "The World this Weekend" yesterday, that the Government are dissatisfied with the safety standards at Sellafield, while alarming in itself, is welcomed as a manifest of the Government's unease? When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in that programme that he was not satisfied that BNFL was meeting the high standards which now exist, does he appreciate that this must fill the whole country with alarm—and, I venture to suggest, with anger as well—and that all actions he intends to take to make BNFL management act efficiently and responsibly will receive the backing of all sides of this House?

When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that the Government have been worried for some years about the discharges and have been taking major action to diminish them, can we be told what these major steps have been? Without wishing to over-dramatise the issue, does the Minister appreciate that it is not possible to over-dramatise this particular issue? Has the Minister seen the statements by British Nuclear Fuels that it is satisfied that there is no danger to the public? However, the public—particularly those living in the area—are far from satisfied.

Is the Minister aware that process workers have stated that the recent leak was bigger than has been admitted? Can the Minister reconcile press reports over the weekend that, although workers claim that up to 20 times the permitted daily limit of radioactive waste has been pumped into the sea, the company asserts that it has only been two-and-a-half times the legal limit? If the Minister shares our view that two-and-a-half times the legal limit is intolerable, will he ensure that the company complies with the standards laid down on medical and environmental grounds, and that no excess above the legal limit will be tolerated?

Finally, are the Government aware that public confidence in ultimate public safety, as it is affected by the disposal of nuclear waste, can be crucially affected by the manner in which Ministers face their responsibilities to make sure that safety measures for the public safety are scrupulously and unfailingly observed? To this extent we on these Benches say on this issue, "All power to your collective elbow".

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for repeating this Answer. I would not wish in any way to be alarmist about this situation; I think it is very easy to draw alarmist conclusions. Recently there has been much publicity about leukaemia cases occurring near to Windscale. My own view is that one should be suspicious of too many conclusions being drawn from a very small sample. However, that will not make the problem go away.

Again, like the noble Lord speaking from the Labour Party Front Bench, one heard the statements by Mr. William Waldegrave the other day, which did very little to alleviate one's concern. Do the Government not agree that the Answer we have just heard is somewhat anodyne in relation to the statements made over the weekend? May I ask why, for instance, if a discharge occurred over the weekend of the 12th–14th it then took five days for the site to be discovered from which it was apparently necessary to remove the public? Does that mean that regular monitoring is not going on in these areas and that a sudden accidental discharge will not be picked up in time to preserve the local population from undue hazard?

One is grateful for this Statement having been made, but in the past so many statements have been made and assurances given—for instance, by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on 22nd December 1976. The public is getting a little tired of feeling that a veil of secrecy is being drawn unduly over these matters when their health could be at risk. I am not saying that it is at risk; I am saying that it could be at risk. Will the Government recognise that they need to be even more open than they have been so far?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this subject. I certainly appreciate the concern. Indeed, I welcome the chance to amplify some of the things which were said over the weekend. The one thing that we do not want is any secrecy, or anything of that kind. That is the one thing that is likely to cause real concern, and with some justification for it.

So far as the Statement which my honourable friend made is concerned, clearly he would himself have to expand on that if it was thought necessary, but may I answer some of the points that the noble Lord has made. First, the Government are showing their concern by the fact that we have immediately called for the Black inquiry to be carried out. It is right that it should be. Although we have no evidence at all that would indicate that there is need for concern at the moment, nevertheless the fact that this kind of thing happens itself is enough to have made us want to institute the inquiry, and that we have done.

If I may answer both noble Lords together, I was asked why it took five days before the effect on the beach was observed. I understand that there is no effect if the tides have taken the waste away from the coast. But, again, this is the kind of thing that needs to be considered, and I am sure will be, when the Black inquiry does its work. Of course, it is basically a responsibility of the company, but, having said that, the Government themselves must want to know also; because it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, that there is great concern by individuals, and not least those who live in the area. That is why we seek in no way to try to say all is well.

So far as we know on the evidence we have there is no need for concern, but the fact that this matter has arisen in this way is enough, and we must look at it. I assure both noble Lords and the rest of your Lordships' House that we do not take this lightly at all, despite the fact that we do not consider that there is any evidence so far that makes us worry overly about it. Nevertheless, it must be looked into carefully, and it will be.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, may I say what I ought to have said earlier? I am grateful to the Minister for having repeated the Statement here that was being made by his honourable friend in another place. Will the noble Lord the Minister take it from me and I am sure from many others, that we welcome the declaration that he has made, that in no way are the Government to be party to secrecy or hushing up? There is obviously a borderline to be drawn in the kind of information which properly falls into one category. However, we are talking about a public unease and unrest that in our view can be quickly allayed, and that is by the determination of the Government to make sure that the company fulfils the responsibilities laid upon it. The weekend press reports may not be wholly accurate, but if the assertion is made that something which is two and half times above the legal limit is tolerable, then we on this side of the House are saying that that assertion should in no way be tolerable. But we are grateful for what the Minister has indicated, and that is deep concern and continuing determination to make sure that safety is maintained.