HL Deb 25 October 1983 vol 444 cc160-6

4.54 p.m.

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

My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement reads as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the procedures for dealing with radioactive wastes.

"The White Paper of July 1982 stressed the great importance which the Government attach to the safe and effective management of radioactive wastes. These wastes, which vary greatly in type and source, are a necessary product of modern society. Their effective disposal, in ways which have been shown to be safe, is well within the scope of modern technology.

"It has been decided already that the high-level, heat-generating wastes from nuclear fuel should be solidified and stored for at least 50 years. This will allow the radioactivity to decline and the necessary information to be collected for an eventual choice of the best means of disposal. However, there is no scientific reason for deferring the disposal of other categories of waste—and that is what the rest of this Statement is about.

"For many years, low-level waste has been regularly disposed of, both on land and at sea. The Government firmly believe that sea disposal is a safe method for certain kinds of lower-level wastes from laboratories, medical uses and other sources. It has been authorised by successive Governments, and is permitted under the London Convention. It is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence, but the Government regret that they have not so far succeeded in persuading certain unions of this. If there were authoritative evidence of a real risk to human health, or significant and permanent damage to the marine environment, then of course it would cease to form part of the national waste management strategy. A sea disposal operation will not take place this year, and the waste for which sea disposal is planned will be stored on land for the time being.

"There is, in any event, a need to bring into operation by the end of the decade land disposal facilities for intermediate level wastes. The responsibility for providing those facilities falls to the nuclear industry and the generating boards acting through NIREX, the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive. A copy of its first report has been placed in the Library of the House. The technology for constructing and monitoring such facilities is well developed. NIREX will be able to draw on extensive research and operational experience in other countries.

"Two new facilities are likely to be needed, one consisting of a concrete-lined trench and the other of a deep underground cavity. NIREX is today announcing two sites which it considers sufficiently promising to justify further investigation. The possible site for a deep facility is at Billingham, in Cleveland, and the possible site for a shallow facility at Elstow, in Bedfordshire. Copies of the NIREX statement are available in the Library.

"The decision by NIREX whether to proceed with proposals for these sites will depend on the outcome of survey, drilling and other investigatory works. It is possible that, depending on what is involved, such works may require planning permission. If so, I shall call in the relevant applications for determination after public inquiries. I emphasise that these inquiries would give an opportunity for expressing views on the investigatory works themselves, having regard to their planning implications. They should not he seen as a forum for considering the merits of disposing of wastes at the sites.

"If NIREX wishes in due course to propose that a disposal facility should be established at one of these sites or at any other site, planning permission will be necessary. It is my intention to call in any such application and arrange for a public inquiry to be held under an independent inspector, at which the merits of disposal at the proposed site will be considered in the light of the views of all concerned.

"In addition to planning permission, any arrangements for disposing of radioactive waste in England will also have to be authorised by me, acting jointly with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. I have today published, and placed in the Library of the House, a consultation document embodying the principles which it is proposed that the authorising departments should apply in assessing schemes. All concerned are invited to comment on the draft principles. I intend to seek the advice of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and to strengthen the committee by appointment of additional members. The final statement of principles will be published as a framework for consideration of the individual schemes.

"The sites will also be subject to licensing by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, and appropriate regulations will be brought forward in due course. Approval of the schemes will depend on satisfying a comprehensive range of exacting requirements designed to safeguard the public and the workforce.

"Mr. Speaker, the Government are committed to the safe and effective management of radioactive wastes. Additional land facilities are needed for the disposal of intermediate level waste. It is essential that decisions should be taken on the basis of informed scientific advice and after rigorous study of the views of all concerned, and that the installations and operation should be subject to stringent scrutiny and monitoring. The Government believe that the proposals I have announced represent an effective procedure for achieving these ends".

My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, may I thank the Minister for repeating a Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. The Statement is of the greatest importance to everyone in the country, not only to those people living close to the sites to which the Minister has referred, who naturally feel more strongly about the matter. The Select Committee on Science and Technology in its report published in July 1981 stated clearly: Public hostility to hazardous waste disposal facilities is common and is too important to be ignored". I should therefore like to ask the Minister what steps the Government intend to take to try to reassure the many people who feel, and who always have felt, very nervous and worried about this whole subject.

The last sentence in paragraph 2 of the Statement states: Their effective disposal, in ways which have been shown to be safe, is well within the scope of modern technology". The penultimate sentence in the fifth paragraph of the Statement states: The technology for constructing and monitoring such facilities is well developed". This seems to assume a safety of modern technology that has not yet been completely proved within the timescale that the Government have taken. In the eleventh paragraph, there is reference to "informed scientific advice". One problem, as the Minister, I am sure, will be well aware, is that scientific opinion is very divided. There is by no means one view, or a unanimous view, about it.

I should like to ask the Minister what consultation has taken place between NIREX or the Government and the two local authorities now selected. I know that there is severe local criticism that the Government failed to carry out the usual pre-selection consultation with local elected representatives from the county and district councils and also the local Member of Parliament. This has caused great shock and distress in those areas. Furthermore, the reference in the Sunday Times last Sunday to water seeping in Billingham was extremely disturbing. As the official National Radiological Protection Board has pointed out, the biggest potential hazard of any underground dump is the possibility that water might seep into the waste, leak into ground water and then into the food chain. I do not know whether the Minister can help in respect of that matter.

The Statement refers in the seventh paragraph to the new procedure for planning inquiries. This is a totally new set-up in which the public inquiry comes before the planning inquiry. I should like to know under what rules this will operate. How, for example, can it rule out questions of the merit of a site, as it does in paragraph 7, and divorce itself from the economic and social factors which the White Paper of July 1982 stressed, in its annexe, as one of the objectives of radioactive waste management? It states specifically that the economic and social factors must be taken into account. The following paragraph of the Statement does not cover the point, because by then the cart will have been put before the horse.

What is the means of transporting this waste? What are the safety procedures that will be put into operation to make the transport of this material safe? It seems to us essential that the consultative document and the appropriate regulations referred to in paragraphs 9 and 10 should be debated in both Houses of Parliament.

5.4 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked so many questions that I am not sure whether the Minister would not like to answer them first. I wish to put only a couple more. In their anxiety to lay the blame for these unwelcome developments, or some of them, on the unions concerned, it seems that the Government have done two things. In saying that the sea disposal of low-level waste will not take place this year, and laying this at the door of the unions, they have omitted to make any allusion to the opinions of other Governments about British practice over low-level waste disposal at sea. It would be interesting to know whether they share some of the objections of the unions concerned.

Secondly, it appears from the juxtaposition of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Statement almost as if the Government are also making the land storage of medium-level waste the result of the objections of the unions to taking low-level waste to sea. I am sure that this is not the case, but it would perhaps be a good idea if the Government can clarify the issue.

My final point concerns the inquiries. The House will be glad to see that the relevant paragraphs, 37 and 68, of the White Paper about public inquiries reappear in this Statement and what is pledged there is to be adhered to. The Government say that the public inquiry that is promised into planning permission for the development itself—that is not the one about preliminary investigatory work but the one about actual disposal if it happens—is to go into the merits of disposal at the proposed site. Can the Government say that they would agree that one cannot look into the merits of the proposals at the proposed site without also going into the merits of disposal at other sites? Will they say, in other words, that the inquiry under paragraph 8 of the Statement will be free to consider arguments that this disposal would have been better done somewhere else in accordance with the provision in the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act, which provides precisely for that but which has never been used?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, it is always difficult when answering questions on Statements to write down everything that everyone says. I shall do my best to cover those points. I hope that if I miss anything your Lordships will bear with me. I shall, of course, be in touch.

The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked what steps the Government are taking to reassure people, who may be very concerned, in the areas that may be affected. I consider that a very fair point to make. I hope that they will carefully read the Statement which stresses so much the fact that what is being talked about here is an intention to deal with this particular problem with, at all stages, the opportunity of public inquiries for any concerns to be expressed and for objections to be made. Those concerns and objections would have to be taken very carefully into acount when independent inspectors submit the results of the inquiry and the Secretary of State or those concerned come to conclusions as to whether or not a particular site would be appropriate for use.

That is a proper point to make. It is right. The Government share that concern and will do everything they can to see that the fullest opportunity is given to everyone who may be concerned—and I do say "may be"—to express their views in every way.

The noble Baroness asked what consultation had taken place between NIREX and the local Member of Parliament. I do not know myself, but I am aware that he has expressed concern. The answer must surely be the same a the one that I have just given—namely, that he together with everyone else will have every opportunity to make his concerns and views known at the appropriate moment.

The Statement does not say that a decision has been taken to put these sites here; it does not say that at all. The Statement says that the intention is to look into all aspects of this being done. There would have to be two separate inquiries: the first for permission to do the looking, the surveying and any drilling that may be necessary, and the second to consider whether, despite all that, this is something that ought to be done here. So there truly will be much opportunity.

The noble Baroness raised the point about the Sunday Times article and the concern expressed about water seepage which I, too, have read. All I would say is that that is precisely the type of issue which would be scrutinised at a public inquiry. The opinion that has been given to me is that there would not be the problem that is mentioned in that article. But, I say again, that is just a view. It is the type of matter that would come out at a public inquiry. Indeed, that is the whole purpose of having such an inquiry. Therefore, no opportunity would be lost.

The noble Baroness also asked me about transport. She was concerned about what means of transport there would be for this waste. At this stage I must say that the method of transport has certainly not been decided. Again, the effects of the transport movements would also be an issue which would be considered at a public inquiry into a proposed disposal facility. However, as a point of interest, it is worth noting that both the sites referred to are beside existing railway lines and are not far from motorways. I think that I have covered the points that the noble Baroness made. If I have not done so I shall read carefully what she has said and come back to her.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to the Government's anxiety to blame the unions. That is a less than fair observation. There is no attempt to blame anyone for anything. We have here a situation which has to be tackled—I do not think that the noble Lord would quarrel with that. The trade unions themselves have said that they are in favour of land sites of this kind and, therefore, this Statement is all about the procedures for looking into the possibility of two of them. It does not affect in any way or make any attempt to blame anyone at all.

The noble Lord said that I omitted to comment on the opinions of other Governments. I can only say as regards that matter that other Governments are doing very similar things themselves. The United States, France, Germany and Canada have significant nuclear programmes and they either have or are developing disposal facilities along similar lines. The French have been operating a site for shallow burial of waste for some time and the Germans have successfully carried out disposal of intermediate level waste in a disused salt mine. The noble Lord raised a point, I think, about whether there was concern about the sea. I understand—and I will certainly verify it when I write to the noble Lord—that there is not concern about what we are proposing in that respect. But again I would have to confirm that to him. I think that that was the thrust of what he was saying, but I do not mind the opportunity to make reference to what others are doing in this field because it may be of interest to your Lordships.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether one would go into the merits of the matter. Clearly that is also precisely what a public inquiry would do—that is the whole point of it. In this instance I am talking about certainly two public inquiries if the matter should go further.