Radioactive Waste: Discharge into Thames (Hansard, 19 December 1985)

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the liquid waste produced by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishement at Aldermaston is treated to remove as much of its radioactive content as is reasonably practicable. The amount of radioactivity remaining is very small indeed and is well within the limits agreed with the Department of the Environment.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that the radioactive effluent being pumped into the Thames from Aldermaston comes from a plant that itself has been shown not to be observing the safety standards laid down? Is he further aware that the leukaemia rate in the Aldermaston area and in the surrounding area is double the national average? Is the Minister aware also that in children under 10 it is five times the national average? Did the noble Lord see the Yorkshire Television programme on this subject? Does not this matter demand at least a public inquiry?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I did indeed see the Yorkshire Television programme since I played a major part in it. The fact of the matter is that there is no scientifically-based evidence to support the assertions made in that programme relating to the incidence of the distressing diseases to which the noble Lord has referred and which attempted to establish a link between that incidence and the presence of nuclear facilities in the district. As for the safety regulations, the noble Lord is mistaken in his view that there is any current breach of those regulations at Aldermaston.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the past 10 years there has been a dramatic improvement in the cleanliness of the River Thames? Today, much of the river is used by the public for swimming—certainly it is in my part of the world—and for fishing. Is it not about time that we paid tribute to those who do a magnificent job in keeping this wonderful river clean?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in his assertion, and nothing done by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston in any way detracts from what the noble Lord has said.

§ Lord Gisborough
My Lords, when my noble friend speaks of a small amount of radioactive material still going into the Thames, can he say how it compares with the natural radioactivity that is already there?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, sometimes it is very misleading to quote figures whose basis may be difficult to understand in scientific terms. However, I shall try to help my noble friend in this way. The radioactivity level of the waste that is discharged into the Thames from Aldermaston is something like one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the permitted level.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I understood the Minister categorically to deny the assertion that there is a higher incidence of leukaemia in the parishes around Aldermaston. My question therefore is this: in view of the assertion that there is a higher incidence of leukaemia in the parishes around Aldermaston, would the Minister care to tell the House how that incidence compares with the national average? If there is indeed disquiet in the area, and I understand that there is, then surely the best way of satisfying public concern would be to hold a public inquiry or at least to make an authoritative statement on the matter.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have endeavoured to make an authoritative statement.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
What an actor, my Lords!

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I had the pleasure of seeing him on television, and that his performance on that programme was described in the press as being urbane and unconvincing? Is he further aware that that is not entirely unaligned with the nature of his replies in this House? In the circumstances, will he initiate a public inquiry into this matter? Is he not aware that only in that way can public disquiet be put at rest?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said before—both on the television programme and on other occasions. There is no scientific basis for the allegations made in the programme. But if the noble Lord has any further information that he would like me to consider, then I shall be happy to do so.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, will my noble friend take all the steps available to the Government to make widely known his statement that the discharge is at the rate of one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the permitted level?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the Government will continue to take every opportunity to allay the unjustified public disquiet that has been raised by the television programme and on other occasions.

§ Lord Ross of Marnock
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I feel he has been unfairly criticised by my noble friend in respect of his television performance? I think he is to be congratulated, especially on the tribute he paid to the workers at the naval dockyard at Rosyth for their efficiency (and at a later date I shall quote his very words) and their safety records. It is a 896 tribute that will be remembered in view of the Government's plans in respect of that dockyard.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, as someone who at the present time lives in the area under discussion, I ask the noble Lord to reconsider his attitude. There is a good deal of disquiet in both Burghfield and Aldermaston at the present time, to the extent even that property values are being affected. Will the Minister also say—because there is worry about this too—whether there is any problem in Reading? Reading is the first point of extraction of water from the River Thames, and 12 million gallons a day are taken. Therefore, public concern goes wider than Burghfield and Aldermaston. I urge the Minister to allay the fears of those living in those areas by holding some kind of inquiry, if not a public inquiry.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the unjustified fears that have been raised by the television programme to which the noble Lord refers are the responsibility of those who made the programme and not of Her Majesty's Government. I can only say again that there is no scientific basis for the allegations that were made in the programme. The level of radioactivity in the discharges made into the River Thames—at a point downstream to that from which the water supply is taken—is, as I have said before, only a tiny fraction of the percentage allowed.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, will the Minister address himself to the question of the leukaemia rates? Is he aware that in Rosyth, for example, the rate is three times the Scottish average?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am aware of the allegations made in the programme, including that to which the noble Lord refers. The fact is that if one makes allegations one must have a scientific basis for them—and I have seen no such scientific basis.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in so far as radioactive waste might affect human beings, we would be suffering too because about 70 per cent. of the water we drink comes from the Thames—and radioactive capacity is of course persistent? Is my noble friend aware also that in the many years I was responsible for these matters we knew that the percentage of radioactivity in the discharge from Harwell in particular was less than that in the water before it arrived at Harwell? So, far from there being any danger, the natural radioactivity of the water had been decreased by the cleaning process before it was discharged.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, my noble friend's observation only underlines the success of the efforts of the people at Aldermaston, and elsewhere, to ensure that their discharges cause no danger to the public at large.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, for those who may be rather slow at doing their sums, will my noble friend confirm that one-tenth of 1 per cent. is, in fact, one-thousandth, which is very little indeed?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I dare say my noble friend's mental arithmetic is better than mine, in which case he is probably correct.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, if I lived in the area which is now being complained of I think the questions that are being asked today would scare the wits out of me. Is it not about time the Government made a statement to reassure these people by way of writing direct to the borough councils, and so on? Quite frankly, Questions of this kind put down in this way create much mischief.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that those who make unfounded allegations without any proper scientific basis at all carry a heavy burden of responsibility.