HL Deb 18 June 1986 vol 476 cc856-8

2.53 p.m.

Viscount Mersey

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce one simple measure of radiation to replace the present multiplicity of Roentgens, REMs, RADs, Curies, Sieverts and Becquerels with a view to enabling the public to distinguish between a nuclear disaster and a nuclear mishap.

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

My Lords, the Units of Measurements Regulations 1980 specify that as from 1st January 1986 units of Curies, RADs, REMs and Roentgens are no longer authorised for official use. The unit which best represents radiation risk is the Sievert. A dose of one Sievert is generally regarded as giving rise to an average risk of incurring a fatal radiation-induced cancer of about one in a hundred. Higher or lower doses lead to proportionate risks.

Viscount Mersey

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Certainly things seem to be getting a lot simpler. Is he aware of what I would call the nicotine equivalent measure, used by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, in which he would liken a person who, say, recently drank a pint of water in the Lake District after Chernobyl to a man taking one puff at a cigarette a week, and liken a man living, say, only 10 miles from Chernobyl to a man smoking, say, 40 cigarettes a day?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the arithmetic of these comparisons is difficult, whereas their simplicity is attractive. I am advised—I believe that I am correct on the advice I am given—that half of one Sievert per annum carries an equivalent risk to smoking 10 cigarettes per diem over a year.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, is it not the case that what the public want is a simple indication of reassurance like the Beaufort scale of wind or the Richter scale of earthquakes whereby one can associate a number with a degree of hazard? I have suggested to both the Central Electricity Generating Board and British Nuclear Fuels how this can be done. Will the noble Lord the Minister give an undertaking that he will ask them what progress they are making in implementing what I have suggested?

Lord Elton

My Lords, my answer to the noble Earl's second and substantive question is, yes.

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, will my noble friend not consider, in addition to the so-called nicotine equivalent, that he might also look at the alcohol equivalent and perhaps liken so many drams of whisky or so many pints of beer to so many Sieverts or whatever they are called? The public does not understand this terminology. It is important that they should have something they can understand.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am entirely in sympathy with the idea that the public should be able to understand something which, because it is not properly understood, at the moment is far more frightening than it should be. I shall certainly look at any suggestions.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, can the noble Lord say what steps the Government are taking to convey this important information to members of the public? It is not conveyed by an exchange of questions in this House, however important that may be. Are the noble Lord and his right honourable friend taking steps, for example, to convey to local authorities that they may disseminate the information; or is there some other way in which this can be done?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the information is of course disseminated to local authorities in the normal way. I take the noble Lord's point that there may be merit in suggesting that it should be translated in some way.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what is necessary is that the public should believe what the Government say? The noble Lord used the word "reassurance". Will he give an assurance that instead of trying to reassure the public the Government will tell the truth so that the public will know when to be alarmed and when to do something instead of disbelieving the Government, as so often is the case?

Lord Elton

My Lords, this Government have always been committed to open government and have actually passed legislation to that effect. I can add to that the record of the recent Secretary of State for the Environment in ensuring that events of this kind are brought to public attention immediately. I hope that the noble Lord did not imply that the Government obfuscated in any way on the matter. We believe that knowledge is the best combatant of fear.

Baroness David

My Lords, can the Minister inform the House which government department is responsible for recommending counter-measures to a nuclear emergency, such as the removal of cattle from contaminated pastures in Cumbria, which some people think should have been done some time ago?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I do not want to appear craven simply because there are no fewer than three Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to one on this side. I believe, however, that I should direct the noble Baroness's attention to the Question on the Order Paper and suggest that she puts down another.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has not taken seriously the question of nicotine comparison. It will lead us into all sorts of difficulties. There will be crossing the road comparisons, and what have you. This is a serious matter not concerned with the approval or otherwise of the nuclear industry. It is essential that we have a proper and understandable measure. May I urge the noble Lord to take up the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who is so expert on these matters?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the idea of a commonly understood comparator is extremely attractive. I recognise that the views of those who smoke and drink may not coincide as to what it might be. I shall certainly look carefully at the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. However, I would also point out that the substantive Answer I gave produced a unit which is perfectly safe at nought and which is lethal at 100. That is a scale which is not too difficult to understand.