Nuclear Plants: International Safety Standards (Hansard, 22 May 1986)

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

§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin)
My Lords, the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency met on 21st May to consider the possibility of further action by the Agency in the field of nuclear safety. I hope that it will be possible to progress speedily to agreeing on measures on the prompt reporting of any nuclear incidents causing cross-border radioactive releases.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that Dr. Blix, the head of the International Atomic Energy Authority, stated this week, as reported in the Financial Times: We are not responsible for safety. This is the business of member states"? He went on to say that lessons would be learnt from the disaster but he did not believe that it would be possible to establish a permanent body to control nuclear safety worldwide. Is that comment not deeply disappointing? May I have an assurance from the Government that they will continue to press all international agencies, including the World Health Organisation, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Authority to ensure that something is done in that connection?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, the Government, as were their predecessors, are very proud of the safety record that we have achieved in this country. We are confident of the efficiency of the safety systems at United Kingdom reactors. We would, of course, be prepared to explain these if requested to do so by an international body. Any international safety inspectorate could operate only on the basis of internationally agreed safety standards. These have yet to be established.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, is it not clear that whether international precautions are successful or not and whatever the World Health Organisation may do or fail to do, the nuclear disaster—that is no exaggeration—in Russia points to the need for local authorities in this country greatly to improve their peacetime arrangements for the protection of their people against fall-out?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, my noble friend has hit on a very important point. Of course, it is now for local authorities to consider very carefully what precautions they have taken so far as civil defence, for example, is concerned, and to satisfy themselves that what they have done is adequate, and, if not, to try to improve it.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords—

§ Lord Thorneycroft
My Lords—

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, I think—if I may say so with deference to the noble Lord—it is the turn of the Opposition. Will the Government now review their policy towards the PWR?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question. Indeed, it would be quite wrong for me to make any comment on PWR after the very intensive inquiry which has taken place and until we have had the opportunity of hearing the conclusions of the report.

§ Lord Thorneycroft
My Lords, will my noble friend consider whether the almost daily announcement of what appear to be rather trivial incidents in nuclear power stations is really very helpful to the objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, properly has in mind?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, a set of guidelines was announced by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy at that time which became known as the Moore guidelines. More recently, because of public concern, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said in another place that he has given instructions within his department that Ministers should be told of all incidents involving release of radioactivity, however small, so that they can decide whether they are sufficiently important to be made public. I would agree with my noble friend that there is a tendency within the media to highlight incidents connected with the nuclear industry to a very much greater extent than seems to be the practice in connection with other industries.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the Three Mile Island incident was a warning and that the Chernobyl accident was a further very serious warning to the world of the dangers of nuclear fission? Have the British Government taken due note of the statement made by Mr. Gorbachev on 14th May to the effect that we now need an international regime on safe development of nuclear power to be created on the basis of due co-operation of all nations dealing with nuclear power engineering? Does the noble Lord agree that that was a useful statement and that it should be followed up? Will he also ask the delegation led by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, that is visiting Russia, to take up this matter in their discussions with Soviet officials and Soviet Ministers during their week in Moscow, starting, I believe, tomorrow?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's suggestion to my noble friend. I think I would have been more convinced by Mr. Gorbachev's suggestion had he and his Government been more forthcoming in the very early stages about what actually happened. This was not, one might say, leading from the front. However, any suggestion of that sort coming from Mr. Gorbachev obviously must be taken seriously. We are as anxious as our partners in the West that the dangers of nuclear power shall be readily observed by everyone and the necessary action taken to prevent accidents. We should like to see all countries adopt safety standards comparable with our own.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, is this not a grim and, one would hope, rather stimulating comment to 390 all those local authorities that have refused to take any civil defence precautions on the grounds that they have declared themselves to be nuclear-free zones?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I have little doubt that the local authorities concerned and indeed those who live in the areas for which they are responsible will have taken very much to heart the fact that civil defence cannot be ignored.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that unless the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that this problem should be dealt with on an international basis is adopted, recent incidents will only lend weight to the argument of those people who are already shouting over here about the possibility of ceasing almost immediately to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Is it not a fact that if we did opt out prematurely but our competitors in nuclear energy did not, we might well lose out for all time because we would never keep up with the technology required to make nuclear installations safer anyway?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I have already made clear, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, that the Government will continue to seek for the safest possible standards to be observed in the further development of the nuclear industry.

§ The Duke of Portland
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that at the international atomic energy conference in 1984 Dr. Hans Blix launched a proposal that negotiations should take place to develop international nuclear standards of safety? This proposal was not accepted. Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to press at the next meeting of the international agency for the conclusion of an international agreement on safety standards for all future reactors?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I am, of course, very much aware of my noble friend's great interest in this subject. I agree with my noble friend that there is a widespread belief that the establishment of international nuclear safety standards would be of value. But choosing the correct approach is a complex task that may take some time. I can, however, give my noble friend the assurance that we shall actively participate in international discussions on this subject.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, in his reply to the supplementary question of my noble friend Lord Stoddart, the noble Lord referred to the lack of information immediately following the Chernobyl disaster. This was, of course, criticised here and elsewhere. Is it not the case that within a few days, when the Soviet Government realised what had, in fact, happened, communications improved immediately? Would he not agree that the present situation between the Soviet Government, our own Government and others is now more satisfactory on this issue than it has been at any previous time? Would he agree, in fact, that relations on this matter between the Soviet Government and Western Governments are now good?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I must correct the noble Lord. My recollection of the situation was that it was only after the Swedish authorities as a result of their very effective monitoring had questioned what had happened within the Soviet Union with regard to this very major accident that the information became as free-flowing as it ultimately did. However, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord that the situation between the Soviets and this country with regard to exchange of information on nuclear power seems to be improving. We wholeheartedly welcome this.
We shall certainly do all we can to try to ensure that there is a free exchange of information which, hopefully, will avoid such a tragedy in the future.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that there are still 27 reactors of the same type working in the Soviet Union and that when the Soviet Government have concluded their inquiry they may find that the disaster was due to inadequate electronic control of the reactor? If that is the case there will be an argument for permitting the export to the Soviet Union of more advanced Western reactors. That will raise some interesting questions about what is of the greater benefit to mankind.

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a very interesting point, which I am sure will be followed up. I myself visited the Soviet Union in 1979 with a trade mission. As I recall there were many British companies who were only too anxious to export to the Soviet Union. I suspect that this is still the case but it is a particularly difficult market to penetrate.

Lord Morris
My Lords, in response to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, my noble friend referred to the importance of early warning on nuclear incidents across borders. Is it not of equal importance that any serious nuclear incident be reported in case nationals of other countries are affected within the country in which the incident occurred?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Certainly with regard to our nuclear industry in this country we are extremely willing to make incidents known. I think that it was my noble friend who suggested a little earlier that some of the incidents were so trivial that it was hardly worth making them known. But certainly with regard to any serious matter we would not hesitate to make information available.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the report in yesterday's Financial Times to the effect that an engineer from Babcock visited Chernobyl seven years ago and reported on the total inadequacy of the safety arrangements at Chernobyl?
Does this not demonstrate the complete inadequacy of the arrangements for safety when such a report was not taken up by the International Atomic Energy Authority or anyone else? May I assure the noble Lord that if his noble friend the Leader of the House places this matter on his agenda in the course of his visit to 392 Moscow this week he will have the overwhelming encouragement and support of all Members of this House and the British public?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I have taken careful note of what the noble Lord has suggested. I have already said that I shall draw the attention of my noble friend to the views expressed in this House. I am sure that he will take due note.