HL Deb 22 May 1991 vol 529 cc312-22

7.44 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill seeks to replace certain provisions in Section 5(2) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1948 with a new and modern set of powers enabling the Secretary of State for Transport to implement the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency's regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials by road. Present powers do not allow this in full. Although the Bill is modest in scope, it is nevertheless important. I am glad to say that it enjoys wide support in the industry and in another place where it was introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Kensington, Mr. Fishburn.

The International Atomic Energy Agency—a specialist agency of the United Nations—of which the United Kingdom is a leading member was set up in 1959 to advise on all aspects of the civil nuclear industry. The agency's recommended regulations set out the minimum standards with which packages and packaging used to transport radioactive material must comply. It is important to appreciate the general philosophy underlying the IAEA regulations. The philosophy is to build safety into packages used in the transportation of radioactive material, a philosophy which the IAEA and its member states have operated effectively for the past 30 years or so. In other words, the design, make up, fabrication, maintenance and storage of packages, and not merely the transport element alone, are subject to the IAEA regulations; hence the necessity of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers.

The IAEA regulations are subject to a continuous review process, leading to a comprehensive revision every 10 years. The last full revision was in 1985. Member states of the agency are under an obligation to implement the regulations by way of domestic legislation as soon as this is possible and practicable. The provisions of the Bill are designed to ensure that the regulations made under it reflect the provisions laid down in the latest edition of the IAEA recommended regulations which are already being adopted worldwide. It is important therefore that the United Kingdom is seen by the international community to adopt the provisions as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.

Under Clause 1 the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to help in implementing the Bill and enforcing any regulations made under it. Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations covering all aspects of the transport by road of radioactive materials and embraces the areas to which I referred a moment ago. It will be an offence to contravene any regulations made under the clause.

Clause 3 sets out the circumstances in which an inspector or an examiner appointed under Section 68(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 may stop a vehicle being used to transport radioactive packages and the circumstances in which an inspector may prohibit the transport of a radioactive package or the use of a component in the packaging of a radioactive material. The clause also deals with the purpose, duration, form and content of prohibitions. These powers are at present unavailable to the Department of Transport's enforcement staff although they are possessed by other enforcement agencies working in the field of radioactive material, such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in the Department of the Environment. Contravention of a prohibition notice issued under this clause, or failure to comply with directions given in conjunction with such a notice, would be an offence.

Where an inspector believes that a person is failing or is likely to fail to comply with regulations concerning the manufacture or maintenance of packaging components, he will be able, under the provisions of Clause 4, to issue an enforcement notice. The notice will specify the failure or likely failure and the steps to be taken to remedy it. Again, this is something other enforcement agencies have available to them; so no new ground is broken. Failure to comply with a notice will be an offence.

Clause 5 gives powers of entry and sets out the circumstances in which inspectors may enter vehicles and premises, and examiners may enter vehicles, with or without consent. It also specifies when an inspector or an examiner may seize evidence. The obstruction of an inspector or an examiner in exercising any power conferred by this clause, or a warrant issued under it, will constitute an offence. The clause contains another important provision. I refer to the fact that any inspector or examiner who discloses information obtained while exercising the power conferred by the clause, other than in the performance of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

Clause 6 sets out the penalties for offences and allows for a prosecution to be conducted in either a magistrates' court or a Crown Court. That is dependent upon the severity of the offence. The clause also allows for the prosecution of officials of a corporate body where that body has committed an offence by the act or neglect of those officials. With those provisions, the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that, when made, the regulations can be effectively enforced.

Clause 7 deals with expenses to be allocated by Parliament. Clause 8 provides for corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland. Clause 9 deals with the Short Title, repeals, which are set out in the schedule to the Bill, and the commencement of the Bill.

As I said, the Bill will bring the Secretary of State's powers in relation to the transport of radioactive material by road into line with those already available in other areas of the radioactive materials industry. In so doing, it will enable him to comply with international obligations. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

7.52 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his exposition of the Bill, which was most helpful. I know that he will forgive me if, rather than deal with the useful comments he made, I refer to certain important issues by way of background to the Bill.

On 15th May I wrote to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—who is the sponsor of the Bill—in order to give them prior notice of many significant points that I wished to raise in today's debate. I have subsequently followed that up by forwarding a number of supplementary questions to which I shall refer later. I should say at once that I do not oppose the Bill; indeed, I welcome it. However, although the Minister responded to my letter, I must say that I am not wholly satisfied with the replies that I have received. There are additional matters of concern to which I shall allude later.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which the United Kingdom is a member, are required to transpose into their domestic legislation the recommended regulations made by the agency for the safe transport of radioactive material. Previously that has been done by general regulations in the form of statutory instruments, but the circumstances which have given rise to the rapid expansion in the industrial and medical uses of radioactive material and the corresponding increase in the volume of transport renders that procedure inadequate. Hence this Bill.

However, the trouble is that the Government's timetable for adhering to this requirement has slipped very badly. We were under an obligation to legislate on the issue last year, but the Government failed to meet that deadline. Moreover, the Government have acknowledged that fact. What they have done is to persuade a Member in another place to introduce a Bill which in truth is most clearly a government Bill; it implements an international obligation. That is the business of government and not the business of Back-Benchers.

I suppose that the Government may contemplate using the Bill as a precedent for implementing other international obligations. Perhaps they will seek the services of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to transpose European Community directives. I hope that he: will resist those blandishments. I believe that he has already gone beyond the call of duty. However, I do not blame him for that.

The Government have argued that they are put into an invidious position and that because of their "heavy legislative programme" it has not been possible to find space for such a modest but important Bill. But in the other place they are frequently going home early; indeed it happens every week. They have plenty of time. Government business is not in any way filling the agenda there, or, for that matter, in this place. Of course it is true that there are many transport Bills. I know that as well as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, does. However, that is no answer. There is ample time in both Houses of Parliament to take on such a Bill. Moreover, it would not take a great deal of government time to deal with it.

Quite apart from its importance, I believe that it is absolutely wrong—I say this as a former Member of the other place; I was for some time a Back-Bencher —that the Government should trespass upon valuable Private Members' Bill time in order to promote legislation. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedures and it should not have happened. I hope that it will not happen again.

I should like to make it clear that those criticisms are not aimed at the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—indeed, his prime responsibility relates to aviation—or, least of all, at the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who volunteered to sponsor the Bill in this House. He is a very good Member of this House.

Because this is really a government Bill, I expect the Minister to depart from the traditional low profile position which government Ministers adopt—as, indeed, do Members of this Front Bench—when dealing with Private Members' Bills. Consequently, because it is a government Bill, I propose to address the House in my position as Opposition spokesman on transport. I shall, therefore, expect the Minister to respond to the debate as if he were dealing with the Second Reading of a government Bill.

The kernel of the Bill is safety. Under that heading, I should like to put forward a number of questions for the Minister and also for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about which they have received prior notice. Is the Minister satisfied that transport by rail, sea and air is adequately covered elsewhere in legislation? In another place the Minister, Mr. Christopher Chope, asserted that provisions already exist in other legislation which permit the Secretary of State to control the transport of radioactive material through other modes.

What then are the provisions which apply? Are they as comprehensive as those set out in this Bill, bearing in mind the fact that it is probable that there will be a considerable increase in nuclear and contaminated substances in the next few years? There is little doubt that air movements will increase, as indeed will those by rail and sea, most especially with the development of spent reactor fuel processing plants at Sellafield and the development of deep storage facilities for nuclear waste which are planned by NIREX.

Why should this important legislation be dealt with on such a piecemeal basis rather than dealing with transport of radioactive material on an integrated basis? I think it is bad that we should have to look to separate pieces of legislation on such a safety matter. I believe, therefore, that it would be appropriate to have a comprehensive Act dealing with all the aspects involved.

I have referred to shipments of nuclear waste. Those have trebled over the past three years. Further increases can safely be forecast over the next decade. Most of the waste from Europe comes from Germany —from German nuclear power stations—since Germany has no plans to build its own nuclear waste reprocessing industry, largely because of public pressure, which has deflected that government from doing so. It will be interesting to see whether the German Government comply with the policies of the European Community to the effect that waste reprocessing should be done, at least by major industrial states, within their own territory rather than exporting waste elsewhere for reprocessing.

The situation has given rise to considerable anxiety, in that in many instances hazardous cargoes of that kind are carried in conventional ro-ro ferries. I believe that that is wrong. I believe that the Government should insist that irradiated nuclear fuel should be carried in purpose-built ships. There is ample precedent for that. Imports of waste from Japan and Italy to Sellafield are brought into Barrow in BNFL's own specially built ships, which are double skinned and also have bulkheads. The main structural weakness of ro-ro vessels operating in the Channel is that they do not have bulkheads.

Despite the fact that their members' livelihoods are at stake, seafaring unions have expressed considerable concern, as have environmental groups, about this practice. They fear the consequences of an accident in the congested waters of the Channel. They know that these ro-ro ferries are especially vulnerable and that tragic experience has shown that they are unlikely to be able to stay afloat after being holed or when seriously affected by fire.

Now BNFL says that the flasks used can withstand serious fire and have never been ruptured in tests in which they have burned for 30 minutes at 800 degrees centigrade. Unfortunately, that will not do since, according to the International Maritime Organisation, the average length of major fires is at sea 28 hours and in port 23 hours, and temperatures of as much as 1,100 degrees centigrade can be reached.

Quite apart from the fact that major industrial powers should deal with their own waste and that this country should not be taking risks with our people's lives and our environment, what is the Government's answer to the point that I have raised?

My next point is: is the Minister satisfied that the resources available to enforce this legislation are adequate? The explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill states: There are unlikely to be any significant financial or public sector manpower effects as a result of the Bill. It seeks only to replace existing arrangements with those which are more comprehensive and appropriate in the modern requirements of the radioactive materials road transport industry. That is a contradiction in terms. The regulations will be more comprehensive and appropriate to modern requirements, and therefore they are to be changed. Consequently, I should like to know how many inspectors and traffic examiners are currently employed and whether it is proposed that there should be some increase in personnel to carry out those important additional duties.

In my letter to the Minister, I raised two other issues, one of which concerned the adequacy of legislation to deal with the suitability of drivers of heavy goods vehicles carrying hazardous loads, with whether proper monitoring of their suitability, both physical and as to their driving records, was scrupulously undertaken and with the basis on which that was done. The Minister's reply satisfies me on that score. In addition, the Minister has informed me that, so as to comply with EC Directive 89/684 on vocational driver training, the Government are drawing up regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 on the provision of training for drivers of all classes of dangerous goods, including radioactive material. I am satisfied that those regulations will be comprehensive, in that drivers will be required to undergo a training course related to the particular class or classes of dangerous goods that they will be carrying, and that they will also be subjected to specific examination. Moreover, it is also welcome that the new regime will provide for refresher courses to be undertaken every five years to maintain the validity of the certificate issued. Those regulations are to replace the relevant parts of existing regulations dealing with training for drivers of dangerous goods vehicles. I commend the Government for having dealt with the matter in this way, but I should like to know when we may expect the regulations to be finalised.

My next point relates to consultation. As I indicated earlier, it is clear that there is to be a substantial increase in the transportation of radioactive materials in the years ahead. In what forum will the complex policy matters which will undoubtedly burgeon be discussed and resolved? Do the Government perceive that there will be an opportunity given for those in local government who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the environment to have any input into policy thinking on the issue, and, if so, on what basis will that take place?

As regards implementation, I should like to know from the Minister something about the timetable for the implementation of the legislation. What consultations will take place over the content of the regulations and when will that be? When is it likely that the regulations will be brought forward?

In my letter to the Minister I asked why Clause 8, which relates to Northern Ireland, envisaged the use of the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure. His reply was that, first, the Government believe that parity throughout the UK is essential (the provisions of the order will correspond with those in the Bill); and, secondly, that it is necessary for the provisions to apply to Northern Ireland as soon as possible after the Great Britain Act comes into effect. I readily agree with that, but why should we use the negative procedure relating to the Bill in its generality rather than the affirmative procedure? There may be a perfectly good explanation in terms of the matter being technical and possibly even urgent, but the Minister must put forward his own explanation.

I have three other questions of which I gave notice to the Minister today. The first relates to Crown immunity. Presumably the MoD's role in transporting radioactive materials will carry on. How will that be affected by the Bill and the international obligations that it is supposed to fulfil? Secondly, does the Minister have any intention of providing for prior notification for the emergency planning bodies and services, especially for nuclear fuel flasks? Thirdly, and in the same context, we might consider —I put it to the Minister that it might be worthy of consideration—some form of central register to deal with such movements.

I have taken time to deal with those matters, because it is not right that the Bill should be taken on the nod. Essentially it is not a controversial Bill, but it is not a Bill that should have been brought forward in this way. I hope that the questions I have posed are germane to the issues raised in the Bill—I believe them to be—and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. In the light of that reply, I shall decide whether to put down amendments to the Bill in Committee. We may be able to avoid that, but that will depend upon the nature of the Minister's replies.

8.8 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I should like to state the Government's view on the Bill. Its aim is to bring the Secretary of State for Transport's powers to make regulations governing the transport of radioactive material by road, and his ability to enforce those regulations, up to date. The Bill will, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, enable the Secretary of State to comply with the United Kingdo— obligations, as a member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency, by allowing the implementation of its recommended regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material in the United Kingdom. The Government believe that the Bill fulfils an extremely important purpose: it therefore enjoys our full support.

The Bill is intended to cover only the road transport of radioactive materials for civil uses, a point about which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked. Provisions already exist to control the transport of radioactive material by other modes. Those other provisions are specific to the mode of transport and cannot therefore be used for regulating transport by road; nor will they be affected by this Bill. I am satisfied that they are sufficiently comprehensive to cover all eventualities.

Currently the transport by road of radioactive material is controlled by regulations made under provisions contained in the Radioactive Substances Act 1948. Since that Act was passed the use of radioactive materials has grown enormously, especially for medical and industrial purposes, and with increasingly sophisticated applications the current regulation-making provisions have become outdated.

There is no reason to suppose that growth in the transport of radioactive materials will not continue and it is essential that the Secretary of State has at his disposal powers available to control it effectively.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was kind enough to give me notice of some points he wished to raise. I hope that I shall be able to deal with them to his satisfaction and that of other noble Lords. I believe that I have already covered the point about the separate modes of transport and how the other modes are already covered by their own rules and regulations. The noble Lord specifically asked me about roll-on roll-off ferries. That matter is not covered by the Bill which only deals with road transport; therefore, it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Sea transport is already covered by legislation: the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990. These implement the provisions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code which regulates international sea transport of dangerous goods, including radioactive materials. I have to say to the noble Lord that we have no plans to ban, nor do I believe that there are plans to ban, transport by roll-on roll-off ferries.

The noble Lord asked what resources there were for enforcement of the Bill. The Department of Transport already carries out most of what is in the Bill through its 215 traffic examiners and the members of the Radioactive Materials Transport Division. There will be 10 inspectors, supported by the 215 traffic examiners. At present this figure is considered to be the correct level. But, as in all these matters, it is kept under review.

The noble Lord asked about consultations, whether there would be any opportunity to consult, and who would be consulted on the regulations. Although there are no requirements in the Bill to consult on the regulations, draft regulations based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's Safety Series No. 6 Regulations ions for the safe transport of radioactive materials, 1985 edition, as amended in 1990, will be circulated to all interested parties for comment.

The parties to be consulted will include the nuclear industry, the radiopharmaceutical industry, the transport industry, local authorities, hospitals and industrial users of radioactive material and environmental groups. The list is not exhaustive and does not preclude other organisations or individuals from commenting on the proposals.

The noble Lord asked why the regulations were being made under negative resolution rather than affirmative resolution. It is difficult to answer that question. On the whole I believe that the more regulations one can bring in under the negative resolution procedure the better because we hope that it takes up less parliamentary time. That is the primary object of having delegated legislation. As the noble Lord is aware, it is possible to pray against negative resolution orders, so there can be every opportunity for a debate on the subject.

The noble Lord suggested that local authorities should be informed of movements of radioactive materials through their areas. I go back now to the inquiry by the Select Committee on the environment in July 1985. In evidence to that Select Committee, the Department of Transport expressed the view that there would be no purpose in such notification. It should be borne in mind that the department's view given in evidence was that there would be no useful purpose in such a notification. The Select Committee agreed. The degree of protection provided by the packaging is such that the danger of a really serious accident, in terms of its consequences and the release of the contents, is so low that action would rarely be required.

The number of movements of radioactive material on a daily basis is quite considerable. An average figure for movements of radioactive material within the United Kingdom would be in excess of 500,000 every year, mostly medical isotopes and sources for use in industry. Movements of irradiated nuclear fuel only account for a small percentage of that figure. Pre-notification would mean that local authorities would receive large amounts of information, most of which would be of no use to them whatever. That would be administratively burdensome and costly.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? I accept the point that he has just made, but I am concerned about nuclear fuel flasks which represent a relatively small number, as I understand it. However, conceivably, they could give rise to difficulties, despite the strength of the packaging. I ask that emergency services and so on should be informed beforehand. Is that unreasonable?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, notice already has to be given of spent nuclear fuel flasks on the whole under the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 1979 which deals with the movement of abnormal and indivisible loads. Under these regulations, the police and highway and bridge authorities—which in most cases will be the local authorities—must be notified of movements of abnormal and indivisible loads at least two clear days before they take place, and details of the route, type of vehicle and a description of the load must be given. So in most cases the type of cargo to which the noble Lord referred will already have been notified under that legislation.

The noble Lord suggested that there should be a register of transporters. We have no proposals to register transporters. Current holders and users of radioactive material must already register under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. As most users are transporters, the majority are already covered. If it should be considered necessary, then my advice is that the powers in the Bill could cover that.

The noble Lord asked about Crown immunity and the Ministry of Defence. The Crown is not bound by any statutory provision except by express words or necessary implication. Whether the Act binds the Crown by implication would be a question for the courts, but the Bill makes no reference to the Crown. It does not cover weapons anyway. It is not intended that weapons should be covered by any regulations made under it. They would be specifically excluded, as at present. The International Atomic Energy Agency whose recommended regulations will be used as a basis for these regulations was set up to look after the peaceful application of atomic energy and radioactive material. Weapons have never been included in its recommendations on transport.

I hope that that covers the points raised by the noble Lord. If he is dissatisfied or not fully satisfied with any of the answers I have given, I shall be only too happy to try to provide further information.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has skipped over one of the main charges that I made as to the appropriateness of dealing with the legislation in this way. Is he prepared, on reflection, to say that future legislation involving the performance of international obligations will not be carried out through the Private Member's Bill procedure? I urge him to recognise that it is not appropriate; it is wrong. It is wrong for Members in another place and it is not the appropriate procedure for governments to undertake when dealing with important international obligations. Will the noble Lord respond to that point?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I apologise if I did not do so. I thought that my reply in the letter that I wrote to the noble Lord covered the point. I cannot give the undertaking which the noble Lord requires. It is up to Members of another place whether they choose to take Bills through the House. My honourable friend the Member for Kensington chose to take this Bill through, and I do not see what is wrong with that.

8.20 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the welcome he gave to the principle of the Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for having apprised me of some of the points that he intended to raise. As I look through my notes, it appears that there is little for me to say at this point as my noble friend the Minister has covered every point. The noble Lord opposite will recognise that it is not for me—particularly not in your Lordships' House—to pass any judgment or comment on the procedures that are adopted in another place. However, I have no doubt that the point the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made on that matter will be noted.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned a number of issues. I do not blame him for doing so. It is one of the great joys of your Lordships' House that one can sometimes stray into areas that are not expressly covered by the Bill before the House. My great concern involves such matters as the packaging of radioactive materials that are transported by road. I am not so concerned about nuclear and military matters. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not refer to those matters.

I underline what my noble friend the Minister has said. There are about half a million movements by road of radioactive material, both medical and industrial. Knowledge on the transportation of that material can be passed from person to person by recognised pathways. There is no necessity to do anything more about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the negative and affirmative procedures. I hope I may add to what my noble friend the Minister said on that point. The regulations relating to the 1948 Act were dealt with by the negative procedure—admittedly the regulations were not perhaps as complex as those that are forthcoming—and have caused no undue concern to shippers, receivers or transporters.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for answering all the detailed questions that were raised. The noble Lord opposite may rest assured that over the next two or three days—or at least after the bank holiday—I shall study this evening's debate to see whether any points that have been raised have not been answered. If any points remain unanswered, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall provide him with an answer and, as is customary, place a copy of the answer in the Library. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.