§ Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ What developments there have been since the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Safe Transport of Radioactive Material in 1988 that United States and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Standards on the safe transport of plutonium by air should be brought into line, and why they are still so different that aircraft conforming to IAEA standards are not permitted to overfly the United States.
The Minster of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)My Lords, several IAEA technical meetings have been held on this issue, and proposals for higher packaging standards and a more severe test regime will be put forward for inclusion in the next issue of the transport regulations.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer, but does he also recall that at the meeting to which he has just referred the Japanese made it clear that they had been receiving quantities of plutonium over a period of years? Why is it that the Japanese are ready publicly to acknowledge the receipt of, I think, 13 separate shipments of plutonium from this country over a long period whereas the Government apparently seek to conceal that fact from Members of this House?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord's supplementary question is very different from that on the Order Paper.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, if I may make so bold as to dispute that point, what we are talking about is the transport of plutonium, which is a very dangerous substance, and plutonium is plutonium whether it is transported to Japan or to the United States of America or from Germany or anywhere else. The question is a simple one: cannot the noble Earl say why this House has been denied information that is available to the Japanese Diet and to the Vienna Conference but which is concealed year after year by the Government from this House? The simple question is: why?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord's second supplementary question is still different from that on the Order Paper. The Question on the Order Paper relates to what progress has been made following the advice of ACTRAM (the Advisory Committee on the Safe Transport of Radioactive 1846 Material) to see whether the difference between the IAEA's standards and the American standards could be narrowed.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, is the Minister not aware that the point raised by my noble friend is very germane to this Question? However, if the Minister chooses not to reply to it, that is within his gift. Perhaps I may refer the Minister to his own reply on the last occasion that this question was raised. On 22nd April, he said, referring to my noble friend:
The noble Lord should cast his mind back to the ACTRAM report of 1988. It said that the matter should be investigated to see whether the disparities between American standards and IAEA standards should be focused on with a view to bringing them closer together".—[Official Report, 22/4/93; col. 1708.]Is not five years rather a long time in which to come to any conclusions? Within what sort of timescale would the Minister advise the House that the next issue of transport regulations is likely to come before us for consideration?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord's supplementaries are highly relevant. Even as we speak today there is a meeting in Vienna of the second technical committee for the revision of the IAEA regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material. It is considering a report, which it hopes will be published, on the air transport of radioactive material in large quantities or high activity, so discussion is taking place.
§ Lord Clinton-DavisMy Lords, yes, but will the Minister give some indication as to when the discussions will come to a conclusion and when we can expect some action?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Standing Advisory Group on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material has considered when revision should be made and recommends that major revisions should be made every 10 years. Therefore, what can be agreed by the IAEA will be scheduled for publication in 1996.
§ Lord EnnalsMy Lords, does the Minister recognise that many of us on this side of the House do not accept his thesis that my noble friend's supplementary question was not relevant to the issue that was raised in his Question? Is he surprised that some of us feel very critical that the Minister denies to the House answers to questions that are quite properly put to him?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I have never tried to deny an answer which is relevant to the Question on the Order Paper, but I believe that the supplementary question that was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was very wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
§ Lord Jenkins of HillheadMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I have heard him claim "irrelevance" at least as often as all the other government spokesmen put together? Might he not adduce from that that he should get some wider briefings in future?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, I am sure that everybody who has the honour to speak at this Dispatch Box gets the widest possible briefing relevant to the Question.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, although I accept that the noble Earl is entitled to refuse to answer the question if he so chooses and to decide that in his opinion it is not relevant, since the amount of plutonium transported to Japan is sufficient to manufacture some 70 nuclear bombs are we not entitled to know a little bit about it?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, if the noble Lord would like me to write to him on that particular point, I undertake to do so—alternatively, he might wish to table such a Question.
§ Lord Mackie of BenshieMy Lords, if the Minister knows the answer, why can he not give it? It is entirely relevant.
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, it was a different question, and not related to that on the Order Paper.