HC Deb 25 February 1986 vol 92 cc502-4W
Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any of the structure plans (a) approved by him or (b) currently before him incorporated, when originally submitted, policies seeking to prohibit the disposal or transport of nuclear waste; and what is his general policy towards the use of structure plans as a vehicle for such control of nuclear waste.

Mr. Waldegrave

A proposed alteration to the Bedfordshire structure plan and a proposed additional policy to the Humberside structure plan, submitted to my right hon. Friend for approval, oppose the disposal of nuclear waste within the boundaries of the two counties. The Bedfordshire alteration also opposes the transportation of nuclear wastes within or through the county.

My Department has pointed out to Bedfordshire and Humberside county councils that such policies, if adopted, would conflict with Government policy as set out in the 1982 White Paper "Radioactive Waste Management" regarding the need for suitable disposal facilities for low and intermediate level radioactive wastes. My Department also invited Bedfordshire county council to consider whether the proposed policy to control material transported could be regarded as a measure for the management of traffic and therefore within the functions of the structure plan. My right hon. Friend is presently considering his response. There are no policies in approved structure plans which prohibit the disposal or transport of nuclear waste.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if, when announcing the list of possible sites for the disposal of nuclear waste, he will include a statement detailing, in respect of each site (a) his most recent assessment of public opinion in the areas concerned, (b) his assessment of the regional policy implications of the choice, (c) the implications for development blight in the area and (d) his assessment of the impact on other local industries; and if he will make a statement;

(2) what account he is taking in considering the list of nuclear dump sites submitted to him by NIREX on 8 January of (a) public opinion in the areas concerned, (b) regional policy, (c) development blight, (d) other local industries, (e) alternative sites, (f) the effect on the nuclear programme of not permitting dumping and (g) the effect on the reprocessing of nuclear waste from other countries.

Mr. Waldegrave

In considering the list of sites my right hon. Friend's main concern was to ensure that NIREX' s proposals were the best way of carrying forward the Government's policy for the management of radioactive waste. Considerations such as those mentioned by the right hon. Member will be suitable for discussion at the public inquiry into NIREX's proposals for development.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when arranging the list of possible sites for the disposal of nuclear waste, he will also publish a full list of sites considered by NIREX but rejected by either NIREX or him; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave

No.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when arranging the list of possible sites for the disposal of nuclear waste, he will make a statement on the effect on the reprocessing of nuclear waste from other countries of the failure to construct such a dump; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave

The proposed new disposal facility is needed to supplement the site at Drigg in Cumbria and to take wastes from the reprocessing of United Kingdom-produced spent fuel, from the electricity generating industry and from hospitals, research establishments and industry. The wastes from reprocessing fuel from overseas are not a factor in the decision to investigate geologically the four sites announced today.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will consider changes to the list of sites chosen for geological exploration under a special development order;

(2) if in the light of comments received on the draft special development order to be submitted to Parliament to give NIREX planning permission to investigate geologically, he is prepared to bring forward the order in an amended form; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave

Any amendments to the draft special development order will be considered on their merits.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the areas from which he has received petitions against proposed nuclear dumps; and if he will state (a) the account he has taken of those in formulating his proposed choice of sites and (b) the account he has taken of them subsequently.

Mr. Waldegrave

My Department's Yorkshire and Humberside regional director has recently received a petition in opposition to storage or disposal facilities for raidoactive waste in Humberside. I am aware that a similar petition has been presented to Parliament by the hon. Member. These will be taken into account before my right hon. Friend lays before the House the special development order that will authorise geological investigations of sites by NIREX. The choice of sites was for NIREX.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will delay any announcement of the list of sites for nuclear dumps until he has had time to consider the petition presented to the House on 21 February by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.

Mr. Waldegrave

My right hon. Friend will take the petition into account before he lays before the House the special development order that will authorise NIREX to undertake geological investigations at sites.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy for Ministers in his Department to receive deputations from local authorities in whose areas are situated sites proposed by NIREX for geological investigations as possible sites for nuclear dumping following the announcement of those chosen for investigations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave

Yes.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 20 February about the NIREX list of nuclear sites, whether the representations made by hon. Members with Oxfordshire constituencies were made before or after he received the NIREX list on 8 January.

Mr. Waldegrave

Before.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has had for meetings with hon. Members representing Humberside constituencies to discuss the NIREX list of possible nuclear waste sites; and what other representations he has received from such hon. Members on this subject.

Mr. Waldegrave

I have received a number of representations from hon. Members representing Humberside constituencies, both before and since 8 January. I met the hon. Member and the hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) on 17 December to discuss the question of sites. The hon. Member has asked subsequently for a further meeting. I reaffirm that I shall be pleased to meet hon. Members following the statement on NIREX sites by my right hon. Friend today.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when he announces the list of possible sites for investigation as nuclear dumps, he will also publish the names of sites included in the NIREX list of 8 January.

Mr. Waldegrave

My right hon. Friend's statement today identified all the sites proposed to him by the chairman of NIREX on 8 January.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, when he makes the announcement next week of the list of NIREX sites mentioned in the reply of 20 February to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, he will specify which of the sites are in public ownership or owned by NIREX partners; and if he will make a statement on the criteria used to assess the implications for choice of whether the site was in public ownership, NIREX partners' ownership or private ownership, respectively.

Mr. Waldegrave

Of the sites which NIREX wishes to investigate further, those at Elstow, Bradwell and South Killingholme are owned by the CEGB. That at Fulbeck is owned by the Ministry of Defence. I understand that ownership was a factor in NIREX's choice of sites in so far as it seemed likely to affect availability.