Skip to main content

Environmental Pollution (Nuclear Power)

Volume 923: debated on Monday 20 December 1976

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

7.49 a.m.

In wishing you a good morning, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will express tolerance towards us humbler folk who have been waiting patiently for our turn throughout the vigils of the night.

I was tempted to tag my contribution on to the earlier debate on the future of nuclear power, but that, though a temptation, would have done even less justice to the importance of the Royal Commission Report on pollution and nuclear power, by Sir Brian Flowers, than has already been done by Parliament in the way in which this report has been treated since it was published on 22nd September. In any case, if I had tagged on to the earlier debate it might well have been regarded as queuejumping—not that I would wish to accuse any of my colleagues of having done that. It would also have been a major insult to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marks), who has been waiting up all night with me in order to keep me company at this early hour and to respond to the debate on this important subject.

I very much appreciate what the Under-Secretary has done, even if he will only be carrying the can for the Department of Energy, as I shall be concentrating my few remarks on what I regard as the major, broader implications of the report by Sir Brian Flowers, which relates rather more to the Department of Energy than to the Department of Environment. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will at least act as a dawn messenger-boy to the Department of Energy to pass on any of the remarks that might refer to that Department rather than to his own.

In a few moments one cannot even begin to do justice to the significance of this monumental Royal Commission Report. All that I can do is to register a protest that something of this importance has to be raised in Parliament at the end of an all-night sitting when, inevitably, the Chamber is almost empty and one cannot begin to expect the kind of publicity that this report should attract.

One must register a protest that the Government have not found time even for a one-day debate on the report, which in my view, and in the opinion of many experts who have commented on it since it was published, is of great significance to the future not just of this country and our children but of the whole of mankind.

The report is far more important in its implications than many of the matters that have been debated in Parliament in recent weeks. It does no credit to this Chamber or to our democratic institutions that such important matters have to be relegated to such irrelevant times in the Parliamentary timetable. I hope that the Under-Secretary will acknowledge this and will ensure that proper time is found for a public debate in this Chamber on the report by Sir Brian Flowers.

The most important issues raised in the report to which I shall refer are summed up in recommendation No. 27, which goes to the heart of the matter—
"There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future."
That sums up the basic approach presented in the report, and I want to know where the Government stand. We have not yet had a clear indication of their view, and, although we understand that they need time to consider the report, the House is entitled to know whether they accept that basic opinion and recommendation. Do they believe that we should not move ahead until we have solved, or at least are without reasonable doubt within reach of solving, the problem of radioactive waste?

If the Government accept that conclusion, I must remind the Minister that there seems to be some doubt about whether the nuclear industry accepts it. The comments on the report made by the Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels imply that they do not accept it.

The broader implications of the report in so far as they affect our energy strategy—I refer to Chapters IX and X—are, in my view, the most important sections, and I shall make a few general observations on those themes. They are summed up in three recommendations which open up the whole spectrum of energy strategy for generations to come and go right to the heart of the debate.

They are as follows:
"44. We should not rely for energy supply on a process that produces such a hazardous substance as plutonium unless there is no reasonable alternative.
"45.… a major commitment to fission power and a plutonium economy should be postponed as long as possible.
"46. There should be increased support for the development of other energy sources including energy conservation, combined heat and power systems and fusion power."
Those passages set out the major areas of debate for the future of our energy strategy, and it would be interesting to hear from the Government how far they are prepared to agree with those conclusions.

The main issues about whether or to what extent we develop the fast breeder technology or to what extent we can provide more environmentally satisfactory alternatives are the issues which go to the heart of the matter. The Flowers Report does not fudge those issues. It attempts to face them in a realistic and balanced way. We should do the same. We have not done so in the past, and, in my view, the Government have so far certainly not done so. The alternatives have not been properly assessed. The research and development prorities have not been allocated towards even exploring what possible options can be provided, over what time scale and at what cost. Nor has the major contribution which a more rational energy use strategy can contribute been properly assessed, and certainly not implemented.

Those are vital issues for Government strategy and decision, and we want to know where the Government stand on matters of such major principle, even if we cannot have a detailed response tonight to the Royal Commission's recommendations.

The Flowers Report recommends emphasis on research and development of alternative energy sources and investment in conservation before we can decide where the future energy balance lies over generations, perhaps until we have fusion power. These are the problems and areas of decision-taking which will involve the responsibilities of the House and affect the future of mankind. Therefore, it is time we received some indication of the Government's reaction.

The report says that the current allocation of funds for research and development is, as it has been over recent years, out of balance, bearing in mind the possible relative rôles of a nuclear programme, for which the annual research and development expenditure is still running at about £80 million, and other energy resources such as solar and wave power, on which we are still spending only about £1 million a year. We cannot come to a decision whether they can provide answers, and to what degree, unless we allocate them a higher proportion of research and development spending.

The Department of Energy has given the impression that the Government have almost a closed mind on some of the broader strategy policy implications. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy did so tonight, when he said that we could not rely on alternative renewable sources of energy without paying economic penalties. I have heard this from officials in his Department and elsewhere, such as the electricity industry and the nuclear lobby. The implication is that possible developments in solar, wind, wave, tidal and fusion power will be far more expensive. That may be, but how do we know? Nobody has worked out the figures. We do not even know what a nuclear programme will cost, so how can we cost the alternatives? We have not done the research and development, let alone the detailed economic costings of alternative programmes. Therefore, I regard that line of argument as spurious.

The implication within the Department is still that it is heresy to suggest that there might be other options for the longer-term solution of our energy problems than the existing routes. I hope that that impression will soon be dispelled. Unless it is, and unless it becomes respectable to suggest that there might be other solutions, we shall be in danger of debasing the broad nuclear argument. The more that the pro-nuclear lobby promotes its case by debasing the alternative options the greater is the danger of its argument becoming counter-productive. That is exactly why those who are opposed to any form of nuclear alternative are gaining strength in the public opinion argument.

I recognise that the Flowers Report accepts that there must be a nuclear future. But it would be equally helpful if we could get from the Government a clearer indication that they, too, accept that there may be alternative routes recommended by the Flowers Report that are preferable.

There can be no doubt that the attitude of the Government in the Department of Energy, as is suggested in the Flowers Report, has until now been passive. I regard it not as passive but as negative. Perhaps in some respects it is even complacent.

The conclusions that I wish to reach in these superficial comments upon the Royal Commission report are that if we accept nothing else from it we should accept the case for a proper public debate. We are told by the Secretary of State for Energy that a public debate is under way, but how can it be a public debate when the Government have given no guidance and the debate has not included the Government? I do not call it a public debate on the future of our energy strategy if the Secretary of State presides at a conference and in other respects sits on the fence. It is not a public debate that will lead to correct decisions taking if it consists of little more than an exchange of correspondence in The Times. We need more than a—I quote from the Flowers Report—
"bland, unsubstantiated official assurance that the environmental impact of nuclear power has been fully taken into account."
We need something such as a Green Paper from the Government as an initial response to the issues raised by the Flowers Report and then a proper parliamentary debate, not a debate in the early hours of the morning after an all-night sitting, followed, perhaps, by a proper investigation. The present impression is still one of a neutral Government preferring to sweep the problems under the carpet rather than face the fundamental issues raised by the report.

The real importance of the Flowers Report is that it does not give the Government an excuse for lethargy. It does not allow them to do nothing. It does not justify a deferment of decisions. It outlines procedures and guidelines which might allow us to take the right decisions. An acceptance of the principal recommendations of the report would give us time, not to procrastinate, but for reflection, time for a full consideration of all the implications, time for our technology to catch up on the problems of waste disposal, time for the Government to implement higher priorities for conservation programmes, time for a re-allocation of priorities in research and development of alternative sources of energy.

One thing about the Flowers Report is that it is not a report that anybody can ignore. These are not issues that a Government can duck or sweep under the carpet. Governments of course can sit on the fence for a long time on many issues and get away with it, but the Flowers Report is not one of those issues. This is an area of debate where the Government must stand up and be counted. The Government must take note, consider and respond constructively and urgently. That is the least we should demand, and that is the least the nation expects, not just for the sake of our children and theirs but for the future of mankind.

8.13 a.m.

When I came to the House this morning I expected to be taking part in the debate on subject No. 25. Hon. Members can imagine with what surprise I saw that we were still on subject No. 10. However, the remarks that I wanted to make on the subject of the disposal of nuclear waste fit in perfectly on this subject. I shall address myself to Chapter 8 of the Flowers Report.

I agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) that it is a scandal that we have to debate the Flowers Report on the Consolidated Fund Bill. At Business questions in the week of the Gracious Speech I asked for a debate on this report and the Leader of the House advised me that it was a matter that could be raised during the debate on the Loyal Address in reply to the Gracious Speech.

I raised the matter then, as did two other hon. Members. In such a debate we receive no answer to our question—we simply ventilate the subject. It may well be that this is all that we shall be able to do this morning. It is a great pity that the report has to be debated through the archaic procedure of the Consolidated Fund Bill with very few lion. Members present.

I believe that there must be in the House a number of Members who have the necessary scientific knowledge that I do not have and who could make useful contributions to such a debate. I certainly hope that in due course such a debate will take place, but I should have thought it would be better if a full debate on the Flowers Report could take place before the Secretary of State for the Environment makes his decision whether to call in the Windscale planning application for a full public investigation.

One of the interesting things I have noticed in the Flowers Report is the way that it criticises the lackadaisical approach of the nuclear industry in this country to the problem of waste disposal. For instance, in paragraph 381 the report states:
"The delay in bringing the vitrification process into commercial production stems from a long period of inactivity in the 1960s when no further development work was carried out. It is strange in retrospect that a matter so important for the safe development of nuclear power should have been delayed for so long."
It is indeed strange in retrospect, and I think the peoples of these Islands will want to know why this dilly-dallying took place.

Again, we are told in paragraph 389:
"We have assumed that the actinides will not have been removed, and therefore that it is necessary to look further ahead than the few hundred years needed to allow the majority of the fission products to decay to harmless levels."
This is the crux of the whole matter—the length of time that these dangerous products will remain radioactive. It is this that is bound to arouse public anxiety.

Indeed, I am bound to say, from my own point of view, that in the 1950s and the early 1960s, when I was at university as a mature student, I did not take on board the full case that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was putting before us at that time. In retrospect I wish that I had taken more interest and done more about it then, because the dangers that were being talked about then in regard to armament are now facing us in relation to the disposal of nuclear waste from our power stations and other installations.

After all, what are a few hundred years? It is a very loose term. It is only a few hundred years since King James VI came down to London instead of sending down a viceroy and staying in Edinburgh, which might have been more satisfactory to many of us. It is only a few hundred years since the death of King Alexander III brought about the confrontation between England and Scotland at the time of Edward I. Just how few are a few hundred years. In the case of some of the products we are talking about it is a question not of a few hundred but of a few thousand years.

Paragraph 391 of the Flowers Report states that
"Neither the AEA nor BNFL in their submissions to us gave any indication that they regarded the search for a means of final disposal of highly active waste as at all pressing, and it appears that they have only recently taken firm steps towards seeking solutions. We think that quite inadequate attention has been given to this matter, and we find this the more surprising in view of the large nuclear programmes that both bodies envisage for the coming decades, which would give rise to much greater quantities of waste."
There is a case there that must be answered by the Government and by the nuclear industry, and answered to the peoples of these Islands.

If we look at the ideas that have been suggested for getting rid of the nuclear waste we enter the world of high science fiction. There is a notion that it could be sent off in a rocket to the sun. No doubt that is the best place it could go, but we cannot trust our technology to get it on the way to the sun. If we cannot trust our technology to get it on the way, how can we trust our technologists when they tell us that they can safely dispose of radioactive waste for 30,000 or 100,000 years? What certainty can we have when on the one hand they doubt the technology they have and, on the other, they invite us to trust them?

The problem which definitely interests me, as a Scotsman and a Gallovidian, is where the nuclear waste will eventually end up. I have been in correspondence with the Department of Energy, and I posed two questions which I thought deserved plain answers. I asked for an assurance that no foreign waste would be deposited in Scotland, because I understand that Windscale will, hopes to, intends to or expects to—whatever the jargon of the bland bureaucrats may be—handle Japanese waste. I wanted, I still want, and I shall go on wanting until I get satisfaction, a categorical assurance from the Government that no foreign waste will he deposited in the rocks of Scotland. Each country should keep its own waste to itself.

Nuclear waste has been generated in Scotland, and it is up to us to dispose of it, but we do not want to be saddled with waste from other countries. I also asked the Secretary of State for Energy what position the Scottish Assembly is supposed to take on this vital matter. We know that these matters will not be devolved to the Assembly, but do the Government seriously believe that the Scottish Assembly, which will be functioning, will do nothing if nuclear waste is ever irretrievably deposited in the rocks of Scotland? Do they seriously believe that the Assembly will sit there meekly in Edinburgh and allow itself to be bypassed and overridden?

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is equally scandalous that there is no Minister from the Scottish Office present to discuss this great problem of the danger arising from the likely dumping of English and other nuclear waste in Scottish soil? This is an argument not just for the Assembly having control, but for an independent Scottish Parliament having control.

I could not agree more. As for my views about the policy of an independent Scotland—

May I point out that this subject was debated from 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. with a Minister from the Department of Energy here. No hon. Members from the Scottish National Party were here to hear it.

I was not here because, as I said, I came in to join in the debate on item 25.

Order. We cannot have a cross-conversation like that. Hon. Members are making me forget that it is Christmas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for protecting me from sedentary interruptions. I may well abandon that somewhat unproductive seam, and point out that I was not complaining about the Department of Energy not being represented at the moment. I am sure that the Minister on the Front Bench will convey my thoughts to the Department of Energy very adequately.

Another gem in the report will be of interest to people in Scotland and the north of England. Describing the various formations into which nuclear waste can be deposited, and dealing specifically with clay, the report states significantly:
"There are extensive areas in southern England and other areas of the UK that might be geologically quite suitable and would be worth investigating as potential disposal sites, but there will undoubtedly be difficulties because of public reaction".
That seems to prove that the nearer one is to London the safer one is from nuisance and dangers. For instance, one can write to the Ministry of Defence to complain about low flying aircraft. The answer always is that the remote, rural areas must tolerate the nuisance as low flying cannot take place over densely populated areas.

We do not want nuclear waste in the hills of Galloway—and we say that not for ourselves alone but for future generations. It is all very well for the Chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to tell us that the nuclear industry has had a splendid safety record over the last 30 years. There may be doubts about that. But I want to be certain that the successor to the present chairman will be able to put his hand on his heart and say that the industry has had a splendid safety record over the last 30,000 years.

Further expenditure on research is required into ways in which the use of nuclear fission can be reduced and perhaps extinguished. We have coal, hydroelectric power and other alternatives. We should not need to go on developing nuclear fission power stations until we have examined our requirements and the alternatives available to us. We must contribute as much as possible to finding the alternatives. We must avoid creating a plutonium economy which, if my constituency were selected for waste disposal, would result in convoys of heavily armed vehicles transporting vitrified fuel into our hills.

I campaign to prevent that state of affairs not just for our people but for the future of mankind. Although my main remarks have concerned Scotland the problem knows no boundaries. It will not stop at the River Sark or when it enters the sea. The problem is world wide. We must ensure that all the alternatives are explored before we commit ourselves to the dangers of a plutonium economy.

8.30 a.m.

The Government are fully conscious of the immense importance of the subject covered by the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on Nuclear Power and the Environment. We are fully aware of the interest taken in the subject not only by the House but by the public at large. There is no lethargy. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) said, this is not a report that anyone can ignore. The Government have no intention of ignoring it.

Much of the criticism in the debate has been based on the fact that the Government have not provided a full day's debate on it and that it should not have been taken as part of a Consolidated Fund debate. It seems to me that the time for the main debate, a full day in the House, is when Government Departments and Ministers have had time properly to consider the Flowers Report, which is only three months old, in addition to listening to the national debate that has been going on and to debates of this kind. This is the sixth time that this matter has been debated in the House since September—through the Queen's Speech, a number of Adjournment debates, a debate earlier this morning and now this debate.

It is right that the Government should be listening to all the comment that is being made, giving the Atomic Energy Authority and the other nuclear organisations some opportunity to reply to what is in the Flowers Report. It is significant that a few hours ago the Opposition Front Bench spokesman in the previous debate that we had on precisely the same matter, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), said that he tiptoed into the debate. That was fairly obvious. The debate will not end when the Government publish their views. It will then continue. We are at the stage when the Government are being told not to rush, to think carefully and to consult, yet at the same time we are being told to hurry up, to publish our views and to have debates on the subject immediately.

It therefore seems to me to be right that we should remind ourselves what the Report is about. The main thrust of it is the need to give thought in good time—certainly within the next decade or so—towards the situation which may arise, perhaps 50 years ahead, if the country should decide to have a large component of nuclear power in its energy supply, based on the fast reactor. The point about the fast reactor is that it uses plutonium as part of its fuel supply and over time produces more plutonium than it consumes.

The Commission has addressed itself to a number of problems it sees arising in this context. The main ones are safety: the need to safeguard the increased amounts of plutonium which will be produced and which will have to be transported to and from the nuclear power stations; the social and political implications of the measures which may be needed to provide this protection; the problem of proliferating the scope for nuclear weaponry; and the problem of safely storing and eventually disposing of long-lived highly radioactive wastes.

Here perhaps we should note the Commission's point that the problem of disposing of these wastes is already with us. Reprocessing of irradiated fuel from existing nuclear power stations produces wastes of this kind, but the quantity would, of course be considerably increased if there were a substantial extension of nuclear power in the years to come.

We ought to note, too, that the Royal Commission was satisfied with the basic standards limiting discharges of radioactivity to the environment, and with the adequacy of the arrangements to enforce them. It has, however, drawn attention to several matters on which it thinks action should be taken now. One of these is the need to press ahead urgently with research into methods of disposing of the highly active long-lived wastes. Some were mentioned in the previous debate by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. Another is to organise facilities for the disposal of certain of the less highly radioactive wastes.

I should point out to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) that it was explained in the earlier debate that the research into the possibility of storing waste in certain rock formations is in its preliminary stage, with this country doing some research into the possibility of storage in granite, with Italy doing research into the possibility of storage in clay, and with Germany doing research into the possibility of storage in salt rock formations. The research is concerned only with investigating the possibility of using differing types of rock. The question of selected sites does not arise at this stage, and there will be prior consultation before anything of that kind happens.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it may be a waste of resources searching for facilities of that kind in Scotland, because there is a welling tide of public disapproval at the whole prospect of having such wastes left in Scotland? The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) is affected, but many people throughout the country who will not be affected directly have a tremendous distaste for and feeling of horror at the whole prospect.

The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) also said that Scotland was producing radioactive wastes, and he felt that there should be some way of disposing of that. I hardly think that the hon. Gentleman would advocate putting Scottish waste somewhere else. However, we are a long way from the point where that matter need arise. As I have said, there will be consultations. Decisions are some way off on whether the whole thing will be needed but we are right, and the countries with which we work are right, to examine the possibilities, as the flowers Commission suggested we should.

This question will come up repeatedly over the next few months. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these decisions are of an environmental character which will therefore fall under the devolved powers which would rest with the Scottish Assembly, or are they powers which will be retained by this House of Commons?

I do not think that I am in a position to answer that now, but no doubt during the 30 or so days of debate in Committee on the devolution Bill there will be ample opportunity for that matter to be raised, and I shall note it for answering in the future.

The Commission also proposes the introduction of certain organisational changes as soon as possible; namely, making my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment responsible for radioactive waste management strategy, the establishment of a Nuclear Waste Management Advisory Committee to help him in this task, and the setting up of a Nuclear Waste Disposal Corporation to carry out the disposals.

Finally, the Commission goes on to consider the broader question of what it calls energy strategy and the place of nuclear power, especially fast reactors, in it. It advocates proceeding as slowly as possible in the direction of a major expansion of nuclear power, especially by means of the fast reactor, though it is to be noted that it does not rule out either nuclear power entirely or an initial use of the fast reactor.

The Commission also strongly advocates a wide-ranging public debate before any major decisions are taken on an expanded use of nuclear power, and it puts forward some ideas on how it might be conducted.

In sum, it can fairly be said that the Commission's report constitutes a valuable contribution to the public debate on this very important question.

I should also like to remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said on behalf of the Government as a whole when the report was published in September of this year. The Government are studying the report in detail and they will be making their views known in due course. I think, however, that I should also reiterate a number of points which my right hon. Friend then made which the Government feel to be important, because they are directly addressed to matters which immediately concern people and honourable Members in both debates this morning have drawn attention to them.

One cannot repeat too often that the Government attach great importance to maintaining the present very high standards in reactor safety and environmental control. There has been considerable research—it takes a long time—into the storage of long-lived and highly radioactive wastes, but a lot remains to be done. It is already clear that, quite apart from the research, important questions of policy will have to be tackled, notably in the choice between disposal below the land and on or below the deep ocean bed, and there are both domestic and international problems of considerable complexity here.

The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the Government wanting a debate and so forth, and I follow him in that. I know that he cannot tell us now what is to happen to Windscale, but will he take my point that it seems odd for the Government to be taking such a decision without the House having had a chance to debate the Flowers Report. If the Government are not in a position yet to let us know their reaction to Flowers, how are they in a position to make a decision on Windscale?

My right hon. Friend has a decision to make on Windscale which is perhaps of more urgency than the total debate, and it may well be that an earlier statement will be made on Windscale. That could include a public inquiry, where there would be ample opportunity for the points raised to be considered.

I must also repeat that the Government do not accept the view expressed by the Commission that the Government are under-estimating the implications of the threat posed by illicit possession of nuclear material. I wish to draw attention to the fact that while the Commission very properly pointed out the profound implications of a large nuclear programme, it did not consider that the abandonment of nuclear fission as one of the options for future energy supply would be wise or justified.

There are—and this is the main reason underlying the whole of the Commission's report—obvious major environmental and social considerations, to say nothing of international factors, in whatever mix of energy sources will best meet our requirements. It cannot be stressed too often that decisions on options will be taken progressively and will at all times take account of the environmental and social considerations to which the report draws attention, and which honourable Members have raised tonight.