2.48 p.m.
—asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the history of past and recent radiation leaks at Sellafield, what action they are taking to prevent the occurrence of further and larger nuclear accidents.
My Lords, any incident at Sellafield, or at any other United Kingdom licensed nuclear site, is fully investigated by the operator in order to determine its cause and to put in place such measures as may be necessary to prevent a recurrence. The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, the independent regulator, carries out separate investigations as necessary in order to determine whether any further regulatory response is appropriate.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware—as I am sure she is—that accidents have occurred at Sellafield from time to time over a long period? There were incidents in 1972, 1983, 1991 and 1992. Only last month Sellafield was fined £28,000 for what it admitted were serious and significant failures to take proper care. In view of that record is it not time that a public inquiry took place to settle the matter one way or another? There is a consistent record of accident after accident and denial after denial. Is it not time that we knew the truth?
My Lords, noble Lords certainly will be told the truth. Safety is of the highest priority at BNFL. One in 10 employees at Sellafield is directly involved in safety. BNFL has invested £750 million in plants designed to minimise any impact on the environment and is always looking for ways to improve standards of safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned that there had been some incidents. That is true. Since 1990 when the International Nuclear Events Scale (INES) was introduced, the Health and Safety Executive has published details of 20 incidents at the Sellafield site. The majority of those were rated at level 1—the lowest level on the scale. It means an anomaly beyond the authorised operating regime. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate would not allow any site to operate if it were not satisfied with its safety.My Lords, is it not a fact that if one happened to be an inhabitant of the city of Aberdeen, one would be exposed to far more radiation than the level 1 that my noble friend mentioned?
My Lords, what my noble friend has said is absolutely right.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the public have the right to demand the highest standards of safety and openness as regards safety at all nuclear installations? Will the noble Baroness give us some assurance that any privatisation of the nuclear industry will not result in the dropping of any of those safety standards?
My Lords, I can most certainly give that assurance to the noble Lord.
My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that while I should like to be assured by what she said—I am sure that she believes every word of it to be true; and so it may be—the point is that until we have had a proper public inquiry none of us can be quite sure? When we are dealing with nuclear matters we should be absolutely certain. The only way to find out the reason for this constant record of incidents is by having a public inquiry. Will the noble Baroness think again?
My Lords, it is not a constant record. I have already told your Lordships the position. The fact is that BNFL takes this matter very seriously, as do the Government. I can assure noble Lords that I have considered carefully everything that has been said to me, and I feel reassured.