Nuclear Waste (Scotland)

New Clause 5 – in the House of Commons am 9:45 pm ar 16 Mai 1991.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Photo of Margaret Ewing Margaret Ewing , Moray 10:10, 16 Mai 1991

Many hon. Members are leaving to return to their families, but other hon. Members wish to raise important issues this evening. I am glad to see members of all parties present to listen to the debate. It is a brief debate, but I warn the Minister that my hon. Friends and I will return to this subject time and again because the Scottish National party regards it as critical.

I shall seek information from the Minister on various points that concern me, my constituents and many others throughout Scotland. If he cannot respond as I raise them, I am willing to wait for a detailed written response, but I expect unequivocal answers to my points. I raise them with sincerity and humility, because this is one of the major issues facing not only Scotland but the rest of the United Kingdom and the world. It deserves serious attention.

I start from the point of view that my party has always argued that the disposal of nuclear waste should be addressed internationally. We recognise our responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste produced in Britain. We believe that nuclear waste should be stored on site and above ground, where it can be carefully monitored.

It appears that Scotland is being singled out to become the nuclear dustbin of the world; we are being expected to launder everyone's nuclear waste. The only advantage that anyone can see is that money will go to the Exchequer in London, but we in Scotland will lose our vital industries.

The Government have said clearly that they place the environment at the top of their political agenda. In her speech to the 1988 Conservative party conference, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), said: No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy, with a full repairing lease. This Government intends to meet the terms of that lease in full. Perhaps for the only time, I agree with the right hon. Lady.

Nuclear waste disposal is seen in Scotland as the key environmental issue of the day. The case against siting a repository for nuclear waste at Dounreay and Caithness is unassailable, whatever criteria any of us care to apply, be they moral, democratic, environmental or economic.

Let me emphasise the democratic decision. Without doubt, the overwhelming majority of public opinion in Scotland is against the use of Dounreay as the site for a deep waste disposal repository. The vast majority of Scotland's elected representatives—in this House, in the European Parliament and in all other representative bodies—have clearly expressed their opposition.

I refer in particular to what happens in the Highland region, where Highland regional council itself is spearheading the opposition to the use of Dounreay. In Caithness, the area most directly affected, a referendum was held in which the people voted 3:1 against Nirex using Dounreay as a waste dump. Almost 12,000 people voted. That is a 58 per cent. turnout, which, by most standards, is quite high. In a local government by-election, a turnout of half the electorate is considered quite good. In Caithness, 58 per cent. responded, and 73 per cent. of them said no. Only 3,000—25 per cent.—of them were in favour. By any democratic yardstick, that is a clear indication of the opinion of the people of that area.

The Minister should address himself to the democratic argument. I can think of no one better whose remarks to quote in this context than the present Secretary of State for Scotland. In April 1979, the right hon. Gentleman was the prospective parliamentary candidate for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, where consideration was being given to the possibility of using Mullwarchar as a disposal site. On 19 April 1979, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to the Conservation Society saying that he found it difficult to understand what the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was up to: As they said they would take account of public opinion, which is unanimously hostile, I find it extremely disappointing that UKAEA should have decided to take the matter further, with an appeal to the Secretary of State, after the clear rejection of their earlier application. As that was the view of the Secretary of State on a proposal affecting his own area, let me make a direct plea to him to exercise the same attitude towards the people of Caithness, the people of Highland region and the people of Scotland who have spoken out against the proposal. The Government claim to listen to democratic voices and respect democratic aspirations. If that is so, they should surely respond and display an attitude much more constructive than that which they have recently shown.

I do not wish to dwell for too long on the economic and social impact of siting a deep waste repository in Caithness because I have already spoken out about it in previous debates. I should say to the Minister, however, that when I speak on these issues I am not merely expressing the passion that I feel about them; I am recognising my responsibility to my constituents and to the many people who write to me on the matter.

The Minister should talk to a fisherman from my constituency, a farmer in Caithness or a whisky distiller somewhere in the highlands—perhaps from Speyside, in my own area. He should talk to anyone involved in the tourist industry. All of them know full well the implications of the Government's proposals. They know what the knock-on effect will be. The perception of a clean environment on which our industries depend could be destroyed if the Government continue with their intention, through Nirex, to use Caithness as a site for nuclear waste disposal. All of them know that 100 long-term jobs may be made available through the siting of the repository, but that those 100 jobs will mean nothing if we then lost thousands of jobs because the perception of our clean environment has gone and we cannot sell our produce in the domestic or international markets. Those views have been expressed to me by business men who know full well what the implications are. It is not a question of scaremongering. It is a genuine fear. It is a genuine recognition of the situation.

Again, the Secretary of State, on this very point, said in April 1979: I believe it is quite unacceptable even to contemplate the irretrievable storage of nuclear waste in the manner proposed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, as no amount of preliminary research can guarantee its safety for the very long period of its continuing radioactivity. For that reason the question of exploratory test bores is irrelevant and they should not be proceeded with. He went on: As regards the suggestion that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be after the election, might grant approval to the test bores without holding a public inquiry, I cannot of course speak for other parties, but having investigated the matter within my own"— that is the Conservative party I am quite satisfied that under a Conservative Secretary of State such action would be entirely out of the question. We see a very clear contrast between what was said by the right hon. Gentleman in 1979 and what is now being said in 1991 because, Highland regional council having made it clear that it did not want planning permission for this to go ahead, the Secretary of State has overruled its wishes and is imposing a very different viewpoint from his previous one on the people of the highlands of Scotland. That is an element of hypocrisy which I am not prepared to accept as a Member of the House and a representative of the communities in the north of Scotland.

When he last spoke about this issue in the House in a debate on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, the Minister, who is in his place, said: Nirex has made it clear that, other factors being equal, Sellafield—not Dounreay—will be the preferred site because of transport considerations."—[Official Report, 25 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 1254.] Within the House that evening there was a general consensus among all the parties, including supporters of the nuclear industry, who asked why in that case we were continuing to have this planning blight held over our heads in the north of Scotland. It became quite clear that the Minister believed that Dounreay would not be the site for the disposal of nuclear waste. Why then was it, since many of us went away feeling heartened by the situation, that a matter of days later the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he would allow 200 to 250 test boreholes to be drilled in the Dounreay area, with the possibility of 6,000 test boreholes eventually being undertaken?

I have done a fair amount of research on what exactly is meant by these boreholes, or shotholes, as Nirex and the Minister seem to prefer to call them. What worries me in particular is how we in the area express our concern. The Minister says that there will need to be a further planning inquiry. What kind of planning inquiry will it be? Will it be a situation in which Nirex has an open cheque book, with blank cheques, underwritten by the Secretaries of State for Energy, for Transport and for Scotland—by the Government themselves—while those of us who oppose this project will be left to beg, to raise money in charitable ways, in order to fund our advocates and solicitors? If there is to be any further planning inquiry, it must be on a level playing field, so that voices have equal force.

At what stage will the planning inquiry be implemented? Will it be after the 250, of after the 6,000, or will it be when we get to the possibility of 1,000 metre deep holes being drilled into Caithness? I understand—and this comes from research undertaken by the House of Commons Library—that eventually there will need to be some 20 to 30 boreholes about 1,000 m deep. They will pass through unconsolidated surface sediments, Devonian age sandstones and then into Moine basement rock. The Devonian and Moine are both highly consolidated, so drilling through them is very slow. Coring is slow and expensive. The time taken to drill and test each borehole will probably be about six months and each will cost between £5 million and £10 million.

When examining that type of situation, we must know in our communities what facility we have to argue our case as matters proceed. There is a deep-seated suspicion and anxiety about why, if Dounreay is not the preferred option of Nirex but Sellafield is for intermediate and low level waste, we are going ahead with the testbore drillings.

I want a categorical assurance from the Minister—I plead with him not to mince words—that there will never be the possibility of Dounreay being used for high-level waste disposal. Many people suspect that it will be, and I appreciate their fears because much secrecy has surrounded what has been going on. We need that type of assurance for our people, for our industries and for the sake of future generations.

I could speak for 15 hours on this subject, but I see that the Minister is anxious to respond to my remarks. I do not have time to raise issues such as transportation and whether article 37 of the Euratom treaty is being observed or disregarded by the Government. I have spoken with sincerity and concern for the people of my area. I hope that tonight we shall have a positive response from the Government. We deserve such a response.

Photo of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Lord James Douglas-Hamilton , Edinburgh West 10:26, 16 Mai 1991

I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on being successful in raising this issue on the Adjournment, and I shall answer the questions that she asked. The first related to the Secretary of State. She referred to the views expressed by my right hon. Friend at the inquiry into a proposal for geological investigations in an area adjoining his constituency and suggested that his attitude towards the Dounreay application was at variance with the stance that he adopted at that time.

It is over 11 years since that inquiry took place. Scientific understanding of the technology of nuclear waste disposal has moved on a great deal in the intervening decade. At that time, the question was whether low and intermediate-level nuclear waste could be safely disposed of on land. Since then, the Government have accepted the advice of their professional advisors that it is indeed safe to do so.

The hon. Lady called for an international approach. I am glad to tell her that other countries have taken the same view including the Swedes who, as the House knows, take matters of environmental safety extremely seriously. Finland, Switzerland, Germany and America also take that view. As the Secretary of State for the Environment stated on 21 March 1989: It is now Government policy that a deep repository should be established and that two sites which appear suitable should be investigated in detail. But Ministers have also made it quite clear, as I have said, that any proposal to construct such a repository will be the subject of full debate at a public local inquiry. This will provide every opportunity for a full discussion of the very understandable concerns about the implications of nuclear waste disposal that my right hon. Friend articulated on behalf of his constituents some 11 years ago.

While I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate, I am disappointed that this morning, at a press conference, she should have engaged in an element of scaremongering. I appreciate that her opposition to a deep disposal facility for low and intermediate-level waste at Dounreay has been longstanding, but her claim that the Government have plans for a high-level waste repository there is totally without foundation.

I must make it clear that the United Kingdom has no disposal policy as yet for high-level waste. As I shall explain, it is to be stored in vitrified form for at least 50 years before disposal is required. UK Nirex has been charged to locate, develop and design a deep disposal facility for low and intermediate-level waste only. It has no such role in relation to high-level waste.

Nor are the flaws in the hon. Lady's analysis confined to that suggestion. I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to her and to explain the intentions of the Scottish Office and its determination to dispose of radioactive waste in a way which guarantees maximum safety. The recommendation of UK Nirex, to which the Government agreed, was that a comparative study of the two sites should be made until the point was reached when efforts could be concentrated on one preferred site.

It is important to establish at the outset that the disposal of radioactive material is a matter of direct relevance to Scotland, which is certainly not being singled out. Some 50 per cent. of the electricity generated in Scotland comes from nuclear power stations. It is therefore a vital element in our generating capacity and the Government must pursue a responsible policy for managing the spent fuel from the nuclear power stations and radioactive wastes from other sources in Scotland. Further wastes will arise from the decommissioning of power stations and the reprocessing plants at Dounreay as they complete their operational life. Decommissioning work has already started at Hunterston A power station. It will also be needed later this decade when the fast breeder prototype reactor at Dounreay stops production. Therefore, the Scottish Office has a moral duty to find the best and safest solution.

Photo of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Lord James Douglas-Hamilton , Edinburgh West

I have many questions to answer and I should like to complete them, but I will follow up later any points on which the hon. Lady requires further information.

Three categories of radioactive waste require Government action in terms of their safe disposal. Steps to dispose of high-level waste are best taken after 50 years, when the heat and radioactivity has significantly decayed. That will simplify disposal. Accordingly, the Government's policy on such waste is that it should be stored in a vitrified form for at least 50 years. A vitrification plant was opened at Sellafield earlier this year and will secure the crucial first step in that process. The arrangements for the final disposal of the waste remain to be decided, but we have time on our side because of the requirement that storage should last for at least 50 years.

Heat generation from intermediate and low-level waste is no technical obstacle to emplacement, and UK Nirex has advised the Government that the most sensible course of action for those categories of waste is to be co-disposed in a deep disposal facility. It is proposed to adopt a multi-barrier containment approach, designed to keep the radioactive substances away from people, animals and plants by using a series of different and separate physical and chemical barriers until the process of radioactive decay makes them barely distinguishable from naturally occurring materials.

At present, there are shallow disposal sites for low-level waste at Drigg, near Sellafield, and at Dounreay. There is capacity at Drigg into the next century. However, there are no existing disposal facilities for intermediate-level waste, which must all be stored pending a suitable disposal arrangement. UK Nirex Ltd. has the task of developing a disposal facility for low-level and intermediate waste and, in the pursuit of that task, there have been activities and planning applications in respect of land at Dounreay to which the hon. Lady takes exception.

Many parts of the United Kingdom have potentially suitable geology for such a repository. The principal requirement is that there should be suitable rock at the right depth with low and predictable water flow. The hon. Lady called for that problem to be redressed internationally, and there is a worldwide consensus that underground repositories are the most promising disposal option. Indeed, one is already in operation in Sweden, one is being constructed in Finland, and plans are well advanced in Switzerland, Germany and the United States. Scientists and geologists are satisfied that we now have the technological capability for a fully verified and safe repository.

UK Nirex has chosen to concentrate its investigations at two sites where the nuclear industry is already established and where the local population has come to understand that safety—both for the work force and for the surrounding environment—is an extremely important consideration on the part of the nuclear industry. The two sites are Sellafield, where the country's major nuclear reprocessing plant is situated, and Dounreay, where reprocessing work, albeit on a much smaller scale, has been undertaken for many years and where there is a prototype fast breeder reactor.

UK Nirex has systematically set about the necessary task of establishing whether the geological conditions were suitable at each site. To that end, it has completed two deep boreholes at Sellafield and a third and fourth are being drilled at present. Planning permission has been given for a further two deep boreholes, so that a complete and satisfactory geological analysis may be secured. At Dounreay, one deep borehole has been completed and drilling on another is to start shortly. Nirex only has planning permission for those two boreholes. Because the geology is more straightforward at Dounreay, it is not considered necessary to seek permission for more deep boreholes during the present preliminary investigations

. The deep boreholes are extremely informative about the geology at Dounreay, but a complete geological analysis requires UK Nirex to understand the geology of the whole area and this requires a variety of geophysical surveys to be undertaken in the area surrounding the main Dounreay complex. A seismic survey using lorry-mounted vibration sources has been completed but this may need to be supplemented by a further survey in which the vibration sources will be small explosive charges in shallow shotholes—a standard and widely used survey technique, for example in the oil industry. UK Nirex sought permission for a maximum of 6,000 shallow shotholes. However, it is assessing the non-intrusive seismic work already undertaken and if further work is deemed necessary, it is intended in the first instance to do no more than 200 to 240 of those shallow shotholes, following up with further shotholes in those areas where the geology remains unclear.

It is intended that work at both Dounreay and Sellafield will be sufficiently advanced by the latter part of this year to enable UK Nirex to decide which of the two sites is preferred so that they may concentrate further efforts on that site alone. As I stated on the Floor of the House on 25 April—and I chose my words with care—UK Nirex has made it clear that, other factors being equal, Sellafield and not Dounreay will be the preferred site because of transport considerations.

Highland regional council has made it clear that it is opposed in principle to any repository being established within its boundaries. It has sought to resist that possibility by a variety of means, including the exercise of its planning powers. It included in its structure plan review policies opposing the establishment of a repository within the region and any geological research needed to investigate the suitability of sites for such a purpose. It also refused planning application for two deep boreholes and for the shallow shotholes required for the seismic survey.

The Secretary of State, in approving the structure plan, deleted the policies on nuclear waste disposal. That was because there is a national interest in the safe disposal of such waste. It would be entirely inappropriate if a local authority, in discharging its planning responsibilities, could on the basis of local consideration frustrate the pursuit of such a national objective. It was my right hon. Friend's duty, as the guardian of the national interest, to look at this matter objectively in the best interests of Scotland as a whole.

Photo of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Lord James Douglas-Hamilton , Edinburgh West

It is a fundamental principle of the planning system that all applications and appeals must be decided solely on the planning merits of the development or operation proposed. But in both cases that have come to the Secretary of State on appeal, the council turned down the applications on grounds which in essence have nothing to do with the proposals themselves. It and other opponents based their objections not on the effects of the drilling and seismic surveys, but on the possible consequences of a subsequent application for planning permission for a repository, which might or might not be proposed. As I have already said, setting aside the geological considerations, Sellafield has significant cost advantages.

The Secretary of State's decision on both appeals were in the nature quasi-judicial decisions and based on the planning merits of the proposals themselves. His decisions showed that he had considered those proposals most thoroughly and taken great care to satisfy himself that they were acceptable. In particular, he took steps to mitigate any adverse environmental consequences that might arise. Thus, in granting permission for the seismic survey, he imposed conditions designed to ensure that the survey did not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise, dust emission, vibration and general disturbance and that loss of amenity was kept within tolerable limits. My right hon. Friend's reasoning is set out in full in the decision letter, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

I cannot repeat too often what has already been made clear by several members of the Government, including the Prime Minister—that this decision in no way pre-empts a decision on any future application to build a repository. As I said on Report stage of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, planning permission would be required before a repository could be constructed at either Sellafield or Dounreay. The Government have given a clear commitment that the relevant application would be called in for decision by the appropriate Secretary of State and a full public local inquiry would be held.

It is at that inquiry that the legitimate interests of the Highland regional council about any detrimental effects on the environment, economy and infrastructure, and the hon. Lady's points about whisky and fishing, would be fully taken into account if a planning application were submitted. I very much regret that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) implied that the Government would prejudge any such application. That is not the case, and it was a grossly irresponsible allegation that he made in the Press and Journal on 10 May.

Due to the massive construction costs—about £2·5 billion—the Government are committed to a single facility for the United Kingdom. One possible result of the hon. Member's desire for an independent Scotland could be separate repositories north and south of the border. Were that to happen, such duplication could entail literally billions of pounds of needless expenditure, because the infrastructure and engineering costs would be exceptionally high, regardless of the eventual capacity of any repository.

The Government give the highest possible priority to safety. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand why the Government cannot be swayed in their central determination to pursue in-depth investigations thoroughly, conscientiously and, above all, with the national interest constantly in mind. That is what UK Nirex has been doing at Dounreay—no more, and no less.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.