House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Apr 1991

Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute) : It may be helpful if hon. Members cast back their minds to the days before the 1987 election, when the Government made the most extraordinary bare-faced about-turn that the Tory party has ever made--it was even more extraordinary than the Government's about-turn on the poll tax. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made a statement in the House on 1 May 1987 about a letter that he had received from Nirex. He said : "Nirex concludes that, although a safe near-surface disposal facility could certainly be developed at any of the four sites currently being investigated, the economic advantages of separate near-surface, low-level waste disposal are nothing like as great as Nirex earlier thought".

The four sites to which he referred are in constituencies represented by Conservative Members of Parliament. Bradwell is in Colchester, South and Maldon represented by John Wakeham ; Fulbeck is in Grantham, represented by Douglas Hogg--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she should refer to the constituencies and not the names of Members.

Mrs. Michie : The third site is Estow ; and the fourth is South Killingholme.

The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury went on : "Nirex will therefore now concentrate on identifying a suitable location for a deep multi-purpose facility for both

intermediate-level and low-level waste".--[ Official Report, 1 May 1987 ; Vol. 115, c. 504.]

We would do well to remember what happened then. I recall extremely well the day when I heard the announcement on the radio. Later that day, in a speech at Pitlochry, I said that the Secretary of State for the Environment had made the decision because he knew that Conservative seats would be lost unless he made this about-turn and, having done so, he need not allow Nirex to turn its attention north of the border. Nirex did just that very thing.

Although the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) spoke at length about Dounreay and

Column 1230

Caithness, I want to make it clear that my opposition to a nuclear waste dump or deep level storage relates to the whole of Scotland, particularly the highlands and islands. The Liberal Democrats believe and have proposed on many occasions that there should be on-site, above-ground, dry storage until safe methods of long-term disposal and management are found.

I hope that the Minister will say how much money is being put into research. Nirex has been spending millions of pounds boring holes in Caithness--that money could have been used for research. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North spoke of the billions of pounds that are being used. We need to know what effort is being made in research. This is not a case of the "Not in my back yard" syndrome. We have to acknowledge that we must look after our own waste, and we do not advocate it being sent up and down the country into England or wherever for deep disposal. We know that we must look after our waste on site.

The Nirex document, "The Way Forward", identified 35 per cent. of the United Kingdom as suitable for waste disposal. I recall that the people of Argyll and Bute were alarmed, as I was, because the map in the document identified districts in my constituency such as Islay, the Ross of Mull and Iona as suitable geological sites, which was unbelievable. So concerned were local people that they organised a petition to be sent to Nirex. More than 10,000 signatures were collected in various locations in support of the policy of the local council--Argyll and Bute district council--which had already taken a decision that it would

"as a matter of policy, oppose with the utmost vigour, any attempt to place a repository within the area of Argyll and Bute district or under the seabed around the shores."

That is a quote from a so-called independent council, which is not Labour, Conservative, or even Liberal Democrat or Scottish National party--all those parties are represented on it. A cross-party view was taken on the issue.

I want to highlight the fact that I am talking about the highlands and islands and the whole of Scotland, not just Dounreay. It is disgraceful that the then Secretary of State should have overruled in such a cavalier manner the decision of the elected members of the Highlands regional council to refuse Nirex planning permission to drill test bore holes. What right had he, one man at the Scottish Office, to take such a decision ? We have no way of making him account for or justify his actions. It is another reason why the Government refuse to set up a Scottish Select Committee : because they can thus get away with such decisions and nobody can question them or the Scottish Office on exactly what is going on.

We have heard much about the clean image of the highlands and islands, and I cannot stress too strongly how important that is. To go ahead with a nuclear dump in that district would destroy that image at a stroke. It would harm farming, fishing, tourism and the whisky industry--all of which depend on the district being kept pollution-free and environmentally safe.

4.45 pm

There is another threat coming down the line. In an exclusive report in the Sunday Mail on 21 April, Angus Macleod stated : "A total of 17 sites around Scotland's coast are being touted as possible graveyard' sites for radioactive submarine hulks".

Column 1231

Some five or six of the districts mentioned are in my constituency--Loch Goil, Campbeltown, Rothesay, Loch Striven and Loch Fyne. Are we to be threatened with a nuclear dump and then threatened with nuclear submarines being parked for goodness knows how long in that beautiful district of the highlands ?

Unless the Minister gives a categorical assurance today that there will be no nuclear dumping in this district, it makes nonsense of the Bill and its fine words about caring for and protecting the environment. The Minister has already been asked, and I push him again to answer the question--what are the views of the Scottish Nature Conservancy Council and the Scottish Natural Heritage Agency ? If they have not already done so, they must make a statement ; they cannot sit on the fence. If they do, their credibility will sink even lower.

As we have heard, the Government can pronounce happily about what should happen in the so-called flow country, but are they not going to make a statement on the dumping of waste in the highlands? If they do not, their membership, like the membership of the health boards appointed by the Secretary of State, must be called into question. The dumping of waste is not a decision for the Minister, the Secretary of State or the Department of the Environment, but a decision only for the people of Scotland.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that there are a wide range of well-canvassed reasons why Dounreay would not be an appropriate site for a repository for nuclear waste. I strongly agree that there must be effective safeguards for the environment, and in every other respect.

The proposals of Nirex and other authorities for the disposal of nuclear waste are widely misunderstood. The subject needs some well-informed debate --perhaps we can start it here this afternoon. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred to the remains of decommissioned nuclear submarines. We already have one lying at Rosyth--HMS Dreadnought--which has been there for many years and has now been joined by HMS Churchill, which is being decommissioned. I do not know whether HMS Warspite is there too-- it may be at Devonport. That is an example of what goes wrong if decisions are not taken about where such material is to be stored in the long term. At present, the submarines are lying on the dockside in Rosyth. A decision must be taken about what to do with them.

I have a particular interest in the nuclear industry, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North. He has the Hunterston power station in his constituency, while I have the Torness power station in mine. Yesterday, I received a parliamentary answer to a question that I had put to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I had asked him to make a statement on his policy for the storage of used fuel from nuclear installations in Scotland after 1993. I received the following answer from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) : "Questions about operational aspects of nuclear installations in Scotland, such as spent fuel storage, are a matter for the operators concerned. Scottish Nuclear Ltd. have recently put forward proposals for the long-term storage of spent fuel

Column 1232

at both Hunterston and Torness ; these proposals are currently being evaluated."--[ Official Report, 24 April 1991 ; Vol. 189, c. 458. ]

That is a major departure from the original planning consents for both Hunterston and Torness.

The understanding was that the intermediate waste would be stored on site in a vault that is part of the integral design of the power station and that low-level waste would be transported to Sellafield. We need not get unduly worked up about low-level waste--overalls, boots and so on--but we understood that the fuel, probably the most sensitive material of all, would be taken away either for long-term storage or reprocessing at Sellafield. The Minister's reply, however, was that there had been a proposal to store not only the waste substances but also the spent fuel on site.

I understand that, from now on, Torness will produce approximately 37 tonnes of waste fuel each year. Over the full life of the power station, therefore, that amounts to 1,200 tonnes of waste fuel. The spent fuel is not being reprocessed at present. There is no call for advanced gas-cooled reactor spent fuel to be reprocessed, as no more AGR reactors are being built. The Government are actively considering the proposal, therefore, that spent fuel should be stored in dry stores at Torness and Hunterston. That material continues to generate heat for about 50 years, after which it is possible to store it in an underground repository, were there to be such an underground repository. Nirex is considering constructing an underground repository but that will not be for spent fuel, so we do not yet know where it would go. The new suggestion is that it should be stored in dry stores at Torness and Hunterston.

This is a long-term problem. If Torness is to be decommissioned in 2030, the earliest possible date for clearing the dry store, if such a store were to be built at Torness, would be 2080, and that would depend upon whether by then a long-term store would be available for the material.

All these issues ought to be properly considered and evaluated, but the fundamental issue is whether it would be better for there to be a single national processing and storage plant, as at Sellafield--a specialist facility to handle all this material--or whether there should be a proliferation of smaller stores dotted around the country at the various nuclear installations.

What worries me about the suggestion that there should be a dry store at Torness is the evidence concerning the only dry store in the United Kingdom --at Wylfa power station in Anglesey--where Nuclear Electric has a dry store. According to an article in the New Scientist of 2 March 1991 :

"Rotting fuel rods in the world's largest dry store for spent radioactive fuel in North Wales could cause a catastrophic fire. The manesium can' which surrounds the rods has corroded so badly that the radioactive metal is exposed. If water penetrates the cladding of the element it can react with the metallic uranium fuel. One of the corrosion products is uranium hydride, which can ignite spontaneously in air. If enough uranium hydride burns, it can ignite the metallic uranium and release the highly radioactive fission products held' in the uranium bar. This would constitute a major nuclear accident The design of the facilities at Wylfa forms the basis of a new store for spent fuel from advanced gas-cooled and pressurised water reactors. Nuclear Electric has been looking at a potential site for such a store at Heysham, in northwest England. It would like to be able to keep spent fuel in dry storage for up to 100 years., removing the need for early reprocessing."

Column 1233

We understand that similar dry stores are now being suggested for Hunterston and Torness.

I recognise the value and importance of the nuclear industry to the economy of both my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North. I recognise that these nuclear installations are doing a valuable job and that they will continue to do so for a long time. However, well-considered decisions must be taken about what to do with the waste products--in particular, about what to do with the spent fuel.

We are debating the possibility of providing an underground repository somewhere in Scotland. The environmental issues must be discussed. I have yet to form a firm view about the best thing to do, in the light of the evidence. However, my instinct is to say that it would be far better to continue to reprocess the material in a specialist facility, such as that at Sellafield, rather than that there should be a proliferation of small stores at nuclear sites all over the country where things could go wrong, as they appear to have gone wrong at Wylfa.

There should be the fullest and the most open public debate about what to do with this material. All these matters could then be properly considered, and acceptable decisions reached from the point of view of the nuclear industry and the wider public.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing : In supporting new clause 1, I wish to refer to amendments that were tabled but not accepted. I have been asked during the last few days why Scottish Members of Parliament should be considering the disposal of nuclear waste when dealing with this Bill. That is an absurd question. The most critical environmental question that faces the people of Scotland is the disposal and transport of nuclear waste and its management. Therefore, the amendments that my hon. Friends and I tabled dealt with the transport of nuclear waste.

Many people believe that this problem relates specifically to Dounreay and the highlands of Scotland, but the whole of the country of Scotland is affected by it. It is intended to dispose of nuclear waste created in the United Kingdom and, furthermore, in other countries. The nuclear waste from other countries would have to be transported through Scotland to a particular site for processing. If Dounreay were to be selected as the processing site, the A9--the main arterial route that runs from north to south in Scotland--would become the irradiated spine of our nation.

The debate therefore affects all the people of Scotland. I am wearing a badge that was produced by Highland regional council, which is currently spearheading the campaign against Nirex's plans to come to Dounreay. Highland regional council says that it wants a nationwide campaign to be organised against the disposal of nuclear waste in Scotland.

This is a key issue for Scotland. Earlier today, I met the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) outside this building. He referred to the badge that I am wearing and suggested that we want to close down all nuclear plants in Scotland. I had to point out to him that the words on the badge produced by Highland regional council are "Bury Nuclear Waste." Everyone accepts that there is a responsibility to dispose of the nuclear waste that is created in our country, but there is a consensus--it is

Column 1234

certainly the view of my party--that it should be stored on site, above ground, where it can be carefully monitored and is accessible for regular checking.

Mr. Bill Walker : I am astonished by the hon. Lady's remarks. She follows the speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who, if I understood him correctly, said that he did not want the waste from his constituency's nuclear station to be stored on site. He said that it should go to Sellafield. That is the opposite of what the hon. Lady wants.

5 pm

Mrs. Ewing : Thankfully, I am not responsible for the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I must stress that, in the campaign against a Nirex site at Dounreay, it should not be regarded as a victory if nuclear waste is buried at Sellafield. The burying of nuclear waste is the greatest danger we face, because no one can predict seismic or underwater movements. The waste will need to be monitored for centuries, and that is why it must be stored on site and above ground.

There is an international aspect to the issue, and the disposal of nuclear waste should be dealt with internationally. It is such a major issue that one country cannot come to grips with the problem. We should consider with other countries more effective ways of disposing of nuclear waste.

Safety is critical. Highland regional council was at pains yesterday to stress that Nirex has said that it cannot put the case for safety in time for any public inquiry. In The Independent on 21 January, Ron Flowers--a director of UK Nirex--referred to the nuclear waste disposal company and a possible public inquiry. The article said that Nirex would

"present a preliminary safety case to the inquiry but detailed geological research will have to continue--possibly for as long as a decade after the inquiry ends--before the safety case is finished Dr. Flowers believes that at the planning inquiry, the regulatory bodies--the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Pollution--will give provisional views of the ultimate acceptability of the repository, provisional views of what they expect to say by the year 2000, when the repository is expected to open."

When the residents of Caithness and the people of Scotland are being asked to accept that the disposal of nuclear waste will be safe, it is ridiculous that there cannot be a ruling on safety until the repository is open.

The Daily Telegraph in March stated :

"The failure of British Nuclear Fuels to have a full safety assessment of a £2.7 billion national nuclear waste dump ready in time for a public inquiry has been attacked by the Government's most senior adviser on the industry."

There is report after report showing that neither Nirex nor the Government can produce correct safety arguments to persuade the people of Scotland that they should accept the plans for the disposal of nuclear waste. I fully understand the reservations of the communities involved. Referendums and public opinion polls have all shown an overwhelming opposition to the idea of Nirex taking our country into its greedy hands.

I wish to stress the implications for industry. Much reference has been made to the perception of a clean environment and its importance for Scottish industries. The best references that I can cite are those from people involved in the industries of Scotland. Highland regional council produced a document following its conference on 28 November 1990. Several hon. Members attended the

Column 1235

conference but, as happened yesterday, no one from the Government attended, even though they had received invitations. Other hon. Members representing industries in their constituencies managed to attend.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : The hon. Lady should put her criticism in context. The invitation gave only two days' notice. Many hon. Members already had fixed commitments on Scottish matters at 4, 5 and 6 o'clock on that day, so it was not possible to attend at such short notice.

Mrs. Ewing : All hon. Members have difficulty in meeting many of our obligations, but some did manage to attend the conference at short notice. Given the circumstances, it was possible for someone from the Government at least to turn up and listen to the arguments of duly elected representatives of the community.

At the conference, Mrs. Julie Crowe of the Caithness National Farmers Union made a lengthy speech about the importance of agriculture to her area. One short quote will suffice to give a taste of what she said :

"The whole world is now striving to produce the environmentally safe food so we have to compete. However, with a dump in Caithness I would suggest the playing field will not be level for us. The presence of a nuclear repository--dump--and the transport of nuclear waste through the area will blight local produce. This will mean we have a problem marketing our produce."

In referring to the fishing industry, Mr. Douglas MacLeod of the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers said :

"The clean waters of the Highlands were a priceless asset to shellfish growers and it would be a major disaster for the industry if Nirex was successful in identifying Dounreay as the site for the establishment of a repository. There was no apparent means of ultimately preventing leakage of radiation into the marine environment and accordingly the future of the shellfish industry and its employment prospects rested with the success of the campaign of opposition to Nirex."

Mr. Jamie Stone of Highland Fine Cheeses said :

"The existence of a nuclear waste repository in the Highlands would have a detrimental effect on the clean image of the area which was a vital element in the marketing of specialty food products and whisky from the Highlands and also in the tourist industry. The Highlands were widely acclaimed for being one of the cleanest areas in Europe at the moment and this situation should not be threatened by Nirex." Mr. J. P. MacDonald, the manager of Dalmore Distillery in Alness said :

"As you are probably aware, being a distiller one is constantly monitoring the quality of the distillery water supply for any contamination, be it oil, diesel, sewage or whatever. Should a disaster happen during the transportation of radioactive nuclear waste across our water supply, either by road or rail, the consequences to us would be horrific. Our water supply is of prime importance and is guarded, if you like, jealously."

I could give many other quotations. I recommend the Minister to read the report and to take account of the views of those who provide jobs in the north of Scotland--vital jobs in my constituency. They are desperately worried that the perception of an unclean environment will prevent them from competing in the world market. More than 40 distilleries operate in my constituency, and just one unscrupulous Japanese whisky producer spreading a rumour throughout the world that Scottish whisky may be contaminated would result in the bottom falling out of the market. Where would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be if he no longer had revenue from the Scottish whisky industry?

Column 1236

The statements at the conference were made not by scaremongers but by people anxious to maintain the industries in their communities. They are trying to ensure that there is a future for young people in the rural communities of Scotland. I do not know what the politics may be of any of those people, and I do not really care : they work in the highlands of Scotland and are deeply concerned and angry about the Government's attitude.

The hon. Member for Tayside, North is twitching. I wish to quote no less a person than the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sorry that he is not here to listen to the debate. In 1980, consideration was given to using Mullwharchar, in the Galloway hills, as a disposal site. It appears that there are double standards at the Scottish Office.

It is important to put on record exactly what the then hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), a Back-Bench Member, said during the inquiry. On 3 March 1980, the 10th sitting day of the inquiry, the then hon. Gentleman said :

"The terms and nature of this inquiry are inadequate and risk bringing our democratic processes into disrepute. The drilling itself would be a serious case of planning blight', and would affect tourism, agriculture and the locals' peace of mind."

He claimed that public opinion in Galloway was

"strongly against the proposed geological research programme." On 16 November 1980, The Scotsman reported the then hon. Gentleman as saying :

"the lingering threat of the dumping of nuclear waste casts a dark shadow over all his constituents. They are concerned with the long term threat to future generations who would have to live in an environment ravaged by the irretrievable lodging in their midst of poisonous waste matter of inestimable danger.' "

Those were the words of the man who is now the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that he will recall his words and ponder them carefully. Having done so, perhaps he will reverse the

governor-general attitude that was displayed by his predecessor. For example, the structure plan for Highland regional council and reports of planning inquiries were overturned with a few strokes of a red pen in St. Andrew's house. If there is genuine democracy--I hope that the Minister will convey my remarks to the Secretary of State--what is good enough for Galloway is good enough for the rest of the people of Scotland.

We are supposed to live in a democratic society. Those who have been consulted have overwhelmingly stated their opposition to the siting of a deep waste depository in Scotland. They have made their opposition crystal clear on every possible occasion. I hope that the Minister will say clearly that he is prepared for once to listen to democratic opinion. We are not prepared to sit back any longer while the people of our communities are the victims of autocratic treatment as the Government ride roughshod over them. We want public opinion to be taken into account. Jobs should be protected. Future generations should be able to feel that they have a future in our country instead of being forced to emigrate.

I feel passionately about these matters, because I know how the people in my constituency feel about them. Everyone in

Moray--fishermen, farmers, distillers and everyone else--presents the same case as that which I am advancing this afternoon. The Government have not advanced logical arguments. They are unable to advance arguments that will persuade my constituents to think

Column 1237

otherwise. In a recent visit to Buckie in my constituency, SAND--Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping--with its specially designed nuclear dustbin, found that everyone in the area was willing to sign the petition that it had prepared.

Will that petition and others mean anything if the Scottish Office will not listen and will not take account of the genuine views of the people of our country? It is no wonder that the Tories were left with only 10 seats in Scotland after the 1987 general election. I suspect that they will have even fewer seats after the next general election. There will be Scottish National party gains in constituencies such as Tayside, North, where people feel as strongly about these matters as those elsewhere.

The Conservative party appears to have double standards when it is in power. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred to what took place in 1987--shortly before the general election--when four Conservative Members were not prepared to accept low-level waste disposal in their constituencies. When the Secretary of State, who was then the Back -Bench Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, argued his case during the Mullwharchar inquiry, it was accepted. When the people of Scotland speak with a democratic and united voice against something they do not want and about which they have strong feelings, why cannot it be accepted?

5.15 pm

Mr. Bill Walker : The new clause is important because it touches on a controversial matter that should be discussed objectively, rationally and sanely. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) : this matter is much too serious to be treated flippantly or to be presented in a manner that distorts the truth.

We have just listened to the most appalling speech that I have heard for a long time, on nuclear dumping. One of the difficulties that we face in Scotland is misinformation, which is disseminated by certain politicians and political parties. I am reminded of a leaflet about nuclear dumping that was distributed in my constituency during the 1987 general election. It was full of lies. It suggested that the Government had decided that there should be nuclear dumping in the Schiehallion area, which is an area of special scientific interest in my constituency. It stated that the source of the information was a well-known Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Post. It failed to explain that the story that was being referred to in the Sunday Post was the result of a press release of the prospective parliamentary candidate of the Scottish National party for Western Isles. He issued the press release a few days before the general election, and it was reported upon in the Sunday Post on the following Sunday. The report alluded to the source, but the leaflet referred to no source. It was not stated that the Scottish National party was presenting an SNP story--a lie. It did not claim that the source was the Sunday Post. I believe that the wrong date of publication was a deliberate error and a means of ensuring that a check could not be made. That is the sort of nonsense that we have learnt to expect from the SNP. It involves itself in various controversies and then dresses up the issues, misrepresents them and tells downright, blatant lies to obtain political advantage. A

Column 1238

careful study of the speech of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will reveal examples of deliberately placed Goebbels-type misinformation.

Of course everyone in Scotland is concerned about keeping the environment safe. Those of us who have a special interest in the Scotch whisky industry --the hon. Member for Moray is not the only one--realise that it is vital that watercourses and the sources of barley and grain are uncontaminated. Those are essential ingredients in the manufacture of whisky. I must declare an interest, because I sponsored the Scotch Whisky Act 1988, which sets out minimum standards. I am also treasurer of the Scotch whisky parliamentary group.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker : I shall. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman failed to visit the Marines before they went off.

Mr. Welsh : I contacted the Marines and said, "If you have just returned from Northern Ireland and you are going to Iraq, the last thing you will want is a Member of Parliament chatting you up." The hon. Gentleman objects to the purported actions of others but acts similarly himself. If Tayside, North were targeted as a nuclear dump, would the hon. Gentleman adopt the same attitude as the Secretary of State for Scotland, or would he join his constituents in opposing the siting of the dump in the area? I invite the hon. Gentleman to have regard to the large mote in his own eye. Before he talks about leaflets, for example, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the Conservative party in my constituency issued a leaflet in Scottish National party colours. It contained no statement to tell the reader whence it had come. I suppose that it was an example of attack as a means of defence. The Lord Advocate was taken to his own courts and his election agent was defeated. Heavy expenses were incurred.

Mr. Walker : The hon. Gentleman puts a hypothetical question, and I could equally ask him such a question. My answer is clear. I hope that if, at any time in the future, anyone proposes any kind of nuclear disposal anywhere in Scotland, the matter will be debated fully, sensibly and clearly, just as the hon. Member for East Lothian suggested. That is the correct way to tackle a difficult and tricky problem.

Mr. Wilson : I do not want the debate to turn into a bickering match between the tiny Tayside tigers about leaflets that have nothing to do with it, but there is a serious question here. It is proposed that 15 trains with nuclear cargoes should pass through Perth, if not through the hon. Gentleman's constituency, every week. I am sure that his constituents would like to know whether he views that prospect with equanimity.

Mr. Walker : That is a realistic question. If an area north of my constituency were to be chosen for the disposal of nuclear waste, the hon. Gentleman would be astonished if I did not ask all the relevant, important and pertinent questions regarding safety and transport. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that I hope later to raise the whole question of transport, including nuclear waste transport.

Mr. Alistaire Darling (Edinburgh, Central) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on

Column 1239

reminding us what the Secretary of State for Scotland said 10 years ago, when there was a realistic prospect of Nirex dumping nuclear waste in his constituency. However, she should not hold out too much hope that he will stand by those same concerns 10 years later. If she has followed what he has said about the poll tax, she will know that the Secretary of State is flexible about his firmly held views. I am sure that, when it comes to the dumping of nuclear waste in Caithness or anywhere else, the Secretary of State will take a quite different line.

Following Nirex's proposals is rather like swotting flies : every time one tries to hit it on one site, it lands on another site with similar proposals for the dumping of nuclear waste.

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), because, if the nuclear waste generated by the power station in his constituency is moved, it will go by rail through my constituency and the constituencies of other Edinburgh Members--but not, of course, that of the Under-Secretary of State. I do not profess any particular expertise in the properties of nuclear waste. I prefer to approach the problem with common sense. It is daft to dump nuclear waste where it cannot be recovered when we do not know what will happen to it in the next 50 or 100 years, or even the next few thousand years. Once we put nuclear waste beyond recovery, if it is discovered in the distant future that it can cause untold damage, whether through leakage or in generating heat which might lead to the cracking of rocks and so on, it will be too late to do anything about it. Therefore, until we know what to do with the stuff it is eminently sensible that it should be kept in a place where we can keep an eye on what is happening to it. I wish that those who were responsible for developing nuclear energy and nuclear power had, within minutes of discovering what it could do, set about discovering what we should do with the end products of the industry. All of us are rightly concerned about the damage that has been done to our environment by what I might call conventional energy sources. Many of us see the smoke belching from power stations such as Longannet, not far from Edinburgh. We wonder what it is doing to the ozone layer and the environment, and naturally we look to alternative sources of energy. The people who promote nuclear energy have always done so on the grounds that it does not cause that much damage, but I am not fully convinced about that, particularly as it is not known what happens to the end products of nuclear fusion. Until we know that, it is madness to go ahead with producing more and more waste which will have to be kept on site or moved across the country. It is certainly daft to dump it down a hole with all the attendant problems.

If nuclear waste is produced at Torness it will be transported along Edinburgh's suburban railway line system and possibly along part of the mainline system to Sellafield. Because I was so concerned about the matter, I arranged to visit Torness, and last year I spent a day there with Scottish Nuclear, which now owns and operates the plant.

I often feel that the nuclear industry is its own worst enemy. It is excessively secretive. It has been at pains to deny things that were subsequently found to have been fact. For some reason, it seems to prefer to shroud its

Column 1240

business in secrecy, repelling any inquiries and treating those who ask questions with disdain and sometimes contempt.

When I went to Torness and spoke to some of those at Scottish Nuclear, I was pleased to find that they showed an openness with which I was not familiar when I spent some years as a member of the joint consultative committee when the Torness power station was being built. At that time, truth was often one of the first casualties when we were discussing the legitimate concerns of people living in the area, particularly on employment questions, of which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian is well aware.

I went into the chambers at Torness where the nuclear products will be produced, and spent some time clambering across the cask where the nuclear material will be loaded. I am satisfied that Scottish Nuclear has done much to try to reduce the risks, but it can never be absolutely confident that there is no risk. Nuclear material could leak through the seals on top of the cask that will carry the spent material. That possibility could never be excluded, and Scottish Nuclear was candid about it.

I suggested that Scottish Nuclear should invite the community groups and the people living in Edinburgh and along the railway lines to see for themselves and should hold public meetings, as the previous chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board had said that he might be prepared to do. At the time, I thought that it responded positively, so I was dismayed to find yesterday that, when the Edinburgh Evening News made inquiries about such public meetings, there had been a complete about-turn and there were to be no such meetings. If people wanted to visit Torness, they could do so as part of the general public tours that are being organised. I hope that the Minister will use his influence with the nuclear industry to encourage it to start being open with people, to discuss people's legitimate fears and to admit that there might be mistakes, leakages and some risk. People might then more easily believe what it has to say.

The present problem--Nirex is no exception--is that people have no confidence in the nuclear industry because of its track record. It is for the nuclear industry to put matters right and to show openness that hitherto it has not shown. If it does not, it cannot be surprised when people vehemently object to anything it proposes. If nuclear material is taken by train to Sellafield, for some reason using the more elderly Edinburgh suburban line, there is a risk of derailment. I know from having travelled on passenger trains that have been run by British Rail on special occasions on that line that the trains have to travel extremely slowly. If trains have to travel the length of Scotland, there is the risk that they may be the subject of a terrorist attack or something of that sort.

Unless such matters are addressed, people are right to be concerned about the prospect of nuclear waste being transported around Scotland. That concern is not helped by the suggestion that, at the end of the day, some nuclear waste is to be dumped in a place from which it cannot be recovered, if not at Caithness then at some other point. There is no guarantee that Nirex or one of its successor bodies will not crop up somewhere else, if not in the north of Scotland then in the United Kingdom. People living in different parts of the United Kingdom cannot rely on a general election to save them, as happened to people living in four constituencies in England in 1987.

Next Section

Home Page