The next item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead on events at the Vulcan naval reactor test establishment. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement. There should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. I will allow a few moments for the front benches to sort themselves out. Cabinet secretary, you have 10 minutes.
16:11
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will update the chamber about details that have emerged concerning events at the Ministry of Defence’s Vulcan test reactor at Dounreay and how activities there are regulated in Scotland.
I am afraid that when we look at what has unfolded over the past few days, we see evidence of the MOD’s culture of secrecy and cover-ups when what we need is openness and transparency. That has to concern this chamber and, indeed, all Scotland.
The MOD has on Scottish soil, and in Scottish waters, an operational test reactor, a fleet of redundant submarines awaiting dismantling and an operational fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, four of which are Trident armed—all significant environmental hazards.
Vulcan is the test bed for the pressurised water reactors used in Britain’s nuclear submarines. As the defence secretary put it, the reactors at Vulcan are “hammered”, so that any faults will show up there, rather than in an operational submarine.
In January 2012, low levels of radioactivity were detected in the cooling water of the reactor. That took place in a sealed circuit and we were reassured by the Ministry of Defence last week that there was no detectable radiation leak from that circuit. However, there should be no radioactivity in the cooling water and the incident was of such significance that the reactor was shut down for much of 2012 until tests and trials could be carried out. The reactor was restarted only in November 2012—10 months later. The MOD believes that the problem lay in a microscopic breach of fuel element cladding, but it does not know what caused that breach. Nevertheless, it appears to be confident that the reactor can be operated safely until decommissioning begins, which is scheduled for next year.
The Secretary of State for Defence said that the incident would be rated at level zero on the eight-point international nuclear event scale, indicating that it is a mere “anomaly”, to use his word, with no safety significance. While that may sound somewhat reassuring, as I said, the incident led to the decision to shut down the reactor as a precaution for 10 months.
During 2012, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—our environment agency—became aware of an increase in discharges of radioactive gases from the site. Those discharges, at 43 per cent of the annual limit, were within the threshold permitted by SEPA, but they were much higher than the previous year, when emissions were only 4 per cent of the permitted limit. We now understand that the increase in gas discharges was probably due to the testing that took place following the shut-down, so the defence secretary was plain wrong when he told the House of Commons that there had been
“no measurable change in the radiation discharge”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 6 March 2014; Vol 576, c 1085.]
A publicly reported tenfold increase is almost certainly measurable and I am sure that he will want to acknowledge that and set the record straight.
I turn to SEPA’s role. The MOD first contacted our environment agency’s local officer in September 2012, seeking a meeting, but no details were divulged at that point. A SEPA officer responsible for Vulcan was then summoned to a meeting that took place at the site on 11 December 2012. At that meeting, SEPA was told about the incident, the tests that had been carried out and the suspected cause. By then the incident had been classified as one with no safety or environmental impact and the MOD instructed that the issue must be kept on a strict need-to-know basis. Accordingly, neither SEPA senior managers nor the Scottish Government were informed. The UK Government’s office for nuclear regulation similarly confirmed what was said to SEPA as, according to the ONR’s spokesperson:
“We were required to keep the information on a need to know basis for security reasons.”
We now know that SEPA and ministers were not the only victims of the UK Government’s veil of secrecy: when my officials visited the site in February 2012 to discuss its decommissioning there was no mention whatsoever of any problem.
Senior representatives from the Vulcan site regularly attend the Dounreay stakeholder group and provide updates on matters of interest to the local community. It is instructive to look back at the group’s minutes, to see what Vulcan was reporting. On 25 April, when the reactor had been shut down for more than three months, the commander informed the meeting that
“it was business as usual”.
That was clearly not the case. At the June meeting of the full stakeholder group it was reported that
“reactor operations were continuing as per programme”.
That pattern followed in subsequent meetings: there was no problem; everything was to schedule. However, what has unfolded shows us that everything was far from right and that the Dounreay stakeholder group representing the local community, and the rest of Scotland, had been kept in the dark.
Last Thursday morning, I received a call from Philip Dunne MP, the junior defence minister, to inform me that in a matter of minutes the Secretary of State for Defence was to make a statement in the House of Commons on nuclear submarines. Rather than provide reassurance, that last-gasp sharing of information raises questions about the secrecy of the past two years. In the aftermath of his statement, in an attempt to shift the focus, the secretary of state has sought to pin the blame on SEPA for not notifying the Scottish ministers or the Scottish Parliament. However, SEPA was told to keep the issue on a strict need-to-know basis.
Local SEPA staff were put in an invidious position: they were unable to disclose what they were told because of the limitations imposed by the MOD. The agreement between the MOD and SEPA does not allow SEPA to pass on information on operational changes in the reactor, such as those that occurred in January 2012. By the time SEPA was eventually informed of the problems it was recognised that there had not been a formal breach of emission limits. It is important to state that it was not for SEPA to pass on information on the incident; indeed it was prevented from doing so under the agreement between the MOD and SEPA. Let us be clear: it was the responsibility of the MOD and the UK Government to inform the local community, this Parliament and the Government of the events at the test facility—no one else.
The failure to inform the Scottish ministers flies in the face of the memorandum of understanding on devolution, which commits all four administrations to the principle of good communication, especially when one administration’s work may have some bearing on the responsibilities of another. Paragraph 5 states explicitly that it is the responsibility of administrations
“to alert each other as soon as practicable to relevant developments within their areas of responsibility”.
By eventually informing SEPA 10 months after the event, the MOD implicitly recognised that what had happened at Vulcan impacted on environmental matters—matters that are the responsibility of this Parliament. I repeat that the onus was on the MOD, not SEPA, to alert us and in that it failed.
SEPA’s role under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 is to regulate the keeping and use of radioactive material and the accumulation and disposal of radioactive waste. For sites with a nuclear licence, the office for nuclear regulation regulates most activities on site, with SEPA regulating emissions to the environment and waste.
However, SEPA’s role on military sites such as Vulcan is different. The 1993 act does not apply to premises used for defence purposes, so SEPA has no power to regulate them. Basically, the MOD has a Crown exemption from the legislation that applies to everyone else. Instead, there is only a voluntary agreement between the MOD and SEPA that implements an equivalent regime. In essence, SEPA issues letters rather than legally binding authorisations or registrations. In other words, SEPA regulates by invitation rather than by right and relies on the MOD’s goodwill. The exemption from radioactive substances legislation for defence establishments is an anomaly and the MOD has abused it. No other environmental protection legislation provides similar Crown exemption, not even for civil nuclear establishments such as the main Dounreay site. There is no good reason why radioactive substances should be treated any differently from other risks to the environment, and defence establishments should be treated every bit as seriously.
The Scottish Parliament recently passed the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which allows us to introduce a new consistent, coherent, proportionate and transparent environmental regulation regime for Scotland. We want to get rid of anomalies such as Crown exemption and treat all areas that are subject to regulation even-handedly, so we propose to use the regulations that are forthcoming under the 2014 act to leave behind the Crown exemption for MOD sites.
We are fortunate that we are not discussing a harmful nuclear incident, but we are addressing the UK Government’s failure to be open and transparent about an incident at Vulcan. Where we can act to restore public confidence in shedding the Crown exemption, we will do so. However, the MOD’s handling of the situation—which involved keeping SEPA in the dark for months, and ministers, parliamentarians and the public in the dark for much longer—is a major concern. The MOD has again demonstrated a deep-seated culture of secrecy, which raises questions about what else it knows but is not telling us. The MOD is in control of facilities that present a great potential hazard in Scotland and it appears that we cannot rely on it to volunteer information.
Today, on the third anniversary of the disaster at Fukushima, we need no reminding what can happen when nuclear plants go wrong. The UK Government owes the people of Scotland an apology for the Vulcan incident, and it owes us far greater openness in the future about its nuclear activities in Scotland.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement. I agree with him that it is completely unacceptable for the UK Government not to have informed the Scottish Government of the episode, just as it is unacceptable for it not to have informed the UK Parliament.
This is a matter of openness and transparency in government. The cabinet secretary is right to pursue the questions why it took two years for the UK Government to make the matter public, and why SEPA, as the regulator, was not immediately informed of the incident. The public must have confidence in the system, but in this case the system has failed. Labour has called for an inquiry into the situation in the UK Parliament, and I hope that Scottish National Party members will support us in achieving that.
However, there are contradictory statements about SEPA’s decision not to share information with the Scottish Government. I have to ask: if there is an agreement—as the cabinet secretary suggested—why has SEPA framed this as a request? SEPA states that
“the MOD requested a strict need to know basis”.
SEPA also said that
“As the radioactive discharges were well below the authorised limits set for the site, and there was no environmental impact, SEPA did not inform the Scottish Government.”
That suggests that SEPA made the decision on the ground that the environmental impact was so minor that there was no need to share the information.
Can the cabinet secretary tell us who made the decision? Was it local SEPA staff, as he suggested, and if so, to whom are they accountable? Is the cabinet secretary confident of SEPA’s decision-making process? What steps will he take—notwithstanding the MOD’s culpability—to emphasise SEPA’s accountability to the Scottish Government?
I thank Claire Baker for agreeing that we need far more openness and transparency in relation to the MOD’s approach to its nuclear facilities in Scotland, and I hope that we can work on a cross-party basis to progress the issue in the interests of the people of Scotland and—given the circumstances—of Scotland’s environment.
As I explained in my statement, SEPA’s job is, of course, to report environmental information, but it is bound by the terms of its agreement with the MOD on what it can say about the condition or the circumstances of the reactor. If we remove the Crown exemption, we will strengthen SEPA’s hand and it will be able to regulate properly. SEPA and not the MOD will call the shots—if members will forgive the pun—in regulating the site. That is the way forward. SEPA has done a job in placing in the public domain information on the environmental impact of the rise in discharges. However, the causes and the information that the secretary of state revealed in the House of Commons last week were not in the public domain. I hope that we can all join together to achieve much more openness and transparency in the times ahead.
The low levels of radioactivity that were detected in the water that was contained in the sealed reactor circuit resulted in no detectable radiation leak from the sealed unit. On the International Atomic Energy Agency measurement scale for nuclear-related events, this event was classed as level zero, which is described as being “below scale” and of “no safety significance”.
Although there is no requirement to notify level zero events, the United Kingdom Government informed the defence nuclear safety regulator and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in 2012, given SEPA’s responsibility for regulating discharges from the site.
For more than 50 years, the MOD has continued to operate more than 80 nuclear cores without accident. Given that the event was classed as level zero on the International Atomic Energy Agency measurement scale, why is the Scottish Government scaremongering and raising uncertainty over the 300 highly skilled and highly paid jobs at HMS Vulcan in Caithness?
The question that we should be asking is why the representatives from Vulcan went to speak to the local community in Dounreay but failed to tell people that the reactor had been shut down, and instead said that everything was acting as normal.
Just last week, Mary Scanlon said in the press that this was an issue of trust and
“Unfortunately, when these issues are made known so long after the event, it does raise suspicions and I would trust that lessons have been learned from this case and in future locals and staff are all fully notified regarding any issue relating to radioactive leaks.”
Level zero.
That is what Mary Scanlon and I agree 100 per cent.
Level zero.
Ms Scanlon!
There was no environmental damage. We said that and SEPA made that information available, but there was also no openness and transparency—only secrecy and cover-ups, about what happened at the reactor. In the interests of trusting the MOD and everything that it says, the local community, the Parliament and the Government should be made aware of all the facts. We are dealing with nuclear facilities. It is of the utmost importance because they could present a hazard to the people of Scotland. That is why we need that trust.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of his statement.
We need to make it clear that the radioactive safety limit for the site at HMS Vulcan is 1 million times stricter than the dose limit that is set for the Parliament. The minister cites the tenfold spike, but did the level at any time breach the strict public dose safety limit or the even tighter site limit at Vulcan? In raising the matter as he has, is the cabinet secretary confident that he has not risked causing unnecessary alarm?
As the Government and SEPA have said, the discharges from the plant did not breach safety limits. However, if SEPA is to be able to do its job properly, it needs to understand why the discharge increased. For 10 months, the MOD kept SEPA in the dark about what was happening at the Vulcan facility. How on earth can an environment agency understand the readings that it is taking at the site—the tenfold increase, as opposed to no increase, as Philip Hammond said in the House of Commons—and how is it supposed to investigate that increase on behalf of Scotland and to protect the environment if it is being kept in the dark about the source of the rise in radiation? That is why we need to empower SEPA to protect our environment and ensure that defence establishments in Scotland are properly regulated.
As the local member for Caithness, I would like to know who, locally, knew about the gaseous emission spike and the nuclear test plant shutdown at HMS Vulcan early in 2012. Were the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, and the local MP, John Thurso, told during their visit in April 2012? Were other local dignitaries told at that time? Why was the Dounreay stakeholder group not told?
Rob Gibson has asked a good question. As I explained in my statement, senior Scottish Government officials visited Vulcan but were not informed of any problems, despite the fact that—as we now know—there were problems with the reactor. I know that Michael Moore and senior local politicians visited the site during that period.
Philip Hammond said in his statement in the House of Commons last week that “key” Government ministers—UK Government ministers; no ministers in this Government were informed—were kept informed of what was happening at the reactor. Therefore, it is up to other UK ministers and politicians to disclose whether they also knew and did not tell their constituents or—in the case of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore—the people of Scotland. I hope that we have that answer soon.
In his statement, the cabinet secretary highlighted the agreement between the MOD and SEPA, which as I understand it does not allow SEPA to pass on information on operational changes in the reactor. As there has been a great deal of confusion over the procedures that are in place regarding information exchange, will the cabinet secretary or SEPA publish the procedural agreement, for the avoidance of doubt in the future and for public reassurance? Does the agreement prevent local SEPA staff from sharing information within SEPA?
As I said in my statement, the local SEPA staff are in a difficult situation, given the limitations that are placed on what they can say, and under which circumstances they should or should not say anything, according to the agreement between the MOD and SEPA, which is a publicly available document. Of course, the agreement is clearly flawed and has failed. We should not rely on regulation by invitation, or on agreements that are flawed and which rely on the good will of the MOD for them to put into practice. Instead, SEPA should be empowered to regulate defence establishments in Scotland, just as it can regulate other establishments in Scotland.
On the cabinet secretary’s announcement on using forthcoming regulations under the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to remove the Crown exemption for MOD sites, what implications could that have for test firing of depleted uranium munitions on the MOD range at Dundrennan near Kirkcudbright on the Solway coast?
As Aileen McLeod will know because she has taken a close interest in the issue, the Scottish Government is opposed to the firing of depleted uranium shells into the Solway Firth. Although we are not aware of any plans to continue that in the near future, we certainly oppose it. If the Crown exemption was removed for defence establishments, SEPA would be more empowered to deal with local situations such as that one, which could cause damage to Scotland’s environment. The measure would help SEPA to address issues in Aileen McLeod’s region and other areas.
How unusual is it for radioactive gas discharges of 43 per cent of the annual limit to be recorded at one time? What protocols are in place regarding SEPA’s reporting of unusually high emissions, which could raise the alarm about more serious incidents in the future? For instance, did SEPA inform the Vulcan site staff or the Dounreay stakeholders group of the emissions?
SEPA publishes the information in the public domain. In 2013, its document on radioactive substances emissions was published, which included the figures for the Dounreay site. We will continue to ensure that such information is put into the public domain. I can only reiterate that the issue is not about publishing information on emissions, which happens because we have SEPA; rather, it is about the circumstances behind the emissions and the activities at the nuclear establishment, which were kept secret from the people of Scotland and the local community. The local SEPA official was put in a difficult position in terms of what he or she could say to others.
On how unusual such rises in radioactive gases are, the issue is not so much the level but the increase in the level; there was a tenfold increase, to 43 per cent of the annual emission limit. Therefore, the level did not go over the safety limit, but it was noticeable. If we are to have the best possible environmental protection, our agency—SEPA—must be able to investigate the source to the ninth or 10th degree. Of course, as we are aware, SEPA was kept in the dark for 10 months about what happened at the facility.
Has the cabinet secretary been made aware of any radiation leaks from other MOD sites and of which SEPA local officers have been notified on a need-to-know basis by the MOD or the UK Government, while the Scottish Government or Parliament has not been notified?
I have asked SEPA for that information. As things stand, there are no other examples, but I await a more formal report from SEPA.
We must, however, learn lessons from what has definitely happened in this situation. That is why I said in my statement that we need to hear from the MOD whether there have been any incidents in its defence establishments in this country that it has not told the authorities about, or made public.
What does this incident—we know that there have been many others—and how it has been handled by the UK Government say about how the UK Government considers the memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, and the so-called respect agenda?
The UK Government has shown disrespect to the Scottish Government and has breached the memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. That is why the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister seeking an apology to the people of Scotland, including because the memorandum of understanding was not adhered to.
We must hear from the MOD why it did not tell the people of Scotland—and, which is important, the local community—about what had happened. It was deception for the MOD representatives to speak to the local community in Dounreay, when the reactor had been shut down, but to tell the local people that it was “business as usual”.
The cabinet secretary has stated that SEPA was told about the incident on a need-to-know basis. Why are senior SEPA management and even the cabinet secretary himself not considered to be people who need to know when an incident such as this occurs?
I remind Mark Griffin that SEPA was not told anything for 10 months. The reactor was shut down for most, if not all, of that period, and SEPA was not informed about the closure of the reactor. When a local official was briefed in December 2012, he or she was briefed under the conditions that were set by the agreement between SEPA and the MOD. Surely we can all recognise that that was a difficult and invidious position for a local official to be put in: the official was told on a need-to-know basis and relied on the good will of the MOD—on the terms of the voluntary agreement and on an invitation from the MOD—to regulate the site. Let us ensure that that does not happen in the future; let us empower SEPA so that it can just go in there and get on with the job.
The cabinet secretary is aware that the PWR2 prototype reactor at the Vulcan site was built as part of the Trident programme. Indeed, it is regarded by the MOD as being a continuing part of that programme today. In the light of that and the more than 100 fires on, and leaks from, Trident submarines that the MOD at Westminster acknowledges, on top of the incident in January 2012, could there be major implications for the safety of Trident nuclear submarines that are based at Faslane and operating in the waters around the Firth of Clyde and the wider Scottish seaboard that we are not being made aware of?
I have no evidence of that, but this episode shows that there is a culture of secrecy and cover-ups within the MOD. How on earth are the people of Scotland to trust any comments about the other defence assets that are operating on Scottish land or in Scottish waters when we know that the MOD showed no openness or transparency over the activities at the Vulcan establishment at Dounreay? The MOD has a lot of trust to build up with the people of Scotland before we can forgive it for this episode.
Can the cabinet secretary explain why Philip Hammond has chosen finally to make the matter public now, more than two years after the event? Is it because the refuelling cost of £120 million will require to be disclosed? In the event of a yes vote, is the Scottish Government planning to hold on to nuclear-powered, but not nuclear-armed, submarines?
You can confine yourself to the statement, cabinet secretary.
I cannot answer for Philip Hammond about the timing of his announcement. I hope that he will answer those questions in the House of Commons when he comes back to correct, on the record, his error about there being no measurable emissions as a result of the incident at the Vulcan establishment.
Alison Johnstone has reminded Parliament that, on the one hand, the MOD claims that this was not a significant incident, while on the other hand it is going to refuel HMS Vanguard at a cost of well over £100 million. The matter is relevant to the referendum, as Alison Johnstone has highlighted. If we vote yes in the referendum, Scotland will be able to say goodbye once and for all to all nuclear submarines in our waters, and instead be able to devote the money to good causes.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. I agree that it is unacceptable that the MOD kept the Scottish Government and other interested parties in the dark, and that we need to take whatever action is necessary.
SEPA was told what had happened on a need-to-know basis. Has the cabinet secretary made it clear to SEPA that he and the Scottish Government should have been among those who needed to know? Will he ensure that if, in the future, any information is provided on a need-to-know basis, he will be one of the people who needs to know?
As I have said, the best way to deal with the situation is to empower SEPA, so that it is never put in that position again. That will mean removal of the Crown exemption for defence establishments in Scotland, in the context of radioactive substances. We will know exactly what is happening at such sites only when we empower our regulator to go there and do what it has to do, which is regulate to protect Scotland’s environment.
Previous
Tribunals (Scotland) Bill