Public Safety Issues for Local Authorities Kevin Holyer

1. Public Safety Issues for Local Authorities Kevin Holyer

2. Some Thoughts • We are where we are! • Concerns must be focused on risk minimization • Challenge is how do LAs seek engagement by Government/regulators with communities we represent

3. Background to Reading’s Involvement with AWE • Widespread calls for an independent inquiry into healthand safety at AWE, Aldermaston • Pochin 78 – H&S below acceptable standards; monitoring process/staff shortages/unsafe buildings • Late 92/early 93 Greenpeace recommended anindependent inquiry in its report "Aldermaston - inside the citadel" • March 93, Newbury District Council ask Government to set up independent inquiry into health and safety at AWE • June 93, Reading Borough Council ask Government to set up independent inquiry into health and safety at AWE (all party support) • July 93, Commons Defence Committee criticised Ministry of Defence for "failing to reassure public and staff on safety" and call for an independent inquiry into safety • December 93, Reading Borough Council resolve to set up a community inquiry with the following terms of reference:

4. Community InquiryTerms of Reference • To hear and evaluate the views and concerns of persons, groups or organisations regarding any immediate or future risks or threats in the wider area surrounding AWE and the environment, whether from routine operations or accidental effects, and to advise on how such views and concerns may be addressed.

5. Mains Issues Concerning Reading AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield – 5 and 9 miles from Reading centre • Any serious incident such as a fire or explosion could have implications for the environment of the town • Likewise contamination could affect rivers of the town • Whether there is any possible linkage with cancers and/or leukaemia clusters and the elevated incidence of disease with children in the locality • General concern about the well-being of the workforce, many of which are Reading residents • The movement and transportation of radioactive material through Reading

6. Legal Constraints • Section 137 Local Government Act 1972, a Local Authority can undertake activities and incur expenditure which is in the interest of the area or inhabitants of the area and of direct benefit to them.

7. A brief summary of the Inquiry • Held over 2 days April 1994 in Council Chamber • Independent and respected Chair – Helena Kennedy • Inquiry to be non adversarial • Reading played role as “facilitator” • Emphasis on the council’s responsibility to the local community for health, safety and the environment • Over 70 submissions from broad cross section of groups and individuals • AWE, HSE, MoD invited • Extensive local/national radio, television and newspaper coverage

8. Chart showing breakdown of Origin of Submissions

9. Water ‘at risk’ from atom pipe AWE: Make us feel safe AWE - potential threat or nothing to worry about? Now the public speak out Accident on last day of inquiry ‘No advice issued’ on emergency procedure Demand for public inquiry Inquiry puts spotlight on secrecy at A-base Concern over waste storage MP backs investigation Calls for public inquiry into Berks bomb bases Two workers contaminated LOCAL and NATIONAL HEADLINES – Reading Community Inquiry April 1994

10. Demand for cancer study expansion Schools concern after three die from cancer Fears fuelled by lack of information Calls for end to secrecy The nuclear secrets on our roads QC seeks inquiry into nuclear facility LOCAL and NATIONAL HEADLINES – Reading Community Inquiry April 1994

11. Innovative use of Community Inquiry • First of its kind in the country • Described by Radio 4's Today Programme, as a “unique concept”- forerunner to citizen jury • As the Facilitator, the Council provided the local community with a platform from which to make their voice heard. • Helena Kennedy, QC, chaired the Inquiry providing an independent report and conclusions.

12. Secrecy verses Safety The findings of the AWE Aldermaston Community Inquiry Helena Kennedy QC

13. Response to the Community Inquiry • Groups and individuals • Publicity and media • Other local authorities • MPs – Parliamentary motion – urging Government to act on Helena Kennedy QC recommendations • Government/MoD response – inappropriate for Government to agree independent inquiry until HSE response publicised • Reading’s response: - established local forum (NAG) - requested more openness and representation on AWE Local Liaison Committee - endorsed motion in the House of Commons - pressure from Reading MP for public inquiry

14. HSE Report on AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield – October 1994 • Confined to H&S at AWE • A total of 65 recommendations had to be made, 19 of these were of priority and 46 non-priority • Of the priority recommendations some were urgent and necessitated immediate action • H&S standards did not match those found elsewhere in the nuclear industry • Removal of AWE’s exemption from licensing under Nuclear Instructions Act 1965 would provide useful controls (licence exemptions removed in 1997

15. Lessons Learnt Using the Community inquiry principle elsewhere • be sure of strong community support - all party political consensus adds weight to the inquiry too • clarify terms of reference so that there can be nomisunderstanding of the aims and objectives • encourage a broad cross-section of views and makethe inquiry non-adversarial to make local people feel more comfortable about taking part • appoint an independent and respected person as chairwhose conclusions will command the respect and credibility they deserve • prepare for the end of the inquiry and the publication ofresults; what happens next?

16. Local Authority Problems • Have variable credibility with their local communities • Have minimal credibility with certain parts of the Government (eg MOD) • Have difficulty in speaking with one voice on these issues • Often find themselves in a double bind (eg anti nuclear but pro economic development)

17. Local Authority Opportunities • Greater credibility with people than central government • Local politicians trusted more than national Government Reps • LAs can assess and mobilise local opinion far quicker than national Government • LA can use powers under LA2004 (social, economic and environmental wellbeing etc to fund action to protect their communities • LAs can use “Civic Stewardship/Public Advocacy” role to hold Government and Regulators to account

18. The Future? • Approach must be one of genuine public and stakeholder engagement • Public safety/risk minimisation only achieved if optimum transparency is achieved in the way we site, manage, deploy and decommission our nuclear facilities • Right to expect that those appointed to regulate such facilities are truly independent and open to scrutiny and public accountability

19. The Future? • Impending report from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) on what to do with radioactive waste/and how to engage with the public and other stakeholders • The work of the LGA’s Special Interest Group – NuLeAF (Nuclear Legacies Advisory Forum) should help guide engagement processes • Need to look outside of National borders for examples of good practice of engagement

20. Final Thought Public safety is best pursued through public pressure, and public pressure is best led by local government!

21. “When faced with the kind of resistance we met from AWE and the Ministry of Defence to produce answers to the basic questions that we and local people were asking, the overwhelming feeling is one of powerlessness. As a local authority we have a duty to our local community to help them get answers to their concerns and find ways of addressing the issues that concern them.” John Cook – April 1994 Chair of Health and Environment Committee