Crispin Blunt

Conservative Party | Reigate

Sizewell (Security Breach)

Urgent Question

Crispin tabled an Urgent Question on the Greenpeace illegal entry to Sizewell B nuclear power station

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implications of yesterday's security breach at Sizewell nuclear power station.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): At 6 o'clock yesterday morning, Greenpeace activists illegally entered Sizewell B nuclear site and carried out acts of protest. From the initial incursion at the perimeter fence, site security was at all times monitoring the intruders and their actions. At no time did they enter sensitive areas such as the control room or the reactor building, which remained secure throughout. To avoid unnecessary risk to both protestors and security staff, no action was taken to remove protesters from the roof of facilities. Suffolk constabulary were in attendance.

Security at nuclear power stations is designed according to the "defence in depth" principle. A perimeter fence alone cannot stop mass intrusion. Systems installed at the perimeter fence serve to delay and detect intruders, thereby enabling management to assess the threat posed by the intrusion and to activate appropriate contingency arrangements. I am satisfied that the response procedures at the site were adequate and were carried out according to plan.

Sensitive areas and systems within the site are given additional protection. The objective is to contain intruders while continuing to protect the sensitive areas and systems within the site. The security did protect the sensitive parts of the site; it was adequate and it worked properly. Despite their attempts, the intruders did not breach any of the internal security barriers.

Security precautions at sites have to distinguish between the type of irresponsible behaviour that we saw at Sizewell yesterday and real threats. I am satisfied that both the Sizewell site security and Suffolk constabulary acted appropriately in the circumstances. However, there will be a full report into the incident by both the DTI's Office for Civil Nuclear Security, which, as the House knows, regulates security at civil nuclear sites, and British Energy, which operates the reactor. That will not be published, as the House will appreciate that it is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken at civil nuclear sites. However, security is kept under regular review, and we shall use the reports to review the security arrangements.

Mr. Blunt: The House and the public will be slightly concerned by the Minister's account, which sits rather at variance with that given in The Mirror by the journalists involved in the incursion. I would be grateful if the Minister answered one or two further questions.

Is it the Minister's initial assessment that security was so lax that immediate action is required at other nuclear installations? Exactly which people and organisations were responsible for security, and should changes be considered? How long did it take for the incursion to be detected and for the assessment to be made that this was not a terrorist operation? What lessons were learned after the previous incursion last October, and what actions were taken?

What inquiry process do the Government intend to initiate in the wake of the report to which the Minister referred? When will the report's preliminary conclusions be acted on? Do the Government think that it would be appropriate to publish the conclusions of any further inquiry following the report, and if not, how can Parliament be satisfied that lessons have been learned and acted on?

Does the Minister believe that it is possible to defend all key economic installations on a permanent basis, or must we accept that our security must be intelligence-led? In the light of these events, do the Government propose to review the balance between those two requirements? Finally, does the Minister think that The Mirror and Greenpeace have done a service or a disservice to the country by undertaking the raid?

Urgent Question What would the position now be, if armed policemen had responded with lethal force to the incursion?

Nigel Griffiths: The House will be well aware that we have a tradition of peaceful protest and civil disobedience in this country. That is a tradition that we are loath to change. Security arrangements were able to detect the incursion yesterday within minutes and react to it appropriately to ensure that the critical building and areas were not entered. The picture in The Mirror—I am glad that the newspaper has a new fan in the Conservative party—shows, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he studies it closely, that it was taken outside the control room, not inside the control room, which is strongly defended and protected.

Of course, any lessons that should be put in the public domain will be given to Members of the House and the public, as appropriate, but I know that the House will endorse the long-standing practice that sensitive security matters should not be put in the public domain. The House has Committees that can scrutinise them fully with the proper security and privacy necessary for that.

Of course, the response yesterday was appropriate and non-violent. It was taken to ensure that security staff were not put at risk by having to climb unnecessarily on to a roof from which protesters were willing to come down. Of course, there was no armed response to peaceful protesters. The facilities are designed to take attacks of considerable strength and hits from the air, the House will be pleased to know, and the appropriate response is available quickly on such sites in the event of a non-peaceful demonstration.

Click here to read the debate in full