HL Deb 10 July 1974 vol 353 cc563-71

3.40 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (LORD BALOGH)

My Lords, I will repeat the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. It is somewhat lengthy. We tried to cut it down, but the complexity of the problem precludes that. The Statement as as follows:

"The Government have decided that the electricity boards should adopt the Steam Generating Heavy Water Reactor (S.G.H.W.R.) for their next nuclear power station orders.

"In the Government's judgment the S.G.H.W.R. will provide power reliably and we can proceed to order it quickly. The Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations advises that there should be no fundamental difficulties in giving S.G.H.W.R. safety clearance. S.G.H.W.R. offers particular scope for British nuclear technology and we should exploit it. The 100 megawatt prototype at Winfrith has now been operating successfully for six years and is designed to reproduce the operating conditions of a commercial unit.

"It is for these reasons that the Government believe S.G.H.W.R. is the right system for the United Kingdom to pursue. Since we shall be moving forward from a prototype to a commercial size and design, it seems sensible to start with reactor units of 600–660MW rather than a larger size so as to reduce the problems of scaling-up; also for the initial programme to be relatively modest—not more than 4,000 MW over the next four years. We are asking the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Scottish Boards to set preparatory work in hand jointly. A first order will be placed as soon as possible.

"After the initial programme the aim should be to build up orders as rapidly as progress allows. The initial orders will provide a sound base for industrial development for the future.

"Both the British and Canadian Governments see great advantage in full co-operation on heavy water pressure tube systems. United Kingdom nuclear organisations and the electricity boards will start discussing co-operation with their Canadian counterparts immediately.

"Our first commitment to the future must be the success of S.G.H.W.R. As to other systems, the Government have accepted that a major new programme of Magnox, despite its generally good operation, would not be sensible. And that whilst it is essential to complete the advanced gas cooled programme satisfactorily, it would be unwise to place further AGR orders until we have successful operating experience.

"The H.T.R. has considerable potential and I am asking the nuclear organisations to pursue further the prospects of participating in its international development, in which our experience of gas-cooled technology will be of great value. But H.T.R. is not suitable for the electricity boards' main programme at this time, nor do we have the resources for an immediate demonstration order while we are launching S.G.H.W.R.

"The Government have decided against any commitment to the light water reactor, but have asked the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to carry through to conclusions their examination of the generic safety issues of that system.

"The Government will maintain our effort on the fast reactor on which we are in the forefront of technology. I am asking the nuclear organisations to pursue urgently the prospects for further international co-operation, covering development and the start of commercial ordering.

"The present programme of S.G.H.W.R. will dictate the pattern of nuclear and fossil plant ordering over the next three to four years. We will take decisions on the capital investment for new fossil stations progressively, depending on load growth. We are fortunately placed with major fossil reserves.

"In the later 1970s our nuclear options should widen. We should in particular be able to step up the S.G.H.W.R. programme given satisfactory initial experience of construction.

"We will keep a close watch on the environmental implications of nuclear power; on siting; and on the management of radioactive waste.

"Owing to the printing dispute, I am making available a limited number of typed copies of the Government's Paper. I shall shortly publish the advice of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board. I am most grateful to the members for the time and effort they have given.

"Discussions on reactor policy have been prolonged. But the period of uncertainty is now over. The Government's decision offers the prospect of a further—publicly acceptable—development of nuclear power in the United Kingdom, and I shall now discuss its detailed implementation with the electricity boards and the nuclear industry. It is important that all concerned should work together to make a success of our nuclear programme. They have assured me they will do so."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.45 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, we must thank the Government for informing the House of a decision which has been common knowledge for a number of weeks. We have all read it in the newspapers, but now we have caught up, and we are grateful.

In the very short time that I was at the Ministry of Energy, I realised what a difficult problem this was. I do not in any way underestimate the difficulties faced by the Secretary of State in coming to this decision, not least because of the contradictory advice, both technical and commercial, which he received, if he was anything like myself. He has come to a decision. I think it right that there should be a decision and an end to uncertainty. I welcome that. Of course, as they would be the first to admit, that decision is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, a number of questions. First, are there any financial arrangements with the Canadians? Are we going to buy anything from them, either know-how or equipment? Secondly, I noticed in the Statement that the Government said that they will maintain our effort on the fast reactor on which we are in the forefront of technology. Some of us have had the impression over the past year or eighteen months—and I am not making a Party political point—that perhaps we have fallen behind a little in our lead (if we still have a lead) in fast reactor technology. The French perhaps have overtaken us. Is the noble Lord satisfied that we really are putting enough effort into this? Is he satisfied that we shall get the results of our initial work on this in a proper fashion? Thirdly, have the Government changed the assessment of the number of reactors and generating stations which will be needed in these next few years, which the Central Electricity Generating Board announced about six months ago? Does the decision announced here about the limit to the number of nuclear power stations ordered mean that there will be ordering of new fossil-fuelled power stations? Although it is true that we have a good reserve of fossil fuels, they are finite, and many of us in this House would feel perhaps that that was not a right decision at this moment.

LORD BALOGH

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his very objective comments on this Statement, and more especially for his acknowledgement that it is a very difficult question for laymen like us to handle—one where experts ought to tread very warily. Unfortunately, the experts also disagree, so one is left rather in a suspended situation like Mohammed's coffin. As to the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, in principle there have been agreements with the Canadians, but I do not think those agreements have been refined. They will supply us with the heavy water required, at any rate in the first instance, although later on we ought to have our own capacity. So far as fast reactors are concerned, it is extremely difficult to give an assurance because of the difficulty of ascertaining the situation in other countries. I think we can still say that we are not falling behind—at any rate, not absolutely.

So far as the ordering is concerned, my right honourable friend's Statement said that there would be some fossil ordering, and we are fortunately in a position, both as regards coal and oil, to sustain research ordering. It seems to me that it is much more important that we should get the nuclear programme right, rather than go helter-skelter for saving on the balance of payments though that is a very important and essential object, and obviously we shall be in a much better position 4 or 5 years hence than we are in at the moment.

With regard to estimates of demand, as an economist I must confess to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that forecasts of energy demand are probably the cemetery of more reputations than anything else. Therefore, the C.E.G.B. must obviously estimate conservatively; that is to say, they must estimate high requirements. In my right honourable friend's opinion however, we have sufficient time before the critical point is reached to make any alterations, and of course we shall keep this very important question in the forefront of our consideration and make any changes that are necessary.

LORD AVEBURY

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we warmly welcome the Statement made by the Secretary of State, and we only regret that it did not receive a warmer welcome from the Conservative Front Bench. Some of us believe that if the Conservatives had been in power they would have opted for the American pressurised water system, which we believe would have been disastrous for this country. May I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that it would be a good idea to keep work going on the high temperature reactor and to finance the construction of a demonstration plant, even though it would be an enormous additional burden on public funds, in order to widen the options in the late 1970s and so that, if necessary, we could embark on a commercial programme of H.T.R.s by that time? Is it not true that having embarked en the 4.000 megawatt system—that is the S.G.H.W.R.—we should then still be in the position of having to construct a demonstration plant for the high temperature reactor before proceeding with the commercial programme?

May I further ask the noble Lord whether he considers that it would be appropriate for the shareholding of the G.E.C. in the national Nuclear Corporation to be reduced in view of this decision, and particularly in view of the fact that G.E.C. have been such strong protagonists of the American pressurised water reactor that some of us believe it might be difficult for them to put their backs into making a success of the programme which is announced? Also can the noble Lord say in what form the Government intend to pursue these proposals with Canada? Should we purchase the whole of the initial charge of heavy water for the 4,000 megawatts from the Canadians? Have they the spare capacity to do that, and will they assist us in constructing a heavy water plant in the United Kingdom? Will there be joint marketing arrangements between us and the Canadians for selling S.G.H.W.R.s and Candu in third countries, and will the noble Lord consider a co-operative programme on fast reactors with the Canadians? Finally, does he think that the N.I.I.S continuing work on pressurised water reactor safety is really necessary, in view of the fact that it is as dead as a doornail?

LORD BALOGH

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his very encouraging and supporting remarks. He fired a lot of questions at me and I shall try my best to answer them. So far as G.E.C. is concerned, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is issuing a statement on this question, in which he assures us—as one would have expected from a man of his standing—that he will put his best effort into this subject, without any sort of hesitation or condition. We accept that assurance, and I am sure that both he and Sir Arnold Weinstock will do their best to make this a success.

So far as the Canadians are concerned, they are exploring and, certainly, the export point on which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, touched has not escaped the attention of my right honourable friend. So far as the light water system is concerned, as my right honourable friend said, we are pursuing very actively the primary safety examination of that system through the Nuclear Inspectorate. It will take some time—18 months to two years—but at this stage we do not believe it would be right not to proceed with that investigation, which should not conflict with our endeavour to put our best effort into the steam generating heavy water system. It seems to me that this is a precautionary move which is right and proper.

LORD DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while I welcome wholeheartedly the decision of the Government not to be pressurised into the P.W.R., I am nevertheless concerned about the leakages that have taken place and which should be tracked down. On this question, the Government are not entirely master in their own house. In view of the technical problems in this subject—and some of us have tried to follow it for over 20 years—is it possible, instead of asking a number of questions, some relevant and others irrelevant, for this House, in which many people are well informed on this subject, to have a short debate on this subject before the Recess?

LORD BALOGH

My Lords, I think that the last point will have to be discussed through the usual channels. So far as the leakages are concerned, I think the experience of all Governments is not dissimilar, especially in cases where very important business interests are concerned. Consultations have to take place and, obviously, leakages cannot be avoided. Though this statement may be very much disapproved of by others, I sometimes think that these leakages have some point.

LORD WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, may I congratulate the Government on having reached such a rational decision, which I am sure will be appreciated by the whole country? I should like to ask my noble friend one or two questions. He has referred to the consortium being prepared to go ahead and build these S.G.H.W.R.s. Have we any sort of assurance that they will build them within the timetable which they lay down? I ask this specifically because it is known that not one of the 26 reactors which have been built in America has been commissioned within 2 or 3 years of the originally promised date. That is, incidentally, one of the reasons why we are glad that we are not having the P.W.R. It is important to know whether the industry in this country believes that it will be capable of building these stations to time, because time is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred to work on the H.T.R. May I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will continue to put effort into this, as well as into the development of the steam generating heavy water reactor and also the fast breeder reactor?

LORD BALOGH

My Lords, my noble friend has raised very important questions. I should hope that we shall be able to hold to the timetable but, on the whole, experience has shown that one ought to be very conservative in estimating that timetable because there has been no system which really matured on time. One of the problems of the nuclear programme in this country has been that we have always had too many prototypes. We have not merely had Magnox and the advanced reactor, the steam generating reactor and the fast reactor, but we have had, within the advanced gas-cooled reactors, several types which were not interchangeable. On the whole, in all the circumstances that my noble friend pointed out, we ought to keep up our effort; we also ought to say that we must be very careful lest the scattering of our effort should lead to stultification of that effort. I would beg my noble friend to think of this very important point.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

My Lords, I have declared an interest in this matter on earlier occasions and I do not think that it is necessary to repeat the details now. I intervened in a Question on this matter a couple of weeks ago when the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was answering for the Government, with the comment that this was a most embarrassing moment to be pressed to a decision of this kind, but that nevertheless we had to make it. I said then that every possible solution open was at worst an obvious mistake and at best pis aller.

I believe that the Government have chosen the least embarrassing solution in this matter on a long term basis. The shadow of danger is set against the high pressure water reactor in America, and it will take years and years to lift it. The bugs are not out of the high temperature reactor, and no one knows how long it will take to make it a viable proposition. I believe that we shall get more power stations for less development expenditure with the choice the Government have taken than with any other choice that was open to them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that our task is to press ahead with the fast reactor. Admittedly fast reactors need slow reactors in support. It would be very nice to have the fast reactor working before we had to make the kind of choice as to what future slow reactors were going to be used in support, but we have not the time to do it. I believe that this is the best choice that could be made.

LORD BALOGH

My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his very constructive remarks.