§ 15. Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Power whether he will now publish as an appendix to Command Paper No. 2335 a mole detailed summary of the technical and economic arguments used by the Power Committee in its Report on the Future of the Nuclear Power Programme.
§ 23. Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Power whether he will publish as an appendix to Command Paper No. 2335, a more detailed explanation of the technical, social and economic arguments used by the Powell Committee in its Report on the Future of the Nuclear Power Programme.
§ Mr. ErrollI would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) on 21st April.
§ Mr. AlbuWhile recognising that there are private and semi-private methods by which Members can obtain information, may I ask whether the Minister does not think that, in an issue as complicated as this, the House of Commons ought to be given some of the economic, statistical and technical information on which this Report was based? Otherwise, how does he think the House can have any reasonable debate about these extremely complicated processes?
§ Mr. ErrollI have had very much in mind the desirability of making as much information as possible available to the House of Commons. In looking at the draft of the White Paper I wondered whether any more could usefully be said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I just wanted the House to know that I had this point very much in mind. If I had thought that a longer White Paper would be generally beneficial, it would have been so drafted. The fact is that until tenders are submitted, we will not have the essential information on which to make a comparative study of the different systems. The White Paper announces a stage in the development of the second programme for nuclear energy, and I think we have given the House of Commons all the information that it is possible and useful to give at the present time.
§ Mr. DalyellDid the Powell Committee come to any conclusion on the siting of the fast breeder reactor?
§ Mr. ErrollThe question of the siting of an individual nuclear station will be a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board which is considering siting questions now and for the future.
§ Mr. T. FraserIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who have waited patiently for the White Paper and the Powell Report could not have been more disappointed? The White Paper as we read it could not possibly have given us less information. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he has a duty to give the House of Commons rather more information than has been made available to us so far, so that Members in all quarters of the House may make a more intelligent appreciation of where we are going or where we ought to go in this field of nuclear power generation?
§ Mr. ErrollI think that one thing which the White Paper did was to make quite clear where we have not got any information, namely about the comparative economic merits of different systems.
The White Paper goes on to explain that the next stage is to obtain such information from firms which are prepared to submit tenders. Clearly, one could not submit that information on hypothetical figures or guesses. That would
1492 only mislead hon. Members and would not enlighten them.
§ Mr. DalyellIs not the siting of the prototype fast breeder reactor surely a national problem to be in the hands of the Generating Board?
§ Mr. ErrollI thought the hon. Gentleman was referring to the siting of reactors in general—
§ Mr. DalyellThe fast breeder reactor.
§ Mr. Erroll—and was referring in his supplementary to the one at Dounreay. I think it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would put a Question down on the Order Paper.
§ 16. Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Power what consultations he had about the second nuclear power programme.
§ Mr. ErrollThe electricity supply industry and the Atomic Energy Authority were fully consulted and I had the views of the consortia before me.
§ Mr. RankinIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the White Paper he devotes only one sentence to Scottish interests in the second nuclear power programme? Does he realise that that has created great disappointment in Scotland? Therefore, could he tell us now what is happening or what may happen to the Hunterston "B" project, to which many of us have been looking forward? Secondly, in view of the wonderful success of the experimental nuclear reactor at Dounreay, can we now look forward to the right hon. Gentleman squashing the rumours that the prototype fast reactor may not come to Caithness?
§ Mr. ErrollI cannot spend all my time squashing rumours. The statement in the White Paper is quite clear. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman and Scotland are offended by the fact that there is only one sentence about Scotland in the White Paper, but I thought it was a very clear sentence.
§ 18. Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Power on the basis of what ground rules he draws the conclusion that nuclear power is likely to have an economic place in the British electricity system by the early 1970s.
§ Mr. ErrollThis is a broad assessment accepted by both the electricity supply industry and the A.E.A., and reached after considering a number of studies.
§ Mr. LubbockWhat use is a broad assessment, bearing in mind the large difference in calculating costs which arises from taking different ground rules? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difference of opinion which has existed for some time between the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board on this matter? How can one possibly make such a judgment unless one first decides what the ground rules should be?
§ Mr. ErrollInevitably, there was a good deal of discussion on how to make such an assessment. Indeed, this was part of the work of the Powell Committee. But the heads of both the C.E.G.B. and the A.E.A. have stated publicly that they agree with the findings of the White Paper, and I think, therefore, that it is a fair inference that they agree on what the hon. Gentleman chooses to call ground rules.
§ Mr. LubbockCould the right hon. Gentleman answer just one question on this ground rule: will the depreciation period of the advanced gas-cooled reactor he 20 or 30 years?
§ Mr. ErrollThe rates of depreciation and return on capital were, of course, two of what the hon. Gentleman calls ground rules which were taken into account.