HC Deb 10 May 1971 vol 817 cc3-6
3. Mr. Eadie

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had about changes in the types of and construction of future nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley

Together with the generating boards, the Atomic Energy Authority, and the nuclear design and construction companies, we are examining the choice of thermal nuclear reactors for further development in this country.

Mr. Eadie

Does not the hon. Member agree that since there are difficulties about the type of nuclear power station that we should have in the future and since a good deal of cost in involved, there is a case for Parliament's being informed on this important issue? It is a very important matter for the future of our indigenous resources.

Mr. Ridley

I shall be delighted to give the hon. Member any details that he requires. At the moment we are considering whether there should be another generation of nuclear reactor before the fast reactors are introduced in the next decade, but no decision has been taken whether there should be, or which one it should be. I cannot inform the hon. Member of things that have not yet been decided.

Mr. Hall-Davis

Can my hon. Friend say which nuclear technology it is proposed to use for the second phase of the Heysham station?

Mr. Ridley

That is a matter for the C.E.G.B. It has not put forward definite proposals for using the second part of the site at Heysham. I cannot say what the proposals will be until they are received.

Mr. Benn

Following what my hon. Friend said about the importance of the decision when it comes, can the hon. Gentleman give the House more information about the attitude adopted towards the steam generating heavy water reactor against other systems—a question which is of importance not only for the C.E.G.B. and the Scottish boards but for our export orders in general?

Mr. Ridley

I cannot tell the House that yet, because the steam generating heavy water reactor is in competition with two or three other types of reactor for a final decision on which to develop fully. Until that decision has been taken, I cannot say what it will be.

Mrs. Kellett

As the costs of nuclear power stations tend to be higher than has been expected, is there not a strong case, instead of scattering the stations throughout the country, for quantifying the cost advantage of going straight from phase 1 to phase 2 at Heysham, to obtain the full advantage of forward plans and the presence of an experienced construction team?

Mr. Ridley

My hon. Friend has a Question on the paper about this. The amount of generating capacity which is needed at any one time is a matter entirely for the generating boards, and it is they who wish at the present time not to proceed with the second site at Heysham. Therefore, it is for them to decide, because they are responsible for settling the country's needs for electricity in due course.

19. Mrs. Kellett

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the cost benefit which would be secured by his authorising the construction of the second phase of the Heysham nuclear power station as an integrated project with the current phase as compared with authorising a similar project in another location.

20. Mr. Hall-Davis

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for which sites the Central Electricity Generating Board holds planning permission for a nuclear power station where he has not authorised construction; for which sites in respect of which he has authorised construction, work has begun or tenders been invited; and for which sites for which he has authorised construction tenders have not yet been invited.

Mr. Ridley

Subject to approval of its general programme of capital expenditure, it is the responsibility of the C.E.G.B. to decide whether to develop the whole or part of the capacity for which it has consent to use a particular site. The only nuclear site for which consent has been given where the C.E.G.B. is at present constructing the first stage of a two-stage station is Heysham. The only other site with consent for a nuclear station is Sizewell B, and the C.E.G.B. has deferred until next year its decision about placing the main plant contracts for this station.

Mrs. Kellett

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but could he give an estimate of the benefits of running the two schemes together? If it is not possible for him to give an estimate at present of the possibilities of integrating the two, the second phase and the first, will he not accept that a contractor with plant on the site would be able to cut to the bone the cost of a further stage, and, in addition, will he accept that, because of the high level of unemployment in the Lancaster area, which has been building up since 1964, it is highly desirable to press the Central Electricity Generating Board to proceed on this site?

Mr. Ridley

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to press the C.E.G.B. better than I can. Much of what she seeks she should seek from the board. There is no point in building power stations unless there is a need for the electricity when the stations are completed. That is the doubt in the board's mind.

Mr. Hall-Davis

While obviously we do not want to exceed the demand for power, does my hon. Friend agree that on both environmental grounds and for the maintenance of safety precautions it is preferable to make full use of a site which the Nuclear Safety Committee has approved and for which planning permission has been given before starting new construction on a further site elsewhere?

Mr. Ridley

While the Government have given approval to two stations on the site, they have little further influence over the matter. The House will agree that we should give the C.E.G.B. managerial freedom to decide which stations to develop there within consents given by the various Departments concerned.