NUCLEAR ENERGY

HC Deb 20 December 1974 vol 883 cc2014-35

11.8 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, North East)

I wish to raise a number of issues which arise primarily from the very important decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy in July to adopt in Britain the heavy water reactor as the basis for expanding the country's installed nuclear electricity generating capacity.

Following that decision—it was the culmination of about four or five years' debate, much of it, but not all of it, in public—the House rounded everything off by having a full day's debate on the subject. I do not wish to go over ground which was covered on that occasion. I believe that my right hon. Friend took the right decision and that the sense of the House in the July debate confirmed that view.

However, it was a vastly important decision for another reason, apart, to some degree, from the choice of reactor type. On its interpretation turns the ground design of British energy strategy for the future. My right hon. Friend made an announcement in July about future nuclear generating capacity, and a few weeks ago he also made a statement on the Government's policy in relation to the conservation of energy. These are not separate matters but two aspects of the same issue.

The question is how much energy efficiently produced at a competitive price will be available to sustain our national life for the time ahead and to power our general industry for the future. Conservation will make its contribution by acknowledging that there has been in the past, and perhaps still is, an avoidable waste of resources, but once that slack is taken up it cannot be done again. So the basic energy requirements in terms of electricity remain and, whatever may be done in the future with solar energy, wind power and so on on a small scale, there are only three available bulk sources—coal, oil and natural gas taken together, and nuclear fission—at the present stage of British energy development. Tidal power in the Severn might give an extra push, but that is very much in the future. I think it is accepted by those who follow energy matters that coal, oil and nuclear fission are not exclusive of each other but are now complementary within a normal price band. If one source does not measure up to the need, an undue strain will be placed on the others.

My first question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy is this. Is the nuclear contribution which is now proposed large enough in relation to the strains that may be placed on the national fuel economy in the future? I do not think it is. There are worrying features about the progress being made in what has already been decided. I remember well the time when there was heady talk of no more fossil fuel plants after 1980 or 1985, but what is now proposed is a retreat from the past, not an advance, in terms of nuclear capacity. The figures are interesting. The Magnox programme of the early 1950s proposed nine stations. The stations have been completed and the Magnox programme represents 4,800 MW. The AGR programme, unhappily not completed, is for five stations of 5,000 MW. Our new programme is for three stations of 4,000 MW. The figures speak for themselves.

With new nuclear expansion being on such a modest scale, are we sure that our indigenous oil and coal resources can make up the difference over the next decade, even at the minimum likely rate of electricity growth? When I speak of indigenous oil resources I mean, of course, those which are anticipated rather than those which are available. I do not think that the coal industry would claim that it could make up the difference. The coal industry is already stretched and is likely to be stretched for the future, and I think it is common ground that it could not make up the deficiency. North Sea oil is already much mortgaged for the future. I should not like to list all the promises that have been made on the strength of North Sea oil, and it has physical problems of supply from the point of view of electricity generation.

I do not want to strike just before Christmas an unduly pessimistic note, but if we are not careful we shall find ourselves 10 years from now embarrassingly dependent still on substantial imports of oil and, for all I know, imports of coal. That seems to point to the urgent need for maximum possible expansion of nuclear capacity now that the choice of the next reactor has been decided, I hope once and for all. That has been done after four years of hesitation, mainly under the administration of the Conservative Party, although I am not taking a party view on that.

It is curious that until recently the Central Electricity Generating Board, the principal utility concerned, wished for a nuclear programme of between 20,000 MW and 26,000 MW. Taking countries which are comparable in the size of their economies, that would have compared at present reasonably with West Germany, France and Japan. The CEGB's proposals a year or so back for 26,000 MW would have been the expected expansion for advanced industrial countries in the second league although it is agreed that the CEGB, unlike the South of Scotland Electricity Board, made no secret of its desire to base its expansion on American-style light water reactors.

My second question to my hon. Friend is this. Is the modest programme now proposed, which is inadequate to the needs of the country, bound up with the choice of reactor, or are there still serious difficulties in the organisation and control of the manufacturing side of the industry? I reject myself the suggestion that it is necessarily the choice of reactor that is giving us this small programme. It is true, however, that there is a contrast between the outstanding enthusiasm and self-confidence of the small South of Scotland Board in relation to heavy water reactors and the perhaps more normal caution of the construction division of the CEGB in respect of the preliminary development of this reactor.

May I say in defence of the CEGB—I am anxious to defend its staff in this respect—that I am told that, although my right hon. Friend made his statement in July, it was nearly two months before the Department moved to bring the parties together. I have been told that on good authority and I should be interested to know whether it is so. I am informed that there has not been in the Department the sense of urgency that the situation demands. I am referring not to my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend but to the officials in the Department. Everything moves so slowly, I am told.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

May I remind by hon. Friend that when the CEGB Chairman was before the Select Committee he was anxious to tell us how he would be off the mark almost immediately on light water reactors? I asked whether he would be so speedily off the mark if heavy water reactors were chosen. Is not my hon. Friend being too defensive of the CEGB Chairman?

Mr. Palmer

I am in some difficulty. I am not here to censure, or applaud the Chairman of the CEGB, but I can speak on behalf of the technical staff. They are enthusiastic enough and anxious to get on with the job. I have here a quotation from an answer given to the Select Committee by Mr. Hawkins which I will come to in just a moment. I can tell my hon. Friend that certainly the Electric Power Engineers' Association which organises the technical staff is very interested in having an expanded nuclear programme.

I come to the evidence given by the CEGB Chairman which is given on page 49 of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, "The Choice of a Reactor System". A question was put to Mr. Hawkins about the expansion figure he proposed in relation to the choice of reactor. This is his answer: Regardless of what the choice of reactor is —I emphasise that— we are saying at the moment that we would like to order in 1974 two stations, and that we would like to order in 1975 one station, another in 1976, another in 1977, two in 1978 and two in 1979—nine new stations—and nine more from 1980 to 1983, which is looking a long way ahead ". There is more. The Chairman was anxious to make clear to the Select Committee, in response to my question as Chairman, that the choice of reactor did not determine the size of the expansion programme.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford)

It might be helpful to have on record the date when Mr. Hawkins gave that answer, because there have been major changes in the ambient circumstances.

Mr. Palmer

Mr. Hawkins made that statement to the Select Committee on 18th December 1973. I am coming to the defence of Mr. Hawkins. He made it clear to the Select Committee that he did not wish the choice of reactor to determine the size of the programme. Some people at the time thought that his programme was a little ambitious, to say the least, but it makes a staggering contrast with the three stations and the 4,000 MW now proposed.

I am driven back to the conclusion that whatever the CEGB and the South of Scotland Electricity Board wished to buy in reactor numbers and capacity, the construction industry was in no position to supply it. I think that the Chairman of the CEGB might have known that, of course, but there it is. The difficulty was apparently that the customer wanted them but the supplier was unable to deliver them.

The fault is not entirely with the nuclear manufacturing groupings. For too long no extra nuclear work was given to them, and they have had to wrestle at the same time with the manifold problems of the advanced gas-cooled reactors. In those circumstances—not providing a continuous flow of work in heavy electrical manufacturing—design teams break up and skilled staff leave for other places.

Time is fast running out. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy now has a clear opportunity to complete that rationalisation of the manufacturing side of the industry that the Select Committee advocated seven years ago. My right hon. Friend showed great courage in his choice of reactor. I think that he can and will show equal courage for the future decision on rationalisation that he will have to make soon.

This has been an unhappy story. Four Ministers ago—that is how I calculate parliamentary time—the House was told that the National Nuclear Corporation had arrived. That was in the almost forgotten time of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) who had brightly come into the House from the Confederation of British Industry. Indeed, that was not only four Ministers ago, but, in terms of normal time, two to three years ago. I regret to say that the National Nuclear Corporation still exists only on paper. This is very bad in view of the assurances that were given to Parliament.

I think my hon. Friend the Undersecretary will confirm that the preliminary inquiries for the heavy water reactor programme have gone not to the National Nuclear Corporation but to the TNPG. which still exists. The National Nuclear Corporation certainly has directors, and it presumably has a telephone, but I understand that that is about all. The fact is that both separate nuclear groupings, the Nuclear Power Group and the British Nuclear Design Corporation, still flourish—the old within the skin of the new, as it were.

Where exactly do the General Electric Company and Sir Arnold Weinstock now stand? Is Sir Arnold still to have a special management contract, and, if so, with whom? Is that contract to be with the Government or with the National Nuclear Corporation? Is it to be simply an arrangement between the TNPG and his own grouping? What progress has been made in the signing of that contract and what terms are being asked for? Does GEC wish to reduce its stake in the National Nuclear Corporation? Sir Arnold has made it clear that he does not particularly like the steam generating heavy water reactor and would have preferred the light water reactor which he thought had special export possibilities for components. I am thirsting for information. These are important questions which require answers.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who I understand is to reply, promised that the Secretary of State for Energy would make a statement on this matter in the House fairly soon. That was about three weeks ago. We have not had the statement. When may we expect it?

The Select Committee on Science and Technology looked for the second time into the question of the Unified Design and Construction Organisation—the NNC—on an all-party basis some time ago. It looked at it on an all-party basis—I believe that there was a Conservative majority on the Select Committee at that time—and recommended that the State holding in this organisation, through the Atomic Energy Authority, should be increased from 15 per cent. to 30 per cent. With the State holding the balance fairly, there would not be the risk of one private concern dominating the whole thing.

I now speak only for myself in this matter, but I imagine that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree with me. I should like to see a majority State holding, not on any idealogical grounds but because it is essential in the national interest and could command general assent. Whatever happens in future regarding nuclear construction, whatever profits, losses or money gains are made, we can be certain that, as it is energy, the State in the long run will have to underwrite nuclear construction. Therefore I suggest that, in view of the hesitations, the delay, the confusion and the little battles for individual power that apparently still go on, the Government should grasp the nettle and move towards a majority State holding.

What surprises me is that although we can give public financial assistance for the manufacture of motor cycles—that may be justified; I do not know a great deal about that subject—we seem to hesitate to put up public money to acquire a majority holding in an energy industry which is fundamental to the existence of our nation and the standard of life of the people.

I have put these nuclear energy matters before the House because I feel that they require urgent attention. Also, I believe that the questions I have asked deserve a full answer.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) is always extremely well-informed when dealing with the nuclear power programme. My colleagues and I on the Select Committee on Science and Technology are glad once again to serve under the hon. Gentleman's chairmanship.

I shall not intervene for more than a few minutes, so as to enable my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy to have a full opportunity to contribute to this important debate.

I strongly welcomed the decision by the Secretary of State for Energy on 10th July for a number of reasons. The most important is that I believe the SGHWR will be a much easier reactor to make and erect than the American light water reactor. British industry has practically no technological experience of the designs related to the American LWR. It would have been virtually impossible to start from scratch a programme of the grand size proposed to the Select Committee.

The hon. Gentleman asked some pertinent questions, including the important consideration whether the 4,000-MW system will be large enough. I wish to declare an interest in a boiler-making company which is part of the Nuclear Power Group. I was Chairman of the Select Committee when it recommended the 30 per cent. shareholding to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not depart from that decision whatever the Secretary of State ultimately announces.

I should like to deal with the need for development work on the SGHWR. I hope the Under-Secretary will say that the Department will insist on regular progress reports on design from the boards and the industry. It is imperative that there should be no unnecessary delay in design work.

I appreciate the atmosphere to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the industry and the difficulties which it is experiencing, and I do not wish to exacerbate them, but the SGHWR decision reached by the Secretary of State cannot be described as a purely political decision. It was not a political decision. It was a technical and commercial decision of the highest importance—a decision which I supported and for which I gave my reasons on many occasions. The SGHWR is an easier reactor for British industry to deal with, and industrial capacity in this country to make the light water reactor was lacking. Therefore, it cannot be described as pure politics.

The Times, in a leading article on 1lth July, described the decision as one of the worst political decisions in the industrial field for many a decade". That comment requires some qualification, because I can think of some other decisions in the industrial field in the last 10 years very much worse than that decision. The Times' knowledge of this problem did not extend to suggesting an alternative reactor design, but it ended with the unexceptionable statement that it remains to be seen whether they"— referring to the SGHWRs— work reliably and how much, in the end, they cost What a profound remark! It would apply to any reactor. The important thing is to get on with the design work.

From my personal knowledge of this problem and of people in the industry, I appreciate that much detailed engineering and pre-production work is still necessary for a commercial programme. I make that comment despite the success of the Winfrith prototype. It applies to a number of key components in the primary circuit of the reactor. It is important to get these right so that we do not have to mount a rescue operation afterwards, as we did in the case of the AGR. It is much better to have one stream of development involving the resources of both the CEGB and the SSEB. I hope that there will be full-co-operation. There is also the Canadian Candu experience. Are talks going on with the Canadian Government at present? I hope that talks will take place at ministerial level. Once the first 4,000-MW programme has been successfully completed, I hope that a great many more companies in this country will become involved.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to get the SGHWR reactor right before the programme is increased. I am inclined to support the idea of a 4,000-MW programme, but if there are any delays in the design work within a relatively short space of time the Secretary of State should give encouragement to the programme. I want to see the pressure tube industry made part of the SGHWR programme so that its products may be exported to developing countries.

For these reasons I applaud the Secretary of State on his courage in making his decision, and I was glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition embodied this matter in our election programme. The decision is a triumph for the Secretary of State and it will give a great boost to Britain's heavy engineering industry.

11.38 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

I wish to intervene briefly in the debate to ask the Minister when he replies to deal with one or two points.

Is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary satisfied that the CEGB is enthusiastic about the new programme? The impression I gained from the evidence given by Mr. Hawkins, Chairman of CEGB, was that there was much to be desired in the board's attitude. I hope that the Minister is receiving reports from the CEGB on progress and that he is being fully informed about planning matters.

When CEGB officials appeared before the Select Committee they indicated that, given a decision on reactor choice, they could be off the mark immediately. Their argument was that they were waiting for a decision from the Secretary of State— and in the early days it was not the present Secretary of State to whom they was referring but a previous Minister. They have now had that decision, and I hope that we may be told what progress in planning terms has been achieved in implementing it.

May we be told whether Mr. Williams of the Nuclear Inspectorate has yet been involved? This point was at issue when the Select Committee discussed reactor choice. Will the CEGB call on Mr. Williams for his advice on the programme, and how far has any planning gone? May we be told whether any ordering has taken place? One of the criticisms which has been expressed for a number of years relates to the delay factor between decision making and the final result, particularly related to slippage between one stage and another. Since a decision has been so long delayed, now that the industry has been given one I thought that it would only have to open a drawer to set all the machinery in motion.

What is the time scale now and its determination? Is it the one outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) or has it been changed? If it has been changed, perhaps we can be told why the change has been made and to what it has been changed. It is necessary that all these questions are answered so that the House can understand what is happening.

I thought at the time my right hon. Friend made his decision known to the House that it was a courageous one and, above all else, correct in almost every department. I was particularly concerned about the safety aspect, and what has happened in America only confirms the view I held at that time. The Americans are still closing down stations because of the danger of the LWR. Therefore, our decision was right.

It is important to refer to the export potential. Developing countries will be much more impressed by this kind of reactor, certainly from its safety point of view, than by any others on the market. I hope that this morning my hon. Friend will be able to give us some positive statements so that we can see the progress that has been made.

11.41 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford)

The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) for having initiated this debate. Whereas normally one would not speak at any length from the Front Bench in Private Members' time, this is a matter of such wide general interest that perhaps a few remarks from me would not be out of place.

I had the advantage last night of sitting next to the master of my old college at Cambridge, none other than Sir Alan Cottrell. I was able to discuss with him some of the issues that arise in this whole problem and something of the future. I should like to make it clear in fairness to Sir Alan that nothing I say today in any sense represents his view. On the contrary, I have my own ideas on these things.

It is strange to reflect that this is the first debate the House has had on this subject since the report of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board was published. Due to printing difficulties it did not follow as swiftly after the Secretary of State's statement as we had hoped, and we did not get the report until the middle of the long recess, shortly before the election. We cannot do justice to it today as the debate has to end at 12.15 and I want to leave the Under-Secretary of State sufficient time to deal with the many pertinent questions that have been asked.

The only point I should like to make on the NPAB report arises on paragraph 8.16, which states: It will be seen from the foregoing that a nuclear programme based on SGHWR would be likely to require the construction of more fossil-fuelled plant than one based on PWR, due to the longer time before the SGHWR would be ready for full series ordering. On this basis, the amount of additional fossil fuel required could be very large, with an annual cost of up to £500 million in 1985–86 and increasing for some years thereafter possibly to £1,000 million a year in 1990–91.… Additional costs on this scale would have serious implications for our generating costs and for the balance of payments". The Secretary of State will remember that that was the only point of substance I put to him in my questions after his statement. I wonder—is the Undersecretary of State prepared to give any estimate of what the additional cost would be because of the small size of the ordering programme which the Secretary of State announced in July, just 4,000 MW?

I now come to the question of the programme. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that what is now envisaged is two stations: one with two twin reactors to be located at Sizewell, which means four reactors of 660 MW, and one station with twin reactors of 660 MW at Torness in Scotland for the SSEB? I think that that is what is in mind, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can confirm it.

The next matter is that of heavy water. A programme of this size will require substantial quantities of heavy water, and we have heard nothing about this since the July statement. The costs of building a heavy water plant are enormous. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East and I were in Canada in May and we were told that the current estimate for building an 800-tons-a-year heavy water plant was $350 million. It is assumed that for the first reactor we shall be able to import heavy water from Canada, but I wonder what the current thinking is on this. Will we have a heavy water plant in this country, and, if so, where will it be located?

My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) asked about Canadian co-operation. One of the pluses that always seemed to us to be in favour of the heavy water reactor was the opportunity of acquiring Canadian know-how, particularly in components. One thinks of key components such as the primary circuit pumps and some of the valves which are of substantial design and where collaboration can be of great value.

Where have we got to with the Canadians? When we were in Canada we were told that the difficulty was that the Canadians had no one in the United Kingdom to whom they could talk. Until the NNC came into operation there was no industrial organisation here, and they were unable to make any progress. Has any progress been made in the seven or eight months since the hon. Gentleman and I were with a parliamentary group in Ottawa and Toronto? I hope to have the opportunity of a brief meeting with Doctor Lome Gray in January in Ottawa and it would be helpful to know a little of the current background.

I come next to the pertinent questions that were asked about the National Nuclear Corporation. It is a matter of some disappointment that we have not seen faster progress towards establishing this body, which was proposed by the previous Conservative Government, to get it off the ground. My information is similar to that of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East—that is to say, the discussions on design are being pursued intensively but not through the NNC but the TNPG. Mr. Ghalib is managing director-designate of NPC but it is not clear which hat he is wearing when he is in charge of these matters.

I am told that Lord Goodman has been involved in trying to bring together the two existing consortia and the establishment of the NNC. When can we expect a statement which the Secretary of State promised?

May I now turn to a more detailed question? On 6th November The Guardian published an article about the possibility of Orford Ness in East Anglia being earmarked as a possible site for the first commercial fast breeder reactor. Anthony Tucker, the science correspondent of The Guardian, said: The Central Electricity Generating Board yesterday denied tha it was 'secretly' buying the southern part of Orford Ness from the Ministry of Defence for use as a site for massive nuclear power development. The House will remember that that was the site of a long-range anti-missile system—"Cobra"—that was shut down abruptly a year ago when it was no longer thought to be playing a useful part in our defences. Many people hoped that that area, which is a valuable nature reserve, might again become available to the public. What is happening about that?

That same article also said: On the suggestion that Orford Ness was destined to become a major complex for fast-breeder reactors, a reactor type which is emerging as a prototype and which presents special hazards and siting problems, the CEGB spokesman said that such a plan could not exist since reactor types were decided by the Minister and no application was being considered for a full-size fast-breeder system. Those last few words are rather sad, if true, because one thing which stands out in this immensely complex field is that the long-term future of the nuclear programme will depend more and more upon the fast breeder, because of its enormously higher utilisation of scarce fissile fuel— some 40 to 50 times the efficiency of thermal reactors.

It is good news that Dounreay is now feeding power to the grid in Scotland, I think—although it was choked with seaweed a month ago. That is one of the hazards in these matters. Phénix was feeding electricity to the French grid a year ago. The French and Germans and Italians are now well advanced with their plans for Super-Phénix, the commercial fast reactor which the three electricity utilities ars proposing to build.

I had thought that there was, if not an actual decision in principle, a general intention that the first order for a commercial fast reactor—"commercial" is perhaps the wrong word, since it would be a demonstration model, not a commercial plant, although it would be of a commercial size, 1,000 or 1,200 MW—was being actively pressed forward. If not, are we not once again falling behind in an area of advanced technology where once we were years ahead of our rivals? We are still five years ahead of the Americans and the Germans, but the French have a nose ahead at the moment. In a technology with enormous implications for the whole world's power systems, we need to devote a great deal of attention and pressure to make sure that the British lead is not lost.

Where do we now stand on the suggestion of international co-operation on breeder reactors? I have had lengthy discussion with the French and the Germans, and I know that the Secretary of State has too, but I should like to know something of that. I accept that the costs of developing this reactor system are so large that they may have to be shared perhaps in some kind of European consortium.

Our fossil fuel resources, though substantial—some hundreds of years' worth of coal and many decades of oil—are finite. Once we have used them, we cannot use them again. Therefore, in common with every other advanced nation we must now see that our energy supplies over the next half century and beyond are increasingly dependent on nuclear power. We cannot run down finite resources which in the longer term will be needed as a source not of energy but of materials for fibres and plastics. But they will not be there if we burn them hastily and wastefully over the next couple of decades.

I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an encouraging report that the SGHWR programme will soon be off the ground and that firm orders will soon be placed. I hope he can assure us about the enthusiasm of all parties—whether the NNC or the CEGB or other parts of the industry—for this programme and that we can look forward to some rapid expansion of the programme as early as possible.

I would end as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East began. It is the small size of this programme which gives rise to concern. I would say, on no party basis, that this is a pilot programme and that the sooner we move ahead from that the better.

11.55 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) on having initiated this important debate. He posed three particularly significant questions. In my attempt to answer the debate I hope that I may be able to cover some of the points made by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who has always shown a great interest in these debates and whom I am pleased to see here, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown).

The Government's nuclear power policy since we took office is one element—a vital element—of their overall energy policy. Our objective has been to supply the nation's energy needs at the minimum cost in resources consistent with security of supply, public safety and the protection of the environment. Our approach is to make the best use of indigenous resources and to bring them forward as quickly as is technically and economically feasible, especially in the next few years.

Nuclear power can at present be used only to produce electricity and not as a direct source of heat. Its rate of installation depends in part, therefore, on the rate at which electricity demand grows and also on the time taken to construct nuclear power stations. Stations ordered now could not come on stream before the early 1980s. Nuclear capacity until then is limited to the amount of capacity already in service or under construction. Thereafter, there are big economic and security advantages in building up the nuclear power component of the energy economy as quickly as possible.

Nuclear power can be expected to be an important source of energy by 1990, but this depends critically upon success in establishing a strong industrial capability in the design, manufacture and construction of nuclear stations and their components, in pursuing development programmes and launching the SGHWR successfully, and in solving any safety and environmental problems.

I have tried to outline the Government's approach to this important subject. The Government's decision to adopt the steam generating heavy water reactor for the next series of nuclear power station orders was taken after extensive consultation and the careful weighing of all the advice received. We believe that our decision was not only right but the only one possible in the circumstances.

The choice of the SGHWR offers substantial advantages. First it will provide power reliably. The Winfrith 100-MW prototype has performed very reliably. The extrapolation to larger sizes will be facilitated by the fact that Winfrith was designed to reproduce the varying conditions which would be experienced in a 600-MW unit.

As I have told the House previously, I have visited Winfrith. I did so when we were in opposition, and I have done so since becoming a member of the Government. I have been very impressed by what I have seen there, before and after becoming a Minister. We realise that there are bound to be difficulties. This has been said previously by all the experts. Frank Tombs has always made it perfectly clear that there are bound to be difficulties when dealing with nuclear power, as there would be with any system we tried to tackle. My right hon. Friend has said that many times.

Secondly it is important to maintain public confidence when we deal with the choice of nuclear reactors and matters of nuclear power. The advice of the Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations is that there will be no fundamental difficulties in giving the SGHWR safety clearance. That point was specifically raised in the debate. I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with this positive statement.

Thirdly the SGHWR offers particular scope for British nuclear technology. We need to establish a strong industrial capability. It is vital that people working in industry should have sufficient confidence in the development of the programme to invest in skills and facilities, and that the initial order of up to 4,000 MW over the next four years will provide a very sound base for the future.

The question of the progress with the SGHWR programme has been raised from both sides of the House. Part of the history of this matter is that our decision reached in July for a programme of 4,000 MW by the SGHWR for the electricity boards' next nuclear power station orders was controversial in some quarters. However, I think that all parties have agreed to use their best endeavours in implementing it successfully, and they are doing so. We want to see that the programme proceeds rapidly.

At the same time, we must learn lessons from the past. Some of my hon. Friends will know that this is not the first time that we have debated nuclear power in the House and have discussed in great detail the previous generations of nuclear power stations. We have always tried to make the point that we want to learn from the past. The Government are determined on that matter. Therefore, we believe that time spent on careful and methodical planning now should save us time in the long run.

The Department is keeping in close touch with the organisations concerned on the progress of the programme. Since July all parties concerned have been engaged in work on the SGHWR aimed at producing, first, a full analysis of the optimum deployment of our resources on the nuclear programme and, secondly, a detailed and costed design and development programme for a 600-660 MW reactor unit, including arrangements for component manufacture. We have already done substantial work in these areas but more will be needed.

I come, thirdly, to the timetable for ordering and construction. The organisations concerned—the nuclear design and construction industry, the electricity boards and the AEA—have all switched their main design and development resources to work on the SGHWR programme.

Mr. Neave

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the design work, will he say whether, in answer to my question, the Department will set up some machinery to monitor progress on this, so that he can report to the House regularly?

Mr. Eadie

We shall consider any suggestion which would give the House the opportunity to examine the progress that is being made. I hope to try in this debate to illustrate what progress is being made. I have been asked whether there is a lack of enthusiasm. I hope to assure the House that there is no lack of enthusiasm, that the work is being done and that careful scientific assessment is being made. I hope to assure the House that we have learned from the past.

The hon. Member for Abingdon has posed the specific questions whether information will be available to the House and whether there will be monitoring of the progress. The answer is "Yes". We shall certainly make available all possible information.

I was trying to develop the case about the resources and the work and design on the SGHWR programme. I want to assure the House that a massive effort is building up to establish the detailed commercial design and to finalise the safety case. The CEGB proposes to site its first SGHWR at Sizewell in Suffolk. The SSEB proposes to site its reactor at Torness in East Lothian. The boards' applications for consent and deemed planning permission are being urgently considered. If granted, the boards will be able to get ahead with the non-nuclear site preparation work. Orders for the stations themselves, however, will be dependent on nuclear site licences and financial approval. Therefore, it is premature to forecast the timetable of these events. Complex issues are involved, but all concerned are proceeding as quickly as possible.

Mr. Palmer

Will these orders be placed with the new British Nuclear Corporation or are they to be placed with the TNPG? Will my hon. Friend deal with the question I asked about the British Nuclear Corporation, as there is not much time left for this debate?

Mr. Eadie

I was coming to that matter. The new body is in the process of being set up. I was about to say that my right hon. Friend will honour the undertaking he gave to make a statement to the House as soon as possible.

The question which my hon. Friend raises is politic and must be dealt with in relation to the whole matter. Therefore, when making a statement the Government look forward to being able to reassure my hon. Friend on his doubts about the new type of organisation. I hope that he will accept that for the moment.

We certainly want to make the most of the SGHWR's export potential. The rise in fossil fuel prices has contributed to the additional demand for nuclear power in many countries, including developing countries. Several countries have expressed interest in the SGHWR, and discussions on engineering and design, and visits to facilities and to the prototype at Winfrith Heath, have taken place. But it may be difficult to convert interest in the SGHWR into firm business before we can show successful progress with our domestic stations.

It is important that we approach this matter correctly. Both we and the Canadians—I take up the question posed by the hon. Member for Abingdon— believe that there is considerable scope for collaboration between the United Kingdom and Canadian utilities in such areas as heavy water reactor design, construction, safety and component development.

United Kingdom organisations are discussing with their Canadian counterparts the form of agreements for entering into co-operation on a wide basis. Negotiations are well advanced for a technical information collaborative agreement between Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the appropriate United Kingdom organisations, including the NNC. Visits and discussions at utility and industrial level, including component manufacturers, are taking place and are planned.

Arrangements are well in hand for the purchase of heavy water from Canada for initial requirements. Whether the United Kingdom will build a heavy water plant is a matter for further study by our electricity boards and other interested organisations. Building our own plant may well be the best way of supplying our SGHWR programme with heavy water in the longer term.

To sum up the progress with the SGHWR, the first priorities must be careful and thorough planning, taking into consideration the preparatory work and a sensible timetable for the programme. The electricity boards and the National Nuclear Corporation are well aware of this. We must avoid the problems of the AGR.

At the same time, the situation on the SGHWR is very different. The SGHWR is at a significantly more advanced point of development than was the AGR when it was chosen in 1965 and there is the added advantage of Canadian experience. The development and the construction of all nuclear reactor systems is a complex undertaking, but I am confident that we can make a success of the SGHWR.

Questions were asked about the fossil fuel implications. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East that our initial 4,000-MW SGHWR programme is relatively modest. From the point of view of energy policy we want to expand nuclear power, but there are reasons why it would be imprudent to go for a large programme now.

First, with the SGHWR we should be moving forward from a prototype to a commercial design. Secondly, our nuclear industry, which has been without orders since 1970, has limited resources. We have confidence in the SGHWR, but we must not rush the planning and execution of the first commercial programme of SGHWRs.

The total amount of the SGHWR capacity will be less than the PWR programme that the CEGB had under consideration. The realism of a large PWR programme has been very much open to question. We have had many arguments about it in the House. The key consideration is that until the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate completes its safety studies and can say in principle whether it can accept PWR for operation in the United Kingdom, the PWR cannot be a real option for a Government decision, There are also delays and difficulties of absorbing successfully, without delay, the new technology, design approach and manufacturing standards involved in the PWR.

We shall have to meet the balance of our requirements with fossil fuel plant. We are well placed to do this with major fossil fuel reserves.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said in the House that he wants to implement successfully our nuclear power programme announced in July, and particularly the SGHWR, with a view to stepping it up in the light of experience. The initial programme, in our considered view, is large enough to give the nuclear industry the opportunity and the confidence to make the investments needed but without leading to over-ordering or overcapacity. I believe that it provides the base for enlarging our industrial capability as necessary in the years to come.

The most important thing is that we have taken a decision which was long overdue in this vital aspect of energy policy. I think we have marked out to some extent the path on which we are proceeding and we are implementing our programme.

Both the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkins) and my hon. Friend were keenly interested in the National Nuclear Corporation aspect. It must be realised that the National Nuclear Corporation is already functioning, but progress on making the corporation fully operational is inevitably dependent on the settlement of very complex negotiations for the acquisition of the two existing consortia companies with their staffs and power station contracts in progress. I understand that the negotiations between the NNC, the consortia and the electricity boards on the acquisition have now reached an advanced stage.

It would be inappropriate for me to say more at present on the shareholding structure until all the necessary discussions with GEC and the other shareholders in NNC have taken place. My right hon. Friend has undertaken to keep the House informed, on what we ourselves regard as a very important aspect of the organisation of the nuclear power programme. I reaffirm that assurance this afternoon.

It is important to stress that the Government have substantial reserved rights in the operation of the Corporation—for example, over the formation of international links and the maintenance of an open purchasing policy where the public interest is closely involved. Therefore, these rights will help to ensure that, whatever the Corporation's ultimate shareholding structure, its operations are in the interests of the nation as a whole.

If in the course of examining my notes I find that there are some points to which I have not replied, I undertake to reply in writing to hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.