Energy Policy (Hansard, 19 July 1976)

§ 11. Mr. Rost
asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to take any initiatives as a follow-up to the recent energy forum.

§ Mr. Benn
Yes, Sir. I believe—and this was a view widely expressed at the conference—that there is a need for a more permanent body which can consider energy policy and the decisions to be taken in the energy field. I am considering what form this body should take and am meeting representatives of some of the principal interests concerned later this month to seek their advice on this.

§ Mr. Rost
While welcoming that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the energy forum has made it easier or harder for him to reach some of the major policy decisions which are awaiting him, particularly on whether the SGHWR programme is to be scrapped?

§ Mr. Benn
My general response is that the conference contributed to the education of all those present, including the Ministers and the civil servants involved. In addition, people who had hitherto had a specialist interest in energy may, by listening to others, have come to appreciate the wide range of interests in this matter, and the Minister will be assisted, in reaching his decisions, if there is some opportunity of discussing them with a smaller body representing the same general interests. I am about to send out invitations to 20 or 21 people who represented a wide range of interests at the conference, and I hope that the resultant meeting will help to bring forward proposals for an advisory commission.

§ Mrs. Millie Miller
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the growing awareness of the extreme danger of nuclear waste, which has been raised in the House many times, and take it into account when considering any further development of the nuclear energy programme, including our taking into this country nuclear waste for reprocessing?

§ Mr. Benn
The first public discussion, which was held after I was appointed to my office, arose out of the proposal to take the Japanese fuels for reprocessing. As a result of that public discussion, we managed to make arrangements to meet the problem which my hon. Friend 1271 has raised about the return of toxic waste when the vitrification process is complete. A knowledge of that issue helped. By publication of all the information, Ministers have the opportunity of knowing public feeling before decisions are made, while the public know the basis on which those decisions are being made.

§ Mr. Biffen
Arising from the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) about the SGHWR programme, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to receive the assessment of Britain's nuclear reactor generation now being undertaken by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority? Will he have that report made public? Does he not agree that the interests of open government are best served when his decisions are not trailered to journalists, however distinguished, even when the journalist is Mr. Chapman Pincher?

§ Mr. Benn
It has never been my pleasure to meet Mr. Chapman Pincher, so one may say that I am not tinged with feelings of guilt about what he has written. I am happy to make information available to the House. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when I say that the significant body of opinion which two years ago wished us to buy American reactors and cancel our SGHWR programme is still very active. There has been renewed activity on that front. I ask the hon. Gentleman to take my word for it that I shall not be easily persuaded that the purchase of American reactors would be the right decision.