HC Deb 19 July 1976 vol 915 cc1255-7
1. Mr. Forman

asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library a complete transcript of the proceedings at the recent National Energy Conference.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn)

Yes, Sir. I shall do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Forman

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Will he assure the House that he will give due weight to the pronouncement of Sir Brian Flowers at the National Energy Conference to the effect that for something as basic as energy nobody should rely on a product with a by-product as dangerous as plutonium unless he can be satisfied about the existence of a foolproof method of waste disposal and unless he has taken full account of the long-term social implications of a move towards an international plutonium economy?

Mr. Benn

I listened to Sir Brian Flowers' speech and fully recognised the importance of what he said. Any Minister with the responsibilities which I have for nuclear power is bound to take the safety question extremely seriously. I met the Nuclear Inspectorate the other day on this general question, and I had in mind that I should formulate, with the assistance of those who would like to write in with their own questions, a series of questions to the Nuclear Inspectorate with a view to those questions and the answers of the inspectorate being published. It would be wrong for questions of safety to be put and received privately. Therefore the hon. Gentleman, along with other hon. Members and others who might like to do so, will be able to contribute to the questionnaire.

Dr. John A. Cunningham

Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that in the same speech the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution accepted that hitherto Britain's nuclear programme had had an excellent safety record and that there was no reason for any alarm in that connection? Does he also accept that nobody is proposing that Britain should become dependent on plutonium fuel reactors but only that one reactor should be built and demonstrated in use in the next 30 years? That would hardly make us dependent upon it.

Mr. Benn

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said, namely, that the safety record in the nuclear industry in terms of the number of deaths compares very favourably with other fuel industries. The House appreciates that the nature of the safety problems of the nuclear industry is different in character from other fuel industries where industrial accidents may take place, because of the long-term hazards that might follow certain decisions. Nobody should read into the answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) anything other than my desire to see that all the relevant information is published, so that when decisions are arrived at people will know the basis on which they have been made.

Mr. Cormack

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in office long enough to publish the information?

Mr. Benn

I do not claim that the duration of the life of toxic waste—namely, 24,000 years—would cover my period as a Minister, but I shall be happy to consider any proposal put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Palmer

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal more was discussed at that conference than the alleged danger of the fast breeder reactor? Since this country has been working on such reactors for 25 years, should we not keep these matters in perspective?

Mr. Benn

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, but as Chairman of the Select Committee which handles energy matters he has played a notable part in bringing to public attention factors that should be taken into account and I am sure I can count on him to support me in seeing that these factors are made public by the Department of Energy when important issues are concerned.

Back to