Nuclear Energy (Hansard, 17 January 1977)

§ 2. Mr. Viggers
asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the United Kingdom's planned programme of production of energy from nuclear sources.

§ 4. Mr. Rost
asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to make a statement on the future of the nuclear energy programme.

§ 17. Mr. Forman
asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the United Kingdom's planned programme of energy production from nuclear sources.

§ The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn)
I am currently taking stock of progress with the SGHWR programme and reviewing our policy on the fast reactor. I hope to make a statement when these exercises are complete.

§ Mr. Viggers
Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern at the fact that our lead in nuclear energy has been allowed to slip away? Is it not the Government's duty to give a lead in these matters so as to ensure that we have a major British manfacturing output?

§ Mr. Benn
The manufacturing argument is powerful, but, according to the figures given to me, the proportion of our electricity generated by nuclear power between August and October last was 13 per cent. and when the current AGR programme is completed it will rise to 20 per cent. By world standards that is a fairly high percentage, but it is sensible in reaching decisions of this magnitude, which will affect the industry and export prospects, as well as raising questions of 4 safety and possibilities of international collaboration, to take our time over them. I cannot really apologise for having done that.

§ Mr. Rost
Will the right hon. Gentleman now at least give his own personal views as to whether he is in favour of the fast breeder reactor programme, particularly in the light of the replies he has just received to the questions he put to the Nuclear Inspectorate?

§ Mr. Benn
I do not think there is much doubt that a decision of this magnitude would be taken collectively by the Government. It is too big a matter for an individual Minister to try to anticipate a Cabinet decision. We have given authority and the necessary finance to develop the work at Dounreay to the full completion of power. The question that we are really considering is a rather bigger one than that—the timing and phasing of a fast breeder programme as a whole. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the measured and considered view which can be given when all these factors have been taken into account.

§ Mr. Forman
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to convey my personal thanks to the Nuclear Inspectorate for the way in which it answered the questions which he and I and others put to it. Will he none the less tell the House why, although the Chief Nuclear Inspector apparently signed the preface to the document in the third week of December, it is only now that it is supposedly available to the House? Will he comment on the fact that it is difficult for hon. Members to comment sensibly on these matters when telephoned by the Press and in other circumstances when they have not seen the document in advance?

Mr. Bern
The latter point is an old problem concerning the extent to which the release of documents should be anticipated for the Press ahead of the House of Commons. I have always had a great deal of sympathy for hon. Members who are put in a less advantageous position than the Press. This is an old grievance going back over a long period, and I doubt whether I could remedy it myself. As for the delay, I do not think that it has been unnecessary. I do not think that the hon. Member, who is the only Member who responded to my request 5 to put questions, would blame me for having given time for us to give some preliminary consideration. There was no deliberate delay. I hope that the report will be studied, because I think this is the first time that a Minister has ever published his own interrogation of his own officials so that the public could be as well informed as he about the issues involved.

§ Mr. Jim Marshall
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that nuclear power, together with coal, will provide the bulk of this country's energy requirements in the future? Does he not further agree that now is the time to praise the nuclear power industry for its past achievements and to give it confidence for the future by settling our reactor type for the future and having a planned programme for new nuclear power stations?

§ Mr. Benn
I join in the congratulations to the nuclear power industry on its achievements. I intend to publish for the benefit of those who are interested a table of the number of accidents and casualties involving all the fuel industries in the last 20 years. The House will be surprised to find how outstandingly well the nuclear industry comes out in any comparisons in matters such as deaths in the mining industry and deaths by electrocution. However, I feel that the House and the country need a moment to pause when further information is made available, and the demand for electricity has given an opportunity for that pause. When the conclusions of the findings are made public, the nuclear power industry will find that it has not suffered by bringing out its own achievements and by giving the public a chance to consider what is at stake.

§ Mr. Tom King
Will the Secretary of State clarify the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman)? Since the right hon. Gentleman has made clear that he intends to publish the information, why has it taken him a month to consider it? Was he considering deleting some of the replies, or were they to be published in full? The Secretary of State has called for a wide-ranging debate, which he now says is a decision for the Cabinet, but this is bound to hinge on a recommendation from him and his 6 Department. When will he make that recommendation?

Mr. Berm
I hope that I shall be acquitted of trying to suppress something which would not have happened had I not asked the question in the first place. The report came to me before Christmas, but I wanted a chance to look at it myself and arrange for publication as early as possible in the new year. I could not have any wish to make deletions from a document which was written only in response to questions which I put. It is not normal for Ministers to publish papers for Cabinet colleagues before those papers go to Cabinet colleagues. There is a Select Committee report with which I am anxious to proceed, but the House would not wish me to rush ahead without giving an opportunity for a measured reaction from the House and others on this issue.

§ Mr. Hugh Fraser
While welcoming the fact that the Secretary of State will publish later this year a broad statement on these matters, may I ask whether he is aware that there is considerable alarm in the industry? The Think Tank's report has not answered any questions, and, indeed, on some issues has given some stupid answers. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as soon as possible and give the whole House an opportunity to debate it, for at least one day?

§ Mr. Benn
Naturally, like any Minister, I should like to see my Department's problems aired in the House, but this does not depend on me. When he talks about the Think Tank, I think that the right hon. Member is referring to the CPRS report on the heavy electrical industry. That does not concern nuclear ordering alone but spreads into orders for coal-fired stations including Drax B and others. These matters have to be taken into account.