HC Deb 04 July 1977 vol 934 cc870-2
14. Mr. Palmer

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated probable cost of lost orders to British Nuclear Fuels from overseas processing contracts due to delays brought about by the present environmental inquiry.

Mr. Benn

I am advised that the value of potential overseas business for the proposed oxide reprocessing plant is some £600 million. Signature of these contracts has been delayed but I am not aware that any orders have been lost.

Mr. Palmer

May we have an assurance that once this inquiry is out of the way, and assuming that it is favourable to British Nuclear Fuels, the Government will stand solidly behind BNF—a State-owned company—in obtaining work in this country and in markets abroad?

Mr. Benn

I said precisely that on 12th March 1976. That is the position of the Government. The planning inquiry, which falls to the Secretary of State for the Environment, is under the control of different legislation. The delay in signing the contract is not confined to the United Kingdom. The French, who are co-signatories, have also not signed their contract with the Japanese.

Mr. Skeet

Is not the Minister aware that the French company Cogema can go ahead and sign the contract, although it has been deferred for the time being? Is he aware that if the hearing is too long delayed the French company might go ahead in any case?

Mr. Benn

I have heard a lot of rumours about this. With a contract of this magnitude at stake, I have gone out of my way, not only in discussions in Tokyo when the problem first arose but with the Japanese Ambassador in London on more than one occasion and with Japanese utilities, to assure them that it is not a delaying tactic. I have told them that we have to satisfy ourselves, under domestic legislation, that a matter of this magnitude is handled under proper planning procedures. I have also told the Japanese—and they fully understand—that as customers of Windscale we are in equal difficulties. The difficulties apply to them and to us. I think that that position is fully understood.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on these Benches, as well as outside the House, strongly support the Government in ensuring that an inquiry is carried out before a final commitment is made?

Mr. Benn

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that he speaks for many who, without prejudice to one's attitude to British nuclear development, believe that it would be odd not to use planning procedures for the building of a big reprocessing plant when planning permission is needed to build an extension, a garage or a conservatory. I am grateful for that support.

Mr. Tom King

Since the Secretary of State for the Environment urged that this should be a speedy inquiry, and since there are Press reports that it might last until October, may we have an assurance that when the findings are made we shall have a direct decision? The Secretary of State will recall that we supported the setting up of the inquiry but urged that it should be completed quickly.

Mr. Benn

The one thing about which the House is agreed is that there should be no undue delay, but in addition—I am grateful to the House for this also—it is recognised that one could not have gone forward without a proper planning inquiry. Without prejudice to what the outcome may be, there is no desire to delay matters, for many reasons and, in part, for the reason set out in my answer.