Nuclear Design and Safety (Hansard, 14 January 1980)

§ 3. Mr. Meacher
asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy concerning withholding information on nuclear design and safety.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont)
It is the policy of the Government and all concerned with the nuclear industry to make as much information available on nuclear safety as reasonably possible.

§ Mr. Meacher
In the light of the latest revelations of reactor cracks being found measuring three metres, and given the Government's huge proposed nuclear building programme, will the Minister now instruct the electricity boards, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to publish in full safety studies of AGR reactors which, up to now, they have refused to do? Will he also publish in full the safety documents relating to the American PWR and not just an expurgated version?

§ Mr. Lamont
On the AGR, the Government are asking that a safety document should be published. I point out to the hon. Member that that is much more than was done by the previous Administration who took the first steps towards the orders for the latest two AGRs. We are insisting that the design for the Hinckley reactor, on which the Heysham and Torness reactors are to be based, should be published.
On the PWR, we have already got the NII to publish a generic safety study. We have also had the Marshall report on the integrity of the pressure vessels published, and we are also insisting that the principal safety documentation, including the design work, should be published. It is the policy of this Government to publish as much information as possible, but we come up against certain points that are commercially confidential.

§ Mr. Costain
Is the Minister aware that the rather wild reports in the press on Friday, particularly in The Guardian, of the effects of closing Dungeness "A" station have caused concern on Romney Marsh? What assurance can he give my constituents that no danger exists?

§ Mr. Lamont
I assure my hon. Friend that no health hazard is posed in his constituency. What happened was that following the cracks that were discovered in No. 1 reactor it was decided, as a precautionary measure, to bring forward the biennial inspection of the No. 2 reactor.

§ Mr. Ashton
When the Secretary of State made his recent statement on the PWR—Official Report, 18 December, col. 291—he said that he had not yet made up his mind whether to have a public inquiry or what sort of public inquiry should be established into a PWR being built. Has he yet made up his mind?

§ Mr. Lamont
The hon. Gentleman knows that there is another question on the Order Paper specifically about the form of inquiry.

§ Mr. Adley
In view of the oft-expressed interest in nuclear matters by the Liberal Party, and regretting its total absence from the House today, has my hon. Friend received any representations from that party about these important matters?

§ Mr. Lamont
I occasionally receive representations from Liberal Party Members about nuclear matters, but not recently on the specific point that has been raised.

§ Mr. Pavitt
I commend the Central Electricity Generating Board on its meeting held last Friday to give Members of Parliament information on these matters. Is the Minister aware that that meeting revealed a frightening lack of information to deal with contingencies in London boroughs? Will he take immediate steps to ensure that dangerous nuclear material does not go through Willesden Junction and areas of high population, where the risk is extreme and my constituents are very worried?

§ Mr. Lamont
I did not have the benefit of the presentation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he cares to write to me on that specific point I will look into it.