HC Deb 19 May 1980 vol 985 cc11-2
8. Mr. Cryer

asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received regarding his announcement of a nuclear power generating construction programme; and if he is satisfied that the programme is technically and economically feasible.

Mr. Norman Lamont

I regularly receive representations about our nuclear programme from the public, Members of Parliament and those concerned with the industry. There is a strong economic case for nuclear power, and I believe that our nuclear industry will meet the challenge that our programme represents.

Mr. Cryer

Will the Minister confirm that in 1979 there was the lowest average number of nuclear installation inspections for seven years? Will he confirm also that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is well below strength and that it cannot possibly cope with an expanded programme? Does the Minister agree that the programme that he announced was for two purposes: first, to satisfy the nuclear ambitions of Sir Arnold Weinstock and GEC and, secondly, to attack the mining industry. and in particular the miners?

Mr. Lamont

The hon. Gentleman's last two observations are pure fantasy and do not deserve a serious reply. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's serious question about the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is that there are 17 vacancies out of a total theoretical establishment of 104. There have been no further resignations in 1980. There has recently been a pay increase, which will increase pay at all grades by about £2,000 per annum. Clearly the strength of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is extremely important to us. We are working on it, and are engaged in discussions about it. The inspectorate is vital for the nuclear programme, and it is nonsense to say that the programme cannot go ahead with the level of inspectorate manpower as it stands.

Mr. Gummer

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the programme is to be technically and economically feasible in those areas where nuclear power stations are likely to be sited the period of waiting and wondering whether there is to be a proposal should be as short as possible? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, bring as much pressure as possible to bear on the CEGB to announce its plans as quickly as possible and not hold up discussions in affected areas?

Mr. Lamont

I know what my hon. Friend is referring to. I have discussed the case that he has in mind with the CEGB. He will be aware that the CEGB has a bank of sites and that it does not always apply immediately for planning permission or consent for a station on those sites. However, I shall communicate his concern to the CEGB.

Mr. Ashton

Will the Minister give an assurance that nuclear inspection will be kept firmly under the control of the Government? Will he confirm that outside agencies will not be employed as supervisors?

Mr. Lamont

The inspectorate is an independent agency, and that position will continue.

Mr. Rost

Does my hon. Friend accept that the programme will not be economically or technically feasible unless there is a major improvement in the organisation of the industry, and that the appointment of a new chairman to the National Nuclear Corporation is but a first step towards that objective?

Mr. Lamont

I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem is not confined to the construction of nuclear power stations, as recent events have sadly emphasised. There are serious construction delays and cost overruns in conventional and oil-fired power stations as well. We need to strengthen the management further beyond the appointment of a chairman, and he is working on that. We hope that the announcement of a programme will, at long last, encourage confidence in the industry.