National Nuclear Corporation (Hansard, 6 July 1981)

§ 5. Mr. Teddy Taylor
asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a further statement on the nuclear power programme.

§ 7. Mr. Mike Thomas
asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress he is making in the appointment of a new chairman and the restructuring of the board and shareholdings of the National Nuclear Corporation.

§ Mr. Norman Lamont
Last week my right hon. Friend and I announced the appointment of a new chairman for the National Nuclear Corporation, the setting up of a new task force to develop design proposals for the proposed PWR, and an examination of NNC's role in regard to the financial risks involved in nuclear power station construction. These are positive steps to ensure that the nuclear power programme remains on course.

§ Mr. Taylor
Does my hon. Friend agree that the only realistic prospect of getting energy at a reasonable price over the next 20 years is to keep the nuclear programme on target? Can he give a clear commitment that, despite the financial problems facing the Government, the programme will go ahead as planned? In particular, can he give any indication of the Government's attitude to the fast-breeder programme?

§ Mr. Lamont
The Government's intention to proceed with a nuclear programme has been made clear on many occasions. We confirmed the two orders for the existing AGRs. I do not believe that the Government's commitment to nuclear power is in doubt. The Government have also stated that they wish to explore the matter of the fast-breeder reactor through international negotiations. I am afraid that we shall not be in a position to make an early announcement or, indeed, to make any announcement for some time to come.

§ Mr. Thomas
Are the Government satisfied that the new appointments, which are on a limited scale, resolve the restructuring of the NNC, leaving aside the question of capitalisation? Will the Minister reaffirm that the Government are impartial between the AGR and the PWR and that choices will be made on their merits as examination of the PWR proceeds? Will he also confirm that the designs to which the Heysham and Torness AGRs are to be built are based on AGR designs which, contrary to all press abuse of the nuclear programme, were built largely to cost and time?

§ Mr. Lamont
I am confident about our recent announcements. I am sure that Frank Gibb will be an excellent chairman of the NNC and that Walter Marshall will do an excellent job as head of the task force, which is intended to overcome some of the delays and design difficulties.
The Government will take an impartial view and examine the question of reactor choice entirely on its merits. The Heysham and Torness AGR designs are based on the designs for two other AGRs, which were built more or less to time and to cost.

§ Mr. Warren
Will my hon. Friend consider the value of introducing stronger contract incentive and penalty schemes for the construction of nuclear power stations, bearing in mind that time for construction often wastes money and that the sooner they are on stream the cheaper will be the electricity?

§ Mr. Lamont
Of course we shall consider that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has been trying to work out a national site agreement. The point that my hon. Friend makes relates also to the financial risk borne by the contractors in the construction of power stations. We do not want them to work on a cost-plus basis. That is one reason why there have been tremendous over-runs in the past. I assure my hon. Friend that we are giving top priority to that matter.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
When may the House expect a reply to the Select Committee on Energy's report on the nuclear programme? Will the Minister comment on The Observer report of 28 June, which alleged that the design cost of the PWR at Sizewell is so fantastically high—60 per cent. higher than expected—that it has had to be reviewed?

§ Mr. Lamont
We hope that the response to the Select Committee will be made available before the Summer Recess. I do not wish to comment on particular press reports about the cost of the PWR. One reason why we appointed Dr. Marshall to be moderator was that we were worried about the possible over-elaboration of the design and the possible rises in costs. Nuclear power—and this applies to the PWR and the AGR—will be competitive provided that it is built more to time and to cost than it has been in the past.

§ Mr. Skeet
When considering building nuclear power stations will my hon. Friend make a careful study of EDF and Framatone, in France, because they seem to have their relationships correct? Could we adopt the same type of structure in the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Lamont
I have on many occasions discussed the relationship between EDF and Framatone with the French supply industry. There are many differences. We remain convinced that the way forward is to make the NNC into an independent, free-standing company capable of taking on the design for whole stations. That remains the Government's objective.

§ Mr. Hooley
Will the Minister say whether the 15-gigawatt programme is still on, or is the PWR at Sizewell yet another one-off exercise?

§ Mr. Lamont
The position of the 15-gigawatt programme remains the same as when it was announced by my right hon. Friend in his statement in December 1979. Nothing has changed. The PWR at Sizewell will, if it gets the necessary planning consent, be the first station in the "station-a-year" programme that my right hon. Friend announced.