Magnox Power Stations (Hansard, 25 July 1988)

§ 1. Mr. Corbyn
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recommendations he has received from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate on the case for additional safety measures for Magnox power stations.

§ The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson)
The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has asked the licensees of the Magnox power stations to carry out a long-term safety review for each station. These reviews are assessed by the NII, whose findings and requirements for continued operation are being published.

§ Mr. Corbyn
What is the cost per station and in total of all the safety measures required by the NII? Is the Minister prepared to review the unit cost of electricity generated by Magnox nuclear power stations and, in the light of that review, to consider phasing out those stations on grounds of safety, environmental damage and cost of eleclricity generation?

§ Mr. Parkinson
No, Sir. Each Magnox station is independently subject to long-term review. Two reviews have so far been completed. In the case of Berkeley, the cost of making the changes necessary to enable the station to continue to work until 1992 simply was not justified, whereas in the case of Bradwell it was. These are matters for the commercial judgment of the Central Electricity Generating Board, coupled with the fact that the NII must be satisfied before issuing a certificate and allowing the station to continue. Each station will be reviewed individually. It will be for the NII to say what is necessary to be done and for the CEGB to decide whether it is worth doing.

§ Mr. Marlow
Will my right hon. Friend tell the sandal-wearing, nut cutlet-eating—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Guardian-reading."]—yes, The Guardian-reading, bearded fanatics who have it in for nuclear power that in reality the environmental danger of fossil-fuel generated electricity as it is now produced is far greater than that of nuclear power? Will my right hon. Friend consider implementing an urgent programme to extend the amount of nuclear power generation in this country?

§ Mr. Parkinson
My hon. Friend is right. There is a strong argument that the safest and least-polluting source of energy is nuclear power, when installations are properly built, designed and regulated.

§ Mr. Matthew Taylor
In view of the great public interest, will the Secretary of State make available the full report on Berkeley and not just a summary? Will he also state the time scale for reports on Oldbury, Trawsfynydd and Sizewell A?

§ Mr. Parkinson
The CEGB has had the report on Berkeley. It has announced that the station will be closed and will cease to operate from March next year. That is a matter for the CEGB and the NII. The NII is clearly satisfied that it is safe for the station to operate during that period, or it would have withdrawn the licence. The NII has made recommendations about what would need to be done to keep the station working and the CEGB has decided not to spend the money, but the main fact is that the station is safe.

§ Mr. John Garrett
Will the Minister please come clean about the cost of nuclear safety, the cost of decommission-ing the old Magnox stations, which is roughly estimated at £2.5 billion, and the uneconomic cost of nuclear power in general? Is he aware that electricity privatisation will be subject to the Financial Services Act 1986, which makes it a criminal offence to make deliberately or recklessly misleading forecasts to induce shareholders to invest?

§ Mr. Parkinson
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is very hard to put an exact figure on the cost of decommissioning. The process could take up to 100 years. There are three stages. The first is withdrawal of the fuel and the second is the immediate decommissioning. There then is the decision on how long the station will be allowed to be maintained in a secure state so that the natural reduction in radiation can take place, which will make it safer for the workers when the final decommissioning is carried out. Provision is made for each station and is estimated at about £300 million over the period of decommissioning, which could be up to 100 years. I should add that coal—the Opposition's preferred option—is a massively expensive pollutant. If costs could be attached to coal with the same certainty as they are to nuclear energy, coal might look very dubious. Indeed, there is a school of thought that the British electricity user has been subsidising the mining industry to the tune of about £1 billion per year for the past 10 years.