§ 6. Dr. Kim HowellsTo ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of Nuclear Electric to discuss the future of the nuclear generating industry.
§ Mr. WakehamI regularly meet the chairman of Nuclear Electric to discuss a variety of matters.
§ Dr. HowellsWhatever one might think about the virtues or otherwise of nuclear energy, clearly it is a viable source of base load electricity for the future. However, it requires long-term thinking, in terms of the industry's future funding. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is too large an area of expertise and of excellence in many ways to be allowed to rely simply on the vagaries of the open market?
§ Mr. WakehamThe Government have made it clear that they will review the future of this country's nuclear power industry in 1994. By that time, we want to see a future which demonstrates that nuclear power can be produced safely and economically. Today, Nuclear Electric published its half-year results, which show continuing and encouraging progress towards Nuclear Electric's aims. Its output is up by 13 per cent. compared with the same period last year, its market share is up from 17 to 19 per cent., and its operating profits are up by 50 per cent.—entirely reflecting higher output and tighter cost control.
§ Mr. HannamDoes my right hon. Friend agree that Nuclear Electric's half-year results confirm a long-term future for nuclear power? It is not important that we keep together the teams that will ensure that the nuclear power construction industry will continue in the future?
§ Mr. WakehamMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I am delighted that the Sizewell B project is being built on time and within cost. That is a testament to Nuclear Electric's management in respect of that project, which is a major achievement by British industry.
§ Mr. WigleyThe Secretary of State will be aware of the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, which employs up to 200 people in my constituency. Can he give an assurance that if the Magnox reactors are indeed approaching the end of their days and Trawsfynydd has no continuing nuclear future, the Government will accept responsibility for finding jobs for those who depend on the industry? Such responsibility has been taken in other areas where a major rundown of significant employers has taken place.
§ Mr. WakehamI think that we must deal with such matters stage by stage. First, we must satisfy the nuclear installations inspectorate that the reactor is safe; it will not reopen until that has been done. The same applies to any other Magnox stations whose safety is being reviewed by the NII. We shall see what happens after that.
§ Sir Trevor SkeetIs my right hon. Friend aware that if the nuclear power programme were abandoned completely, 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide would be pumped into the atmosphere every year? That is one thing that we should avoid. If my right hon. Friend holds a review in 1994, he may find that not much of the industry is left by then, because many of the teams will be broken up.
§ Mr. WakehamI agree with the first part of what my hon. Friend has said: nuclear power certainly makes a valuable contribution to the environment by curbing carbon dioxide emissions.
My hon. Friend mentioned 1994. That is the year in which the Sizewell B project will come on stream, and will start to produce electricity. I feel that that is a good time at which to review the implications for the future, and I very much hope that the expertise that now exists will not be lost to the industry.
§ Mr. MorganCan the Secretary of State confirm that, notwithstanding the encouraging programme that he has just reported, Nuclear Electric's directors could not continue to pay the £1 million per day that it costs to continue the Sizewell B construction project if they were not covered by a letter of comfort from the Treasury, without which the company would be technically insolvent?
Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that in 1994, when the review is completed, that safeguard protecting the company's directors against the threat of unlawful trading while technically insolvent should be lifted? Will he also tell us when he expects the nuclear levy, which is still rising, to start to fall in the light of this morning's results from Nuclear Electric?
§ Mr. WakehamAs the hon. Gentleman knows, Nuclear Electric was formed out of the old Central Electricity Generating Board and has remained a Government-owned project throughout. It is therefore entirely proper for the directors to be given proper assurances by Government about the funding of a project undertaken on behalf of Government.
The nuclear levy is set to decline over the 1990s, and at present runs only until 1998. The calculation is quite complicated, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. The actual amount of cash is not rising; it is the relation of that cash to the output of electricity and, therefore, the area that must be covered, which make the difference to the percentage. [Interruption.] The percentage went up last year, but the amount of the levy is still set to fall over the 1990s.