THORP (Hansard, 12 January 1994)

7. Mr. Alan W. Williams
To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the place of THORP in meeting Britain's future energy needs; and whether this will be tested at a public inquiry.

§ The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar)
It is for the owners of spent fuel in the United Kingdom and overseas to make their own commercial decisions as to whether to use THORP as part of their nuclear energy production plans. My right hon. Friends have decided not to hold a public inquiry in respect of the Sellafield discharge authorisations.

Mr. Williams
The Minister will know that two of the key arguments used in the initial public inquiry in 1976 to justify THORP involved future energy demand in Britain and the need for uranium and plutonium. As the fast breeder reactor programme has been cancelled, there is a glut of plutonium on the world market and the price of uranium is one sixth of what it was in the 1970s, will the Minister acknowledge that the energy arguments for THORP have collapsed completely? As circumstances world wide have changed so radically since the 1970s, is there not an overwhelming need for a public inquiry to re-examine those very arguments?

§ Mr. Eggar
No. As my right hon. Friends have made clear, there is absolutely no need for a further public inquiry. Indeed, it is rather absurd to contemplate a further public inquiry 15 years after the initial public inquiry which, after all, was authorised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the funding was approved by the then Labour Government, and to reopen the 'whole question. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that 3,000 jobs in west Cumbria and 2,000 jobs elsewhere in the United Kingdom depend on the plant and that BNFL estimates the commercial benefits of the plant at £4.5 billion over 10 years. Is he in favour of more prosperity in this country or against it?

§ Mr. Page
As the United Kingdom is a signatory to the climate change convention to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions, and as 34 per cent. of our carbon dioxide emissions come from power stations, is it not absolutely necessary that we should have a carbon dioxide-free nuclear industry in which THORP plays a vital part? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have been more than scrupulous in allowing public inquiry and investigation into the viability and usefulness of THORP?

§ Mr. Eggar
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have issued a lengthy decision letter of some 75 pages. As I understand it, a judicial review of that decision is likely to take place, so it is difficult for me to go further than that. With regard to environmental benefits of nuclear power, that is one of the matters that we shall want to address during the conduct of the nuclear review.