HC Deb 01 November 1995 vol 265 cc290-1
7. Mr. Hanson

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the projected standards of safety to be applied in the nuclear industry following privatisation. [38655]

The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar)

The Health and Safety Commission made it clear in its evidence to the nuclear review that the current regulatory regime is a rigorous system which ensures that a high level of safety is achieved. The same high standard of safety will apply after privatisation.

Mr. Hanson

Is the Minister aware of the recent statements by Scottish Nuclear safety expert Dr Richard Killick, which say that privatisation will lead to a massive reduction in safety and will have long-term implications for the safety of the industry at large? Will he now abandon privatisation or, at the very least, reconsider safety—or will he allow dogma to influence his decision at the expense of the public's health?

Mr. Eggar

I read about Mr. Killick's allegations in the newspapers and I asked for a full report because I take safety extremely seriously.

I can tell the House and the hon. Gentleman that at no time while Mr. Killick was employed by Scottish Nuclear did he ever mention those anxieties to the company, or to the chief inspector of nuclear installations, or to the relevant nuclear installations inspectorate staff, or to my Department. Those anxieties have surfaced only since he left the company.

Given Mr. Killick's background, he is well aware that, if he has genuine anxieties about safety, the first place to go to express them is to the independent regulator, the NII. Apparently, instead of doing so, he has spoken to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and to the press. That is irresponsible behaviour and, if I may say so, it is irresponsible of the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) to mention those anxieties as he has.

Mr. Neil Hamilton

Did my right hon. Friend read the evidence that Greenpeace gave to the Trade and Industry Committee on precisely that subject? Specifically, it said that there was no reason to believe that the management of a privatised nuclear company should … be any less sensitive to safety concerns. For operating power stations … ownership is less important than strength of regulation. It is obvious that that should be so, because a shut-down nuclear station will earn no revenue, which would be to the commercial disadvantage of a privatised company.

Mr. Eggar

I noted what Greenpeace said. Post-privatisation, safety concerns will of course be at least as important as, if not more important than, they are at present, and they will be guaranteed by the independent nuclear inspectorate.

Mr. Battle

Can the Minister confirm that the Treasury expects to receive less than £3 billion from the proceeds of the nuclear privatisation deal, and that it cost the Government more than £3 billion to build Sizewell B power station alone? Does that mean that the Conservative Government are prepared to give away seven power stations for nothing? On those terms, will not that prove to be a shabby, short-changing deal for taxpayers and consumers alike?[Interruption.]

Mr. Eggar

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. There should be only one debate in the House at a time. There is some cross-questioning going on below the Gangway and there should be only one lot of questioning—to Ministers at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Eggar

I welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to his new role. To the last of his questions I answer, "No."