Dounreay

HC Deb 08 June 1998 vol 313 cc709-16 3.30 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

(by private notice): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the Government's decision to discontinue reprocessing nuclear material at Dounreay.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle)

Dounreay has played a significant role in the development of the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom. The experimental fast-breeder reactor at Dounreay, built in the 1950s, was followed by a prototype fast-breeder reactor. Both aimed to show that fast-breeder reactor technology could be harnessed to generate electricity on a commercial scale.

Last Friday I informed the House, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), that the Government had accepted the advice of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority board that Dounreay should accept no new contracts for commercial reprocessing work.

The decision will allow the UKAEA to refocus on the management of its existing liabilities, of which by far the majority have arisen from the UKAEA's own Government-funded nuclear reactor development programmes on the Dounreay site. I stress that those liabilities already exist—and they must be dealt with. No amount of wishful thinking will make them go away.

Subject to the necessary consents being obtained from the independent regulators—the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—I expect the UKAEA to continue to reprocess the existing spent fuel liabilities, the majority of which came from the reactors that operated at Dounreay. It will also reprocess material from existing, committed, legally binding commercial contracts and the small amount of material from Georgia. I am advised by the UKAEA that it expects to have completed all that reprocessing work by 2006. After that, the work of decommissioning the reprocessor will take place.

I remind the House that the Dounreay site was set up to undertake development work on fast-breeder reactor technology. Although the work on that programme was a technical success, it was decided to stop funding the programme in 1988, when it became clear that there was no prospect of the technology fully living up to its economic potential. The development programme finally stopped in 1994, when the last reactor was switched off. Obviously, it has generated no electricity since then.

The focus of activity at the site has shifted inevitably to decommissioning the reactors. Dounreay's main mission has been to decommission completely the facilities on the site. The concern now is to ensure that we pass on to future generations a safe environment at Dounreay. We are deeply committed to caring for the environment and to taking action to deal safely with the difficult legacy from past operations at Dounreay.

We want the focus now to be on decommissioning the plant and securing the site at Dounreay. Subject to satisfying the strict safety and environmental requirements of the independent regulators, commercial reprocessing was accepted as a way of offsetting some of the costs of decommissioning and waste management at Dounreay, but as the UKAEA itself has recently concluded as a result of surveying the international market, further commercial reprocessing would not be economic. Giving up that sort of work is therefore the next step in achieving the main goal: refocusing the site to ensure safe and cost-effective clean-up.

I know that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) shares my concern about the impact of this decision, perhaps, on jobs at Dounreay. I have been assured by Dounreay's operator, the UKAEA, that it does not expect significant short-term job losses as the staff currently working on reprocessing will be redeployed to other nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management work and will carry that expertise internationally in future.

In March, I announced the Government's decision to retrieve the waste from the Dounreay shaft, which will provide work at the site for several decades at least. Cleaning up the site will inevitably take more than 100 years. The process of decommissioning will now be the business of Dounreay.

Mr. Maclennan

I thank the Minister for that reply, notwithstanding the fact that it expressly contradicts the answer he gave in a written answer on Friday in that it attributes the decision to discontinue commercial reprocessing to the specific advice of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, whereas on Friday the Minister said that it was due to the authority having indicated that there was no longer-term prospect for commercial reprocessing. Perhaps in the interests of open government the Minister will be kind enough to place in the Library the precise terms of the advice that has been given.

Does the Minister recognise that the cack-handed approach to the presentation of this issue has created nothing but confusion, with headlines persisting even until today in the Scottish newspapers about the proposed closure of Dounreay—indeed, the Government's decision to close Dounreay? How can there be anything else but confusion when Ministers' offices at the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, the Minister's Department, are issuing contradictory briefings to the press?

What are the Government's intentions about further fostering the science-based industries in the north? When the previous Government announced in 1988 the decision to end the fast-breeder reactor programme, Mr. Cecil Parkinson, who is still with us as chairman of the Conservative party, announced the intention to spend about £9 million on promoting new science-based work in the area. Some of that has already begun to come through, but it requires continuing effort and commitment on the part of the Government to build on the skills and science resources that have been accumulated over two generations at Dounreay to ensure that there is a proper future for the immediate area and the entire north of Scotland.

Mr. Battle

I am sure that my office contacted the right hon. Gentleman's office to ensure that he was well informed that the written question would be answered on Friday. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the text of the answer. It reads: The UKAEA have advised me that there is no economic case for supporting commercial reprocessing at Dounreay over the longer term."—[Official Report, 5 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 385.] We endorse the UKAEA's view that no more commercial contracts should be let. That was the point of the statement. That is what we said. I do not see why there is confusion about it.

I appreciate, however, that people talk—even Opposition Members occasionally, it is reported—about the closure of the plant as if it has suddenly shut down. That is not what has happened. The Scottish National party in particular put round the rumour that the whole thing can go away overnight. That is not the case. There are 100 years of work left because of decommissioning.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows that AEA Technology only recently, with the help of my hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, decided that a new foresight programme—the battery project—should be sited at Dounreay and use the technical expertise of the people there. That is new investment. If I remember rightly, it is a joint venture with the Japanese. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that. It is not the case that the plant is being closed down overnight, contrary to some of the rumours that have been put around.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

When I complained to his office in rather bitter terms on Friday, the Minister telephoned me himself; I thank him for his courtesy.

Is not there a problem of morale at Dounreay? Ministers talk about the need for a safe environment until 2006 and for many years after, so is not it important that extremely good people are kept at Dounreay to undertake the management? Granted the disastrous decision was made back in 1988—

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalyell

I am sure that that is the root of the trouble, as my hon. Friend suggests. It was made against the wishes of many of us. On the problem of morale and keeping good people at Dounreay, what positive proposals can be offered to ensure the safety that all of us regard as paramount?

Mr. Battle

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I cannot answer for decisions made during the past 10 or 20 years—indeed, over the past 30 or 40 years. We inherited a situation and decided to take the advice that we were given, which was that Dounreay should take on no further commercial reprocessing work, that it should handle the liabilities it has inherited from its reactors, that it should deal with the contracts that are still legally binding and in place and that it should deal with the tiny, tiny amount of Georgian waste. Dounreay has work to get on with.

The whole point of the decision is to have a clear focus for the plant and for the work force so that they know what they will be getting on with rather than wondering whether future contracts will come. That was generating uncertainty; we have cut through that and given a clear sense of direction for the future.

According to one estimate, a work force of about 1,200 will be needed at the plant to deal with the liabilities I have described, which is almost as many as are employed today. Let me add that, because of our decision in March to tackle the legacy of the waste shaft, the shaft retrieval project alone will employ 400 additional people. As people work on decommissioning the reactors, as they are now, their decommissioning skills will be internationally saleable—they will be able to give advice and expertise internationally to tackle the legacy of the problem. I expect staff at Dounreay to have their morale boosted by the decision, not further undermined.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)

I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for granting the private notice question, which the official Opposition also requested.

The Minister should have had the grace to come to the House to make a statement on Friday. My colleagues and I learned of this important development only from the "Today" programme. We do not see the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State for Scotland in the House for the announcement of this crucial decision.

The Government are presiding over a complete shambles. First, they tell us that Dounreay is a safe facility and invite in material from Georgia. Then they close an important part of the plant for safety reasons. Then they tell us that they will pay to make the plant work again as it did before. Now they tell us that they will spend a lot of taxpayers' money to make it safe, only to run it down. That is not the usual government by U-turn; it is government in a permanent spin—one spin doctor corrects what another spin doctor said wrongly the day before.

This is no way to run such a sensitive industry, so will the Minister tell us, and the people of Scotland, how much it will cost to repair and improve the plant? What investment are the Government planning to write off when the plant is eventually closed down? What are the estimated costs of the complete rundown? What reassurance can he offer the people of the United Kingdom—and, especially, of Scotland—that the Government will handle things better than they have done over the past year? The shambles is of the Government' s making, not of the previous Government's.

Is the Minister planning to accelerate the rundown of nuclear reactors? What is his current view of the useful life of Magnox stations? Will he apologise for this complete and comprehensive disaster? Does he not see that it now means maximum cost to the taxpayer and minimum benefit for Britain? It is a fitting testimony to months of dithering and contradictory statements.

Mr. Battle

At least we have done our best to sort out the problem that we inherited. The previous Administration would not even admit that the waste shaft existed which, as we have spelt out, will cost £250 million to £300 million to clean up. Where were the previous Administration when they should have been addressing that problem? They were prepared to let it fester.

We shall put the figures in the public domain when the UKAEA spells out the cost of doing the job. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) knows, there has been a lot of alarmist comment recently about safety, but the Health and Safety Executive recently announced that it would undertake a review of management of the site. That review is now under way. I do not seek to pre-empt it; I accept and welcome it and expect the UKAEA to implement the recommendations properly. Nothing is more important than the safe management of these liabilities. Unlike the last lot, we shall ensure that the funds are provided for the UKAEA to clean up its existing liabilities to the satisfaction of the independent regulators.

The question tabled by the right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned "the decision to close" Dounreay. To judge from the comments he made on the media, I think he had the impression that I went up to Dounreay on Friday, looked at the plant, shut the gate and threw the key into the Pentland firth. That was not the case. One cannot do that—the liabilities alone last for 100 years. That is nuclear business.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the mid-1980s, especially during the miners' strike in 1984–85, some of us argued about the dangers of nuclear power? We talked about the massive cost of nuclear power and of decommissioning. We could have done with this kind of Statement 15 years ago: we might then have stopped the Tories closing all those pits when they were in power. Does my hon. Friend believe, contrary to the views of some of my hon. Friends and certainly contrary to the views of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), that this decision will strengthen the Labour Government's hand in the next few days in ensuring that the safety and maintenance of the pits that are in operation will continue?

Mr. Battle

As my hon. Friend knows, we are working hard to ensure that the coal industry is not squeezed out of the marketplace unfairly. I tend to agree with my hon. Friend's criticism of the past. We have inherited those liabilities; we shall do our best to deal with them and find the funds to meet them. It might have been interesting if the liabilities had been added to the original bill of commissioning so that the cost of electricity at the time was publicly known. That might have resulted in an equation different from that which we inherit today.

Mr. John Swinney (North Tayside)

May I ask the Minister two questions? First, when the Prime Minister agreed to accept the consignment of nuclear waste from Georgia—we were told then that Dounreay was the safest place in the world—were the Government in possession of the recommendation to end commercial reprocessing at Dounreay?

Secondly, are the Government now prepared to invest in a centre of excellence for alternative technology research at Dounreay to create long-term, stable employment prospects for people in the north of Scotland?

Mr. Battle

I have heard the canard that I said that Dounreay was the safest place in the world. I actually said on 27 April that the Georgian waste would be "securely and safely" stored at Dounreay—as it is now. Even anti-nuclear campaigners accept that Dounreay is the safest place for it to be stored. What we are debating is setting up the conditions for reprocessing. Of course it is more important that nuclear waste be taken to Dounreay than left in Georgia. I emphasise that our decision to accept the Georgian material was based on non-proliferation treaty grounds. We are a depositor country because we have the expertise to deal with nuclear waste. Rather than leaving the material in Georgia, we have made an important contribution to world security. The Georgian material is safe and secure in storage at Dounreay, awaiting reprocessing. I would be grateful if some hon. Members—perhaps not the hon. Gentleman—stopped circulating rumours to the contrary and using scare tactics to suggest that the material is not safely stored. It certainly is.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Is not the simple truth that there have been two errors of judgment over Dounreay? First, there was the Conservative Government's decision in 1988 to cancel and destroy Britain's forefront-of-technology fast-breeder reactor programme—the most advanced in the world. Secondly, the Scottish National party decided repeatedly to run anti-nuclear scaremongering campaigns to promote hysteria over nuclear power throughout Scotland in order to win votes. Should not the people of the north of Scotland reject the SNP and all that it stands for?

Mr. Battle

I think that, sometimes, the very word nuclear is massively misunderstood—even when applied to medicine. People are now objecting to x-rays due to the use of irradiated material. It does not help when people raise the temperature. About 4,000 people with great expertise work in the nuclear industry in Scotland. Those who criticise the industry should respect that fact. I cannot go over what happened under the previous Administration, except to say that we are bringing matters into the open. That has been the problem in the nuclear industry; decisions have been taken in secret and Ministers have not answered to the House for them. We have changed that. At least we are doing our damnedest to sort out what we inherited.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

Does my hon. Friend recall a series of Reith lectures under the arresting title, "The Unimportance of Being Right", in which a retired civil servant, who had a hand in nuclear decisions in the past, described the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme as the most wasteful civil investment decision since the pharaohs decided to build the pyramids? Is not it time that we considered the waste and deception of nuclear power in Britain over the past 40 years, which has left a legacy that will be a headache to our great-grandchildren? Should not we coolly and scientifically review the disaster of deception of the House and the country, as well as the entire reprocessing system and the principle behind it?

Mr. Battle

My hon. Friend is well aware that practically the last decision made by the previous Administration concerned the Nirex proposal. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, is considering the future of reprocessing. As everybody knows—and as it was well put—the problem with nuclear waste is that it remains and kills. It has to be dealt with; it cannot be wished away. We must take the best advice and use the most scientifically and technologically advanced methods to deal with the problem so that we pass to the next generation a safer environment than we inherited.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

There is still much dangerous nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. What effect will the decision to stop commercial contracts at Dounreay have on the United Kingdom's ability to deal with the handling of such dangerous material?

Mr. Battle

The decision concerns commercial contracts. The decision on the material from Georgia was not a commercial reprocessing decision. It was a one-off decision as a result of our obligations under international non-proliferation treaties. I imagine that each decision will be made on a case-by-case basis. The decision on Dounreay means that the UKAEA will not be entering into commercial contracts in future—not least because it finds them non-viable. We did the international community a favour by accepting the Georgian waste. We believe that we should act responsibly and make an international contribution.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does the Minister understand the scepticism with which his statement has been greeted? Does he acknowledge that the statements made in this place on 22 and 27 April did not mention the prospect of reprocessing being stopped? Does he accept that the decision he has announced today is very difficult to equate with the decision to accept material from Georgia for reprocessing? Will he instruct the UKAEA to prepare an explanatory memorandum setting out the commercial reasons for the decision so that that memorandum can be deposited in the Library? If he does not do that, the House will regard what has been said today as a sop to the Scottish National party.

Mr. Battle

I just wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to what I said. The Georgian uranium was not accepted under a commercial deal—it was a one-off, under international non-proliferation treaties. We accepted it to store it, with a view to reprocessing it. There is a difference there that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not picked up.

We were advised by the UKAEA that it did not want to go ahead with further commercial reprocessing. In other words, it did not want to go around the world seeking contracts. The UKAEA wanted to send a clear signal to those with commercial contracts that Dounreay was not available because it had more than enough to be going on with, which would see it through to a safer and more secure future.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)

In sorting out problems that were largely ignored or made worse by the previous Tory Government, will my hon. Friend bear in mind my plea on behalf of the local fishing communities? Dounreay and Sellafield lie on coastlines close to traditional fishing grounds that are fished by static gear and mobile gear fishermen. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must defend and promote the interests of those fishermen?

Mr. Battle

The answer to my hon. Friend is a forthright yes. We should also respect the full advice of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the nuclear installations inspectorate—the bodies that give us the best scientific advice on whether the plants should operate and on what terms. The UKAEA takes advice and guidance and—more than that—applies recommendations. The advice received following the review of the management of the site by the HSE will be implemented.