HL Deb 08 December 1982 vol 437 cc236-51

7.5 p.m.

Debate resumed.

The Duke of Portland

My Lords, in the first place, I should mention to your Lordships that while I have the honour to be president of the British Nuclear Forum, the views which I shall express to your Lordships are not necessarily those of the forum. Perhaps I should also mention that for the past 22 years I have represented, and still represent, Rio Tinto Zinc on the board of the German nuclear fuel manufacturing company, NUKEM.

The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has drawn your Lordships' attention to the position abroad as regards fast reactors. I should like to supplement what he said in respect of Germany. The Germans have for several years had plans for the construction of a prototype fast breeder reactor in which the Netherlands and Belgian Governments are junior partners. A fortnight or so ago, the German Parliament finally approved the construction of this prototype fast reactor; but, so far, the necessary funds have not been forthcoming. I have noticed it happens quite often with our foreign friends that a nuclear programme is approved but that the funds are not to be found. In the present case, the German utilities have agreed to contribute DM 1 billion but I understand that the whole project is estimated to cost DM 6 billion.

The French, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, are widely regarded abroad as being ahead of any other country in the fast breeder field. I believe this is due to the fact that they have a prototype fast breeder, "Super Phénix", which has been on-stream since 1973 or 1974, and they have under construction at Creys Malville, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, mentioned, a 1,200 megawatt fast breeder reactor which is only six months behind schedule and is due to come on-stream late in 1983.

The French Government have decided that while the construction of "Super Phénix" should be completed and that it should come on-stream, plans for further fast reactors will be shelved for financial reasons. The development of nuclear power is a fantastically expensive business and one which, if swift advance is to be made, is beyond the capacity of any individual country except perhaps the United States. While discussions have taken place for international co-operation, these have been somewhat desultory and I would submit that the Atomic Energy Authority should be urged to press on in this direction.

It is now four years since Monsieur Giraud, then chairman of the French Atomic Energy Commission, spoke to me about the possibility of Anglo-French collaboration in the development of the fast breeder reactor. He said that he was keen to see this collaboration but that his feeling had not been reciprocated. I reported this conversation but I subsequently gathered that, unfortunately to my mind, the then Secretary of State for Energy did not favour this course. The French went on with the construction of "Super Phénix", with the Italians as their junior partners.

It is not only in the development of the fast reactor that I would urge that greater efforts be made for international co-operation. France, Germany and the United Kindom are the three countries which are most advanced in the development of nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and I would urge that greater effort should be made to secure closer co-operation on a tripartite basis. At the present time the partners in URENCO—the company for the development and operation of the centrifuge process for enrichment—are Germany, Holland and the United Kingdom. France continues with the diffusion process at Eurodif. In re-processing, co-operation is close between British Nuclear Fuels and the French Cogema company and I expect that when the German reprocessing company DWK becomes operative, this co-operation may be extended to Germany.

In the fast breeder the co-operation is at present mainly between France and Italy at Super Phénix. Transport of fissile material in Europe is largely in the hands of the Trans-nuclear Group of companies, in which Nuclear Transport Limited of Risley is a partner. If it were possible to form, say, a Franco-British-German company, or some other tripartite body for the development of the nuclear fuel cycle, I am convinced that this would in the long run be of great advantage not only for the development of nuclear power but also for saving the taxpayers' money.

7.11 p.m.

Lord Rugby

My Lords, it has been a tribute to the wide-ranging versatility of your Lordships' House that such a high degree of expert knowledge can be brought to bear in a debate concerning this enormous subject, the nuclear dimension. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has contributed so much in the pure research which has brought this country to its present level of nuclear know-how, and when at the end of this debate he makes his summary he will, I know, be conscious of the wholehearted support behind him. I would also hope that when the views of the Government are made known the faintheartedness which has been expressed so frequently in this debate will cease to be as discernible an ingredient as we have been led to believe.

May I express a personal appreciation to Lord Halsbury for the briefing with which he has supplied us all; it was delightfully simple, a kind of child's guide to the galaxy, especially the snakes and ladders of nuclear fission which put the whole thing into perspective, with its vertical and horizontal columns of isotopes and isobars. I visited Dounreay about two years ago as a layman and ever since in my own mind I having been evaluating my impressions, trying to fix this memorable visit, with all its implications relative to mankind, to civilisation; and trying to fix its place in the industrial revolution, above all its role for the future, when there is so much uncertainty and turmoil in the world around us.

The facts concerning all that Dounreay set out to do at the outset of its prescribed task and the degree of its achievement require no elaboration from myself. The prototype fast breeder reactor is now a fact of life. There it sits, in a remote corner of the realm, feeding its quota of electricity into the national grid. The air around it has a crystal quality, clear of any kind of pollution. The farmsteads around its perimeters benefit from the power source and yet are totally unaffected by any changes, other than normal ones, in the atmosphere. Likewise, the coastal waters and rivers.

Unlike all the impressions I once harboured as an ordinary member of the public regarding nuclear power generators, I came away with the overall conviction that the Dounreay prototype fast reactor has delivered the goods in a clinical package. Nothing has been left to chance. All conceivable contingencies have been given, and still are being given, a full-scale workout, either in the laboratory or as a scaled-down reality under working conditions.

It seeks now the inspiration and the political will to find its place in the economy and in the future of society. Seeking some guidance from the context of history, I recall having related to me the comment of one of my forebears when the main line railway station came to the Midlands. It was a somewhat lugubrious, "That marks the end of the feudal age". He had seen it all coming from the days of Stephenson's Rocket. But for the younger generation it was an open door to the world outside and was quickly made available. What a frighteningly short space of time it is from that Rocket to its Trident variation.

Were the founding fathers of the industrial revolution to look upon the state at which this country, and indeed the world, have now arrived as a result of their vision, their aspirations and their drive in putting them into effect, they would, I think, have pretty mixed feelings on revisiting this green and pleasant land, such as it is. Every step along the path of industrialisation seems to have carried with it a not inconsiderable penalty clause written into the small print, and which is now writ large across the face of the earth. A visit to the Coalbrookdale Museum, with its smelting furnaces cut into the hillside, shows that that was accompanied by a wholly unacceptable depredation of the surrounding woodlands to feed the furnaces, and no doubt human bondage played a large part.

The benefits of coal as the major source of fuel have been fraught with human misery on a vast scale, and already repercussions of atmospheric levels of sulphur dioxide are not only increasingly apparent but are becoming unacceptable. We burn, I am told, 1,000 years of primeval growth of forest every 24 hours and stocks might last us for about 300 years. What sort of a future to the environment does that portend? No one today views the subject of atmospheric pollution without alarm and apprehension.

Nature, my Lords, as farmers and gardeners are daily reminded, has the ability, when these penalty clauses are ignored, for massive retaliation. The writing is on the wall and the warnings steadily become more obvious. We can continue like Coleridge's Ancient Mariner who, having once turned round walks on, And turns no more his head; Because he knows, a fearful fiend Doth close behind him tread". Or indeed, we can look behind and look the fiend in the eye, and then consider what our immediate and imperative courses of action should be.

The fast breeder reactor, it is stated, cannot be functional in any meaningful way in less than 25 years, and we all know what that means. If there is now a concerted move away from these cumulative sins of the past and towards a new deal for the benefit at least of our grandchildren, then 25 years seems to me to be 25 years too late. We might as well forget it. Given the safeguards now made manifest by the evidence of the fast breeder reactor, with its nuclear dustbin capability gobbling up the waste toxic products of all the other nuclear plants and the weaponry, turning them into creative usable sources of power—as it were, swords into ploughshares in its modern counterpart—then in my book it has what is somewhat irreverently called in commercial circles "the Jesus factor". It has come at the right time. Dounreay presents us with a key to a door. The vista on the other side is one of reconstruction, reconstitution and conservation. It should be given the go-ahead with all speed.

7.18 p.m.

Lord Energlyn

My Lords, I should like to associate myself with my noble friend's kind words of thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for bringing this very important and crucial subject into your Lordships' House. I should also like, as it were, to re-emphasise the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, initiated by Lord Sherfield, regarding the reaction of people in and around Dounreay.

The noble Lord, Lord Hinton, was wise enough and had sufficient foresight to see that the only way to create support for this new technology was to enlighten the people and to remove from their thoughts all areas of fear. This he did in the most dramatic way. And so today we find in Caithness housewives talk as learnedly about nuclear fission as the average English housewife talks about various varieties of detergents. I do not think that is an overstatement. It was important to create this atmosphere. I should like to underline that, in praise of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, who, of course, is also renowned throughout the world as the pioneer of nuclear energy.

Now we have before us a deep concern, not so much for the nuts and bolts at Dounreay but for the people in the team. One does not assemble a team like that overnight. One breeds them like a reactor. So it is vitally important to look very carefully at the impact of Government policy upon the minds of people working in this erudite and attractive field of research. I think that, with respect, it has not been sufficiently underlined in this debate that Dounreay is a research and development laboratory. One is able to discuss in that laboratory all manner of subjects such as the desalination of water and the effect of radiation on bacteria. There are men there with wide ranging minds and if they are lost Britain will indeed have lost something irreplaceable. Having said that, we must allow the team to have a free range of their thinking. They must not be haunted by politics, otherwise their minds will be diverted from what they are trying to achieve.

One of the obstacles, as has been graphically pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, is this question of the steam-raising units of the reactor. We should not lose sight of the fact that all these reactors are basically furnaces trying to generate steam, and what we are asking is: Which is the safest and which is the cheapest? If it is a question of raising steam, as the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, so wisely pointed out, we should pay more attention now to what we are doing with the steam. We should allow these dedicated men at Dounreay the freedom of thought to look again at the use of steam to generate electricity. It is steam that generates electricity, not the nuclear fuel.

This brings me to a technology which is not very well known. It is a technology called magneto hydrodynamics. Your Lordships should not shudder at the phrase, it is a simple picture. Electrical energy can be extracted from a hot blast of gas by applying a magnetic field. It is as simple as that. All that is necessary is to insert electrodes into the gas and a current flows out of the electrodes as direct current. Your Lordships may think that this is too imaginative to be believed and say "Yes, I remember seeing that at school. Surely it is a laboratory experiment." It is nothing of the kind. Magneto hydrodynamics is now one of the potent units that we can add to a steam raiser. Therefore, instead of boiling water, we put hot gas through pipes and through magnets and pull out the electricity without any moving parts. In other words, the molecules take the place of the copper wire in the electrical generator.

If your Lordships think that I am again being a boffin, may I point out that 200 kilometres to the south east of Moscow there is actually being built now a 500 megawatt power station using magneto hydrodynamics. We could put a hydrodynamic unit in Dounreay with the greatest of ease, but we must give the men freedom to do it.

What would be the spin-off? The spin-off is quite remarkable because with this demonstration we can apply that technology to the consumption of coal. The Russians are using coal in their 500 megawatt station. If we prove in Dounreay that this can be done, consider the impact this would have on the steam raising facilities of this country. I mention that simply to emphasise the fact, or rather the important point, that we should do everything in our power to preserve the remarkable team that we have in Dounreay and the facilities there for nuclear research.

7.27 p.m.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for moving this Motion and doing so with such expertise and in simple language which can be understood by laymen. He has certainly initiated a most notable debate. As every noble Lord has said, it is an important subject. As my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said about the fast reactor, "This must go on". And this view has certainly been shared by every noble Lord who has spoken. There is an admirable consensus of opinion in every part of the House.

Although the United Kingdom is fortunately well endowed with indigenous supplies of coal, oil and gas, nevertheless looking to the future we shall certainly need nuclear power, as has been stated in the debate. We need to develop nuclear power and to give this a growing share of our electricity needs, in order to release the fossil fuels for turning into oil and natural gas when our North Sea supplies begin to run out. There are some who argue that coal could supply all our energy needs—that is, coal for burning in power stations, for liquefying into oil and as a substitution for natural gas—but I am sure it would be unwise to rely on a single fuel, particularly as there are limits to the rate at which coal extraction can be improved with present technological knowledge.

I believe that in a thermal reactor one tonne of uranium can produce as much electricity as 25,000 tonnes of coal. But supplies of uranium will come to an end one day. It is a finite fuel. We must, therefore, use those supplies wisely. As has been said, a fast reactor can extract from uranium about 60 times as much energy as the present types of thermal reactor. The cost of electricity would therefore not be so dependent on the price of the raw material. This is particularly important when the world population is expected to double over the next 50 years. In the United Kingdom we have a stock of about 20,000 tonnes of unburnt uranium. If we use this in fast reactors it would equal the potential energy output of our entire coal reserves—the part that is known to be recoverable.

This is a non-party matter and, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, we must make a commitment now and stick to it on a non-political basis. I therefore welcome the news that the Government are to continue with a substantial development programme for the Dounreay fast reactor. However, it is disappointing, as has been said throughout the debatè, that this is to be on a longer timescale than was originally planned—that is, well into the second decade of the next century. We seem to have allowed the French to take the lead. Of course, the French do not have great reserves of coal and cannot afford the luxury of procrastination. The Japanese are also pressing ahead, as they are in so many other fields.

The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, referred to collaboration with other countries, but he did not go into detail. I do not know why he was so unforthcoming with information.

I should like to ask the Government if it is a fact that senior officials visited Japan in October to discuss collaboration on a long-term basis. I thought that the noble Earl, Lod Mansfield, could have given us some details about this as I have read about it in the press. May I ask what agreements we have with our European partners? I should like to endorse everything that the noble Duke, the Duke of Portland, said with his great knowledge of Europe. I think that we need more information.

What is the position, in particular, over the negotiations with France, when the knowledge and experience derived from the French Super-Phénix and the work done at Dounreay and in Cumbria could be pooled to our mutual benefit? Are we going to have the same international collaboration, as is happening at Culham over research into fusion, which, of course, was set up by the Labour Government? What is to be the position of the many scientists working at Dounreay, if development is to proceed at a slower pace? Will there be any redundancies? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will tell us. And, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, will this delay lead to a brain-drain, with top scientists leaving for other countries?

I understand that the French Super-Phénix project is scheduled to produce electricity by mid-1984. Our own programme means, apparently, that any viable commercial system will not be producing electricity for another 30 years—well into the next century. So once again we are last in the race and the bottom of the class.

The Government have chosen the middle course between two options—at least this is better than shutting down Dounreay altogether. Let us hope that the development programme will be allowed to continue even at this slower rate: and here I commend the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, to the Government. I hope that they will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest it. In the years ahead I hope that this programme will not be made the victim of dillydallying or financial stringency—because you never know these days what is going to be sacrificed.

In conclusion, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer some of the strictures made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in particular, and by other noble Lords, on the Government's statement of 29th November, which I think in many ways—although as my noble friend Lord Ross said it is beautifully written—is not at all satisfactory as far as information is concerned.

7.34 p.m.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, if I may be allowed to use an unparliamentary expression, "Wow"! Some months ago I let it be known selectively that I regarded a debate on the fast reactor long overdue. It is appropriate, therefore, that I should be the person responsible for giving the Government's reply to this spectacular debate. I am not a ducker of debates, but when, and on what subject, is of course a matter for the usual channels. Noble Lords have referred to a possible future Statement; I am unable to make any comment on that at all, nor indeed, for obvious reasons, on a future debate on a future Statement which may not happen.

However, before I go into the main arguments of this debate, I feel that some congratulations are in order. First, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for having persuaded his peers that his Motion should be selected as the first Cross-Bench Wednesday debate this Session. Let no one underestimate this very considerable feat. It gives me great pleasure to reiterate the statement in the speech of my noble friend Lord Mansfield that the Government as a whole share my feelings. Secondly, congratulations are due to all noble Lords for the extreme clarity with which they have expressed their thoughts on one of the most difficult scientific issues facing the Government and the country today.

Since I arrived here, I have come to expect that such technical and complicated subjects will become as clear as crystal when explained by the noble Earl. But I did not expect the House as a whole to have taken to heart the point made in the early 1970s by the late Michael Flanders when he said: One of the great problems of the world today is undoubtedly this problem of not being able to talk to scientists because we do not understand science. They cannot talk to us because they do not understand anything else, poor dears". This cannot be said of today's debate.

Congratulations are also due to those noble Lords who were good enough to give me advance warning of what they intended to say, possibly to ensure that I did not lower the tone of the debate. I am truly grateful to them and I only hope that I do not let them down. Finally, congratulations are due to my right honourable friend for his excellent timing in publishing the Government's decision on the future of the Dounreay project which has been referred to many times already and which I feel has given this debate rather more bite than it might otherwise have had.

The points that have been made are many and various and it would be quite impossible for me to refer to them all. I assure your Lordships that the Government will take careful note of each one of them, whether or not I respond this evening. If appropriate, I shall write to the noble Lord concerned. The central theme of the noble Earl's Motion is the need for commercial fast reactors. I do not intend to follow him down flights of nomenclatural fancy, but the Government have done and said nothing in recent months which differs in any way from the sentiments which he expressed. We fully endorse this.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, and the noble Lord Flowers, have said, the question remains: When? Currently we are progressing with our programme of thermal reactors and have already expressed the view that, subject to necessary consents and safety clearances being obtained, the next thermal reactor order placed should be of the type that is the most common worldwide. I refer, of course, to the pressurised water reactor. This has the dual advantage of being a proven technology and a foundation for export of the associated hardware: valves, tubes and the like. The Government have done just what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has asked of us. In short, I agree with the noble Lord's analysis of the time-scale.

Given our thermal reactor programme and that with the lead time the life of a power station is some 40 years, it would be economically unviable to start the long process of getting on with the commercial-scale demonstration fast reactor just yet. We are, however, past the research stage and into the development stage. Knowing that we shall need to go to commercial series ordering some time in the early part of the next century, we must, as noble Lords have stressed, not lose the knowledge and the impact that has already been gained.

We have reaffirmed our commitment to a substantial on-going fast reactor development programme. Some major challenges—for example, improving the economics and reliability of the system—remain to be faced by all the nations developing the technology, and it will be very costly. This in my book does not mean going slow, although it may look that way to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. We therefore approached the matter with a view to international collaboration provided that the terms were right. I shall come back to this point a little later. This will continue to make the best use of existing resources and experience at Dounreay and is, we feel, the right way to approach the matter.

While I can do nothing other than praise the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on his science, I must take issue with him on the subject of economics. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, also referred initially to the economics of this whole question and took the view of my noble friend Lord Mansfield. It is most unlikely that the fast reactor will be economically viable until the early part of the next century. The reasons for this are that the long-term availability and price of uranium now look much more favourable. On the supply side, the political constraints on the mining industry in some countries have been eased and more deposits have been proved. On the demand side, the deferrals in nuclear programmes worldwide have markedly reduced projections of uranium demand. As availability and price of uranium is one of the most important factors determining the competitiveness of fast reactors, the time-scale for their introduction now looks longer than seemed likely at an earlier stage. However, the Government are confident that series ordering of fast reactors will be necessary early in the next century.

It is true that the availability of spent fuel arising from the thermal reactor programme will have a beneficial effect on fast reactor operating costs. But even taking this into account, fast reactor electricity would, at the present capital cost differential and at present uranium prices, be significantly less economic than electricity from thermal reactors. A continuing aim of the Atomic Energy Authority's fast reactor development programme has been to reduce this capital cost differential. The noble Lord, Lord Hinton, mentioned the new conceptual design of fast reactor announced by the authority last year. This is a significant step forward in this direction, though further development work is still required as it is still, as I say, at the conceptual stage.

The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, spoke about the length of time that the Government have taken to review the fast reactor policy. It is only fair to tell him that the Government have effectively been committed to this review since taking office—as they have, indeed, to a review of the whole paraphernalia of Government for which they became responsible. But this particular exercise only started in earnest earlier this year, around Easter; it therefore took some seven or eight months. Considering that this is the Government's largest civil researach and development programme, a thorough review of this magnitude could not have been conducted in any shorter time-scale, and I hope that when the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, comes to reply—

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, I should have said "Governments".

Lord Skelmersdale

Ah, my Lords, that is rather different. Had I been asked that question I might have given a different answer.

The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, asked at some length about double-speak and asked what on earth the statement given in my right honourable friend's Written Answer was all about. He suggested that the statement disguises a major setback for the United Kingdom's fast reactor programme. The answer to this is quite obviously, no; it is the opposite. The Government are fully committed to the Atomic Energy Authority's research and development programme, with its objective of developing the fast reactor as a successful commercial technology for the longer term.

Several noble lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, were worried about the effects on jobs in North-East Caithness. I agree that the valuable experience of individual people who have been in the project since its beginning—the people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, told us, you breed; they are not made—is obviously important, and I can tell the House that jobs at Dounreay will remain at broadly their present level. I feel, as obviously does the noble Lord, that this is extremely important, given the unique facility that the noble Lord mentioned of the local population knitting in with visiting scientists.

Several noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—who seems to have mentioned just about everything—spoke about the morale at Dounreay. It is right that the Government should evaluate the progress of all the projects they pay for from time to time. It should be done as quickly as possible in order to do the least possible damage to morale, and I believe that my right honourable friend has achieved this. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned what is commonly known as the brain-drain. I am advised by the Atomic Energy Authority that there has been no significant loss of scientific or technical personnel from Dounreay during the period of the Government's review of fast reactor policy. In the year ending 30th September 1982 115 staff have resigned out of a total establishment of 2,300. The authority considers that this is generally comparable to figures for previous years.

Almost all the speakers in this debate tonight have speculated on the lead time. They have asked: what does the future hold for the fast reactor? It is a fair question which, I believe, deserves a fair answer, a fact pointed out with customary clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. The fact that the Government believe that series ordering of fast reactors will be needed in the early part of the next century does not, of course, mean that the next major steps towards commercialisation will be delayed until then.

Noble Lords can be reassured that we intend to press on with the programme at the optimum speed consistent with sound economic sense and with the results of the development programme, which is to continue at Dounreay. Quite obviously, there will be a requirement for a lead reactor well before the series ordering stage. The Government acknowledge and support this prospect. Although we do not believe that a start on this lead reactor needs to be made in the immediate future, we shall make a commitment as soon as we believe it is appropriate. In the meantime, there is time to develop and refine the technology. We must make the best of this.

The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, gave us a most interesting economic view. Obviously, I am not allowed to ask rhetorical questions from this Box, but I can assure the noble Lord that his argument has been taken into account in our discussions on the fast reactor at Dounreay. Indeed, we pre-empted him by deciding to get the prices of our major fuels into broad balance when we first came into office, and we believe that we have achieved this.

On the use of nuclear power stations, the Government believe that, as long as they are built to time and cost, they will provide the cheapest method of achieving base load electricity. With the falling supply of carboniferous fuels—not surprisingly, a fact referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—which are, of course, finite, they are bound to become more expensive as their life becomes exhausted. Natural uranium is also a finite resource, and as there is no doubt that the fast reactor is the best way forward, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, we take some comfort in our decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked about the generating costs of the pressurised water reactor visà-vis the fast reactor. Pressurised water reactor costs are a matter for the CEGB. They will no doubt deal thoroughly with the economic aspects at the forthcoming Sizewell inquiry. I shall be very disappointed if they fail to achieve this. At this stage it is far too early to make any reliable estimates of fast reactor generating costs. The noble Lord also asked about the Atomic Energy Authority's terms of reference for a revised fast reactor programme. He asked whether they include provision for combined heat and power. I would be glad to know whether he considers that the fast reactor raises CHP issues which are not relevant to other steam-raising electricity generation plant. In the absence of an answer, I assume that it is the same for both, and perhaps I can delay an answer to another time.

Several noble Lords mentioned the subject of safety. I believe that the safety record of the British nuclear industry is second to none. During 25 years—some 300 reactor years of commercial operation at nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom—no accident has occurred which has given rise to significant public hazard. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and with the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, on this. We have an excellent safety record, which is reflected by the concern for safety shared by successive Govern- ments and the nuclear industry since the earliest days of nuclear power. Probably in no other industry has so much time, effort and money been devoted to the maintenance and supervision of safety. Very high standards of safety in design, construction and operation apply throughout the industry and statutory safeguards exist to ensure that these high standards are maintained.

Nevertheless, the Government are not complacent. Every effort will be made to ensure that these high standards are maintained and, where appropriate, improved. Also, through the Royal Commission and other bodies so ably served by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, the public should be completely and utterly reassured. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, also referred to the possible location of a commercial-scale fast reactor and to a public inquiry. Obviously, it is far too early to say anything about the location. It is the Government's firm intention that an application to build such a reactor would be subject to a full public inquiry, but I do not agree—to answer some other noble Lords—that five years is the time required for such a process. I do not anticipate five years for the PWR inquiry announced at the beginning of this year and which is already under way. The main hearings of course start on 11th January next year.

I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, on the good sense of the people of north east Caithness in positively encouraging the expansion of Dounreay. They have taken to heart successive Governments' assurances on safety. In the same way, the fact that Dounreay provides so much of the local employment obviously came to weigh heavily in the Government's thinking in the course of our review. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to the lead times for nuclear projects; and the fast reactor, I should tell him, will be no exception. We are committed to a full public inquiry before the next reactor is built.

The noble Lords, Lord Kearton and Lord Hinton, and others, talked about the problems associated with the PFR. The PFR reactor itself has operated at very high availability during its six years in operation. The greater difficulty has been in the steam raising plant, particularly the steam generators themselves, where periodically weld leaks have meant that the reactor has needed to operate at below design output. There is every confidence, however, that these problems can be overcome and that the plant will continue to operate for many years.

One noble Lord, I cannot for the life of me at the moment remember which one, spoke about the cost of this—it was the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches, I think—and suggested that it would be something like £23 million spread over two years. The answer to that is that I have not the slightest idea, but since we are paying something like £98 million for the development programme it would, of course, come out of that money, so that no extra costs would be involved.

As last year's Government White Paper on nuclear power explained, there is no straightforward choice to be made between investment in, for example, power stations and investment in energy conservation. Both are necessary. It is not a simple choice of alternatives but of making the best and most economic use of all our resources the diversity of which is for individual suppliers and consumers to consider.

To the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, to whom the last remark was addressed, I think I must fairly say that we have not been shilly-shallying about. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority have for many years participated in a number of international collaborative arrangements on fast reactor research and development. These have largely been undertaken with the main overseas countries with major fast reactor programmes; with France and the USA and, more recently, Japan. At present important agreements exist between the UKAEA and the United States Department of Energy covering information exchanges and reciprocal irradiation experiments, and between the UKAEA and the PNC in Japan covering information exchange in a broad number of areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, asked about the cost of reprocessing Dounreay fuel. I think it would be appropriate, since this is complicated, if I were to write to him, and also I would not like to pre-empt the debate on the Second Reading of the Energy Bill. If I may, I shall write to him on that subject. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said that we had had little commercially over the years from nuclear power. I must say that I could not agree with him less. Currently 11 per cent. of all electricity is generated from nuclear power stations. When the current AGRs all come on stream this will go up to some 20 per cent.

Viscount Hanworth

My Lords, I do not think I said that at all. Could the noble Lord repeat what he thinks I said, because I do not believe that I said that at all?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I was certainly here for the introduction of the noble Viscount's remarks. What he said was that the country had had little commercially from nuclear power. Those were his words. We may, or may not, disagree on the subject. Perhaps we can both apologise to each other, if appropriate.

Viscount Hanworth

My Lords, what I intended to imply was that we had not really reaped any important reward from our lead in the field from exports abroad. That was the shorthand of what I was trying to say.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, in that case I was even more dense when listening to the noble Viscount than I expected. Perhaps when we have both read Hansard we may come to an amicable agreement on this, and I shall be able to answer him rather better than I can tonight.

Lord Hankey

My Lords, might I interpolate? We have in fact sold a power reactor to Japan and another to Italy.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I am not sure but I believe there is one on stream going to India in the near future, so all is not yet lost. The noble Duke, the Duke of Portland, with his vast experience of the European nuclear scene, referred especially to collaboration with a view to saving the public Exchequer. The more we have formal collaboration with other successful countries, the more we as a country will both learn and contribute and stand to benefit from the commercial results. I do not believe that the only criterion should be to be first, in which I obviously disagree with many noble Lords. I believe, like the noble Duke, that it should be to get the best value for the consumer and hence for the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Rugby, not surprisingly, gave us a complete run around the historical energy field. He is, of course, correct. Nuclear energy provides the least pollution of any system currently known to man as long as the waste products are carefully and safely disposed of. As the Government's White Paper made clear earlier this year, there are no technical reasons to prevent this from being achieved.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way on that sentence? That is a huge claim after Windscale. I am reading now and will ultimately attend a seminar on radiation. I would not go so far as to say that. There is a lot still to be learned so far as radiation and pollution are concerned. Monthly we are taking account of the effects of radiation day by day in milk and vegetables, as the Ministry of Agriculture knows.

Lord Skelmersdale

No, my Lords, I will not retract or reconsider the statement I have just made. What I said was on nuclear waste—not production—there are no technical reasons to prevent safety from being achieved, and I stick by that.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, may I come back? I apologise but it is important for the record. The Irish Sea is already one of the radioactive polluted seas, and seepage from Windscale takes place. That is known.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, if I may be allowed to, I shall come back to that, but I shall try to answer the noble Lord.

Lord Davies of Leek

I am sorry I interrupted.

Lord Skelmersdale

I agree that it should be on the record. The noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, took us on, if I may so call it, a slight flight of scientific fancy into the future. The commercial fusion power is a much longer-term prospect than the fast reactor. The Government fully recognise that fusion is a potential energy source of great importance. However, the costs and time-scales involved in developing a commercial reactor are enormous. Therefore, the best way to proceed is on the basis of the widest possible international collaboration. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned Culham, and this is of course exactly what I am talking about. This has the twin merits of pooling resources and the wide dissemination of research results. The other scientific suggestions for producing electricity in the future that the noble Lord mentioned may well come about, but I should stress in the future. They are inevitably even further off than fusion power.

I have a rather unhappy answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, on the subject of pollution of the Irish Sea. I am told that this does not impose any significant environmental hazard, whatever that may mean. I shall obviously have to come back to him. Perhaps it would be appropriate if the noble Lord would consider putting down a Question for Written Answer on this subject.

The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said at the end that we must come to a genuine cross-party agreement on nuclear power. How I wish that could be so, but I do not think it is really realistic. Not only are there now five political parties in Parliament, but it must be the responsibility of the one forming the Government to decide the delicate fine-tuning, even if the other parties to the agreement do not agree at that moment.

It is essential therefore that nuclear power—whether we are talking of today's thermal reactors or tomorrow's fast reactors—should be seen in the broad context of world energy demand. Fossil fuels, particularly oil, which meet 45 per cent. of total demand, have a finite life. Nuclear power cannot be judged as an end in itself, but it can play a vital role in reducing the world's dependence on fossil fuels. Safe and economic nuclear power is therefore an essential ingredient in a balanced energy strategy, and after a quarter of a century of the safe operation of nuclear power stations, this country stands in an excellent position to take advantage of the substantial benefits that nuclear power can offer.

The fast reactor represents the next generation of nuclear power stations. As we have discussed today, commercial fast reactor stations are not required immediately, but the Government believe they will be economic and thus be vitally needed in, as has been said many times, the early part of the next century. The Government are committed to ensuring that, when we need it, reliable, safe and efficient technology is available to us. Today's debate shows that the House endorses our aim. Last but not least, this debate—with its split, incidentally, of speakers (10 hereditary and eight life Peers)—must put one more nail in the coffin of the abolitionists of this House.

8.2 p.m.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, we have had a very good debate on a very interesting subject, and I thank all noble Lords who have participated, for both what they have said and the patience with which they have listened to me and to one another. Needless to say, I am delighted to think that my initiative has been thought timely. I am particularly happy at the tributes that have been paid by the Government and noble Lords in all parts of the House to the quality of the staff at Dounreay. It is extremely heartening for people as far away from the centre of things as they are to know that this high court of Parliament knows of their existence and applauds their efforts and enterprise.

I have had the pleasure of sitting in a Select Committee on my own Bill with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and I am well aware of his capacities; it is always a pleasure to hear him at the Dispatch Box, with his quick assimilative grasp of the matters before us. I listened with great interest to all the replies he gave, and there is only one point which I hope he will relay back to his right honourable friend as, I believe, the message from the House arising from the debate. It is that, whatever Government policy may be, the Government Statement has failed to couple the minimum maturation time for a requirement to the minimum lead time for the delivery of the necessary plant. If the lead time and the requirement time are the same, then we have not got time in hand. That is the common factor in all the criticisms that have been made, and I hope the noble Lord will pass that back to his right honourable friend.

On this question of lead time, there seems to be quite a consensus that it is about 20 years. The noble Viscount. Lord Thurso, gave a bracket of 19 to 29, which was not far from the bracket of 19 to 30 which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Hinton. But whereas we seem more or less in agreement with one another on the total lead time, we reach it by somewhat incompatible conclusions. I do not wish to abuse the fact that I have the last word to enter into an argument with Lord Hinton, but his figures and mine for the trouble with the steam unit at Dounreay are very different. I have allowed in my mind about two years to put it right; he feels it requires seven.

On the other hand, when it comes to the time necessary to run the reactor before you feel safe to indulge in serial ordering, I would require 10 for that, whereas he allowed two. There are a lot of what accountants would call compensating errors here, and clearly this is a technical matter which should be debated in another forum in terms of a device called the critical path, into which I will not go, save to say that when you build a house you do not build it all at once. You build the foundations first, then the walls and then you put the roof on. While you are building the foundations, there is still time to decide on the final design of the chimney stack.

In so far as there is a very great deal of civil engineering work to be done in constructing one of these huge plants, that gives one time in hand to settle some of the details of certain matters that have not yet been agreed. I was at Dounreay 18 months ago and they thought then that they had the answer to the superheater leaking points. They have produced an answer, but I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, thinks it a very good one. I shall not argue that with him now because that would not be right.

It only remains for me, once more, to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at seven minutes past eight o'clock.

Back to