§ 3 p.m.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect the public inquiry into the building of a pressurised water nuclear reactor at Sizewell to complete its work and on what date it is expected that the inquiry's report and recommendations will be received.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon)My Lords, this is a matter for the inspector of the inquiry. The report and recommendations will be presented to the 143 Secretary of State by the inspector when he has assessed all the evidence gathered throughout the inquiry.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, does not the noble Earl see that Answer as being as unsatisfactory to himself as it is to me? Will he confirm that the main inquiry opened on 11th January 1982—I am sorry, 1983–16 months ago, and that its duration and the escalating cost of over £10 million are giving grave cause for concern? Under these circumstances, is it not desirable that, if we are to have a continuing nuclear power programme, we should in the country's best interest go along the AGR fast reactor road. as was implicit in our own Select Committee's report?
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord corrected himself on the date of the inquiry because it actually started two days after I reached the department and I shall not know what to do when the inquiry is over. I should correct the noble Lord's figures. The overall cost of the inquiry is just over £1 million at the moment. Obviously, now that the inquiry is running it would not be for the Government to do anything but await the just verdict of that inquiry, and we must do so. Therefore, I cannot comment on the AGRs.
§ Baroness Airey of AbingdonMy Lords, may I ask how much of the taxpayers' money has been spent on services and parts in anticipation that the PWR will be chosen? What will happen about this money? How much will have been wasted if the AGR is chosen, as I hope it will be?
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's predilection for AGRs and, again, I cannot comment on what she says at the moment. The amount of money so far spent by the board is about £89 million. The bulk of that expenditure is on design and development work. As my noble friend is aware, an additional £12 million was spent on the ordering of long-lead materials.
§ The Earl of LauderdaleMy Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the current uncertainties about the future of the mining industry argue for pushing ahead with the nuclear power programme?
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, again I must go back to what I originally said. This is one of the issues which the inquiry is considering and I do not think it would be right for me to comment.
The Earl of HalsburyMy Lords, can the noble Earl give some assurance that, before pushing ahead, an independent assessment will be made of the adequacy of the provisions for material movement throughout the district which at the moment depends entirely on the Ministry of Transport?
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, I very much hope that the aspect raised by the noble Earl is being considered by the inquiry.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, as regards the costs of the inquiry, is it not a fact that the;£1million mentioned by the noble Earl relates to his department alone and not to the parties to the inquiry? If all the costs, including the costs incurred by the CEGB, are taken into account, is it not a fact that they will exceed £10 million?
§ The Earl of AvonMy Lords, the difference between the noble Lord and myself is purely on what one means by the inquiry. So far as the overall cost of the inquiry is concerned—and not the CEGB's other costs—those are the figures I am giving. The noble Lord is quoting what the CEGB itself is involved in.