Electricity Supply Industry: Privatisation (Hansard, 4 July 1990)

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the preparation for the flotations is taking place on the basis of the best available information and costings. They are wholly satisfied with the advice that they are receiving on the privatisation. The decision not to privatise the 2098 nuclear industry was taken in the light of all the relevant information. The future of nuclear power will be reviewed in 1994.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, the Minister will understand when I direct my supplementary question to the second half of my Question on the Order Paper. Is he aware that in an article in last Sunday's Sunday Express Mr. John Wakeham made the categorical statement that nuclear power in this country is not finished? In terms of the requirement of nuclear power on an international basis because of the population explosion, is the Minister aware that unless the moratorium of 1994 is lifted immediately it will simply mean that the French nuclear industry will continue to laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of our industry? May I plead with the Minister to urge Mr. Wakeham to lift that moratorium in the interests of everybody concerned?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, we are completing Sizewell B and will review the prospects for future nuclear capacity in 1994. Apart from the contribution to diversity in fuel supply, nuclear power has important environmental benefits. It does not contribute to acid rain and Sizewell B alone will avoid the emission of 300 million tonnes of CO₂ over its lifetime. I understand the noble Lord's concern about the moratorium but it is up to the nuclear industry to prove itself before that time.

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that there can be no reliable costings for nuclear power? Will he agree that that is so for two reasons? First, there is a lack of political decision over the future of the fast reactor, which will consume the by-products of the thermal reactor. Secondly, there is the enormously extended timescale over which these decisions can be taken. Will he further confirm that for the next 40 years Torness and Heysham II will be turning out plutonium as a by-product on which no reliable value can be placed as a credit against the cost of electricity?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the noble Earl makes an extremely valid point. To date the nuclear programme has been undertaken on a bipartisan basis.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, the noble Viscount reminded us that in 1994 there will be a review of the future of the nuclear industry in this country. Will he indicate whether at the same time there will be a review of the privatised organisation in view of the fact that there are many people who feel that it should have been done differently and that after three or four years of experience it might well need to be reviewed?

§ Viscount Ullswater
No, my Lords, I can give no further undertaking.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, my noble friend's Question referred to adequate preparation and information for privatisation. Will the noble 2099 Viscount confirm that a warning that it would not be possible to privatise the nuclear industry was given in August 1988 by the financial advisers to the Government? It was given 15 months before the programme was abandoned. Will he further confirm that that warning was not sent by the department as a document to the Select Committee of another place which studied this matter? It therefore blamed the financial advisers for what was after all a Government error.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the department and the financial advisers supplied the committee with full and wide-ranging information. The Select Committee has expressed its appreciation of that. However, there were many letters and meetings between the department and its advisers over the whole period.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, will the Minister inform my noble friend that the nuclear industry has no future and that therefore there is no need to speculate upon it?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, no, I cannot agree with the noble Lord in his premise.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Viscount—

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, we have now had 33 minutes of Question time. Perhaps I may suggest that we keep an eye on the time. Three noble Lords opposite wish to intervene. I suggest that we hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams, then another noble Lord, and then the noble Lord, Lord Dean. Perhaps we can then bring this Question to an end.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I should like to press the noble Viscount on my previous question. Is it not the case that Kleinwort Benson supplied the Select Committee with two letters that it had written to the department? One was dated 11th September 1987, and one was sent on 6th November 1989. However, if the August 1988 letter, which was the crucial letter saying that this was not a viable prospect, was not supplied to the Select Committee by the Department of Energy, why not?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the various letters that were provided for the Select Committee were made available on the basis that that was the information required by the Select Committee. I go back to what I said to the noble Lord: the Select Committee was thankful, and expressed its thanks in its report, for the amount of evidence that it received from the department.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that three Members from the Labour Party should speak. My noble friend Lord Hanworth has risen on a number of occasions but has not been invited to speak. Will the noble Lord please comment?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount. I saw three noble Lords rising on the Opposition Benches. I did not see another noble Lord. We have now had 35 minutes of Question time. I think that it is reasonable to hear the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, who was on his feet, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and then to call it a day.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, with respect, it is not reasonable to have three Members from the Labour Benches speaking and none from this Bench.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am trying to be as courteous as I can to noble Lords. I am in the hands of the House. On this occasion perhaps the noble Viscount might have been a little quicker on his feet.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, the noble Viscount said that there were certain responsibilities on the industry to supply the Government with information. Can the Minister say whether the industry has been informed of that responsibility?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I indicated to the noble Lord that it will be up to Nuclear Electric to run the nuclear industry until 1994. It will be on that record, and other matters, that a decision will be taken.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I consider the question posed by my noble friend Lord Jenkins that the nuclear industry has no future is absolute bunk? Is he aware that I was directing my Question to the pursuit of the international, not domestic, provision of power? Does he recall that your Lordships' Select Committee recently debated this very question? It indicated the need for a substantial increase of power in the near future because of the population explosion internationally. I am trying to make the point to the Government that the moratorium that they placed on the industry until 1994 is seriously damaging our nuclear industry's capacity to compete with our main competitor, the French. Will the Government consider that issue as a matter of urgency?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said. I am sure that he will note what the noble Lord has said, as I do. However, I cannot go back on what I have said about 1994.