Nuclear Power Station Policy (Hansard, 8 October 1990)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater)
My Lords, the Government have accepted the planning inspector's recommendation after a long inquiry that statutory consent and planning permission should be given to Hinkley Point C. But investment approval depends on the outcome of a full review of nuclear power in 1994.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, has the Minister read paragraph 27 of the inspector's report? I refer to this sentence: I also place much more weight on the disadvantages relating to the consequences of a serious accident (however unlikely or remote such an accident would be) and to the adverse effect of the development on the locality than on the other disadvantages partly because of their inherent seriousness and partly because they are not speculative and fluctuating matters but are disadvantages which would inevitably result from the construction of the plant". In view of that, can the noble Viscount say why the Secretary of State has given his consent in principle to the building of the plant?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the noble Lord quotes rather selectively from a paragraph. The inspector considered safety and the effects on health in some detail and on balance came down in favour of planning permission being given. That has been supported by my right honourable friend.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the project is totally opposed by all local authorities? Is it not a little odd to give planning consent so early to a proposition that necessarily depends upon investment consent being given at a much later date? Will he state when that investment consent is likely? Is it usual to give planning consent so far ahead of a possible investment consent? I believe that everyone in the area, and a large number of people in this House, hope that it never will be given.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, it would be quite unreasonable for the Secretary of State simply to sit on the inspector's report for a period of four years until the nuclear review. It is quite common for many projects not to start immediately after planning permission. Finance often takes a long time to put together. The inspector was quite clear that a delay in implementation was not a ground for refusing consent.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, it may be true that in many cases it takes a long time for projects to get under way once planning permission has been granted. Nevertheless, is not four to five years a very long time to wait before a decision is made on whether the project will go ahead once permission has been granted? If it is simply a holding position by the Government in order to allow them to build a PWR at 8 Hinkley Point in 1994 should they so desire, will planning permission be sought for a similar PWR at Wylfa B on that basis?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the last part of the noble Lord's question is entirely another matter. However, before he made his report, the inspector had in front of him the fact that the Government had announced that they would review nuclear power in 1994. He considered that that was not a reason for not making a report, and the Secretary of State decided that it was not a reason for holding it up.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister but I am afraid that mine is not another question. The Government have stated that they will review their nuclear policy in 1994 and have applied for planning permission for a PWR at Hinkley. If in 1994 they take the decision to go ahead with PWRs is it not the case that they will need planning permission in respect of all the sites and not for only one? Therefore, that is part of the same Question.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, the situation will be reviewed in 1994. Planning permission will be required for the building of any further PWRs and inquiries will follow if local councils object.

The Earl of Halsbury
My Lords, does the Minister agree that 1994 is not a magic number? It is a date subject to review. Would it not be folly to order another PWR before Sizewell B, which I visited during the Recess, has worked satisfactorily for a couple of years?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his observations. The building of Sizewell B is now ahead of schedule. The information gleaned as a result by 1994 will be put into the system so that the review can take place.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, is it not a fact that but for the Government's privatisation programme the project may have gone ahead immediately in any event?

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I do not believe that the statement is entirely true. However, the noble Lord makes his own point.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, arising from the Minister's Answer, I am aware that on balance the inspector came down in favour of the building of the plant. However, in view of the quotation which I gave, are we not entitled to expect the Secretary of State to protect the public on the basis of the evidence produced by the inspector in his report? In addition, can we not expect the Secretary of State to protect the future of the industry in view of the statement made to the inquiry by Professor Ulph, the economic assessor? He said that there cannot be a satisfactory estimate of the capital cost, and hence generating cost, of Hinkley C.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, Professor Ulph's point concerned uncertainties about the economics. In his decision letter the Secretary of State made clear the fact that the uncertainty was a disadvantage that he had to take into account. However, in itself it did not present grounds for refusing consent. It reinforces the Government's view that the economics of nuclear 9 power should be thoroughly reviewed before further major investment is made. I made that point clearly in my first Answer.