§ Mr. ClaphamTo ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the investment of the fossil fuel levy in Sizewell B by Nuclear Electric; [24570]
(2) what was the application of premium income received by Nuclear Electric under the fossil fuel obligation contract with regional electricity companies, reimbursed through the fossil fuel levy, for each year from 1990–91 to 1994–95; and what estimates have been made for the use of this income up to the end of 1996. [24572]
§ Mr. EggarPayments to Nuclear Electric from the fossil fuel levy are not hypothecated to any particular purpose. It follows that the information requested is unavailable.
The economics of the Sizewell B project were examined exhaustively during the planning inquiry, which gave planning consent for its construction, and again in 1990 by the Government when they confirmed the decision to continue construction.
§ Mr. MilburnTo ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1994,Official Report, columns 257–59, if he will list those projects in the civil nuclear power industry which have received European regional development funding over the last 10 years indicating, in each case, (a) the level of funding and (b) when it was received. [24673]
§ Mr. Llew SmithTo ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the basis for the assumption made in the footnote to the table at paragraph 5.22 and in paragraph 5.23 of the nuclear review White Paper, Cm 2860, that the lifetime cost for electricity from a Sizewell C pressurized water reactor would fall in the range of 3.5p to 5.75p per kilowatt hour. [24400]
§ Mr. EggarThe judgment that lifetime generation costs of Sizewell C would fall within a range of 3.5p to 5.75p per kilowatt hour, expressed in 1990 price,s was based on an assessment of evidence to the nuclear review. The range takes account of uncertainties in such key variables as capital cost, station load factor and the required rate of return for a private sector nuclear generation project. These uncertainties are discussed in154W chapter 4 of the White Paper. The range quoted in paragraph 5.23 covers the bulk of the range of cost estimates given in evidence to the review as reported in chapter 4.
§ Mr. Llew SmithTo ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to paragraphs 7.30 and 7.31 of the nuclear review White Paper, Cm2860, if he will make a statement on the ways in which those existing nuclear plant sites which jointly contain Magnox reactors and advanced gas cooled or pressurized water reactors which currently share common safety, waste management, railhead or other facilities will have these roles and assets divided between the Magnox public company and the private GB Co. operating on the same sites after privatisation. [24661]
§ Mr. EggarArrangements will be put in place to ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of all the nuclear stations currently operated by Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric when the AGR and PWR stations are privatised and the Magnox stations placed in a new public sector company. Safety will be the paramount consideration and the arrangements will be subject to the requirements of the nuclear installations inspectorate.
§ Mr. Llew SmithTo ask the President of the Board of Trade what evaluation was made in the nuclear review on non-proliferation concerns addressed at paragraphs 10.43 and 10.44 of the nuclear review White Paper, of doubts raised by submissions, including that by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), on whether sufficient resources had been allocated to ensure the proper implementation of the nuclear safeguards measures to which reference is made on page 74 of Cm2860. [24420]
§ Mr. EggarAll submissions to the nuclear review were given careful and detailed consideration. We are satisfied that appropriate resources have been allocated to ensure the proper implementation of nuclear safeguards measures in the UK.
§ Mr. Llew SmithTo ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those local authorities and environmental organisations consulted by KPMG Peat Marwick in its evaluation of nuclear liabilities as mentioned at paragraph 8.12 of the nuclear review White Paper, Cm 2860; what criteria were adopted in choosing these bodies for consultation. [24421]
§ Mr. EggarThe liabilities management study was carried out as part of the nuclear review. All the documents submitted as part of the nuclear review process were made available to KPMG, and were taken into account by KPMG, in so far as they were relevant to its terms of reference. It was for KPMG to decide what level of further consultation was necessary, and with whom, to enable it to complete its study. I understand that, in the event, KPMG followed up the submissions from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace by holding direct meeting with them, but that there were no direct meetings with local authorities.
Mr. Alan W. WilliamsTo ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost at 1995 prices of construction of(a) the Sizewell pressurised water reactor and (b) each of the advanced gas-cooled reactors in Britain. [23947]
§ Mr. Eggar[holding answer 15 May 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the note on tangible fixed assets on page 67 of the report and accounts of nuclear electric 1993–94. Copies of which are available in the Library of the House.
§ Mr. Llew SmithTo ask the President of the Board of 155W Trade what is his estimate of the financial value of the liabilities to be transferred to the privatised nuclear holding company and its subsidiaries. [24290]
§ Mr. Eggar[holding answer 15 May 1995]: The Government's aim is to privatise as much of the nuclear liabilities of Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric as possible. The liabilities associated with their AGR and PWR stations will be transferred to the private sector when these stations are privatized under the holding company structure. The Magnox stations and associated liabilities will be retained in the public sector, initially in a stand alone company. The value of the liabilities in each case will be published in the accounts of the various companies in due course.
§ Mr. Llew SmithTo ask the President of the Board of Trade if article 14 of the 1978 tripartite safeguards agreement between the United Kingdom, Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Cmnd 6730, permitting the withdrawal of civil nuclear materials for national security reasons, will apply to the safeguards arrangements set out at paragraph 10.44 at page 74 of the nuclear review White Paper, Cm 2860. [24312]