TNAG-1657-FCO40-2305-Daya-Bay-nuclear-power-station-project-safety-concerns-in-Ho-1987 — Page 106

Oral Answers

Rolcc

EMch

рысе

пок.

201 cc ulco G M2 EMAN Dorten prece tas Rok.

PA

26 JANUARY 1987

j

Mr. Hunt: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. We have sought to maximise contributions from external sources - in particular, the private sector-and over £3 million in the figures that I have announced for 1986-87 is expected to come from such sources, compared with £800,000 last year. More than £100 million has been invested by the Government in renewables research and development since 1979. My hon. Friend is right to stress that no Government have done more than we have to develop the renewable technologies.

HKK 166/3

SizewellED IN REDISTRY

Oral Answers

ESB,

Gov't See, Wh

Љ

8(< 24)

old technology we have little direct experience, except in military applications, of operating it in Britain, and the sums upon which Sizewell was originally based have now been completely turned upside down? Therefore, will he assure the House that even if the go-ahead is given to Sizcwell, he is not shutting the door on further AGR development in the future?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I know that my right hon. Eriend, as is his custom, will consider very carefully all the points that are made in the debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the report concludes that there has not yet been sufficient public and political consideration of the regulation of the safety of the nuclear

7. Mr. Stern asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce his decision on the report of the inspector on the proposal by the Central ElectricitSTRYdustry, will the Government give two undertakings? Generating Board to construct a pressurised water reactorï sku at Sizewell.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In-an-answer--pursuant to a question from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on Thursday 22 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would publish the report today. He has done so and has placed copies both of the full report and of a summary in the Library and Vote Office. My right hon. Friend has asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange a debate before he makes any decision.

Mr. Stern: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Has my right hon. Friend noted that during the recent cold snap the CEGB transmitted more electricity than ever before, and that even ignoring that, the demand for electricity is approaching the higher end of the estimates given by the CEGB to the Sizewell inquiry? In view of that, will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange the earliest possible date for the House to consider and accept the main conclusions of the Layfield inquiry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I note what my hon. Friend says. It is important that we should have a full debate in the House before a decision is taken and that will be the position.

Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that a decision to purchase an American reactor, which the Americans have not chosen to order for 10 years, is a major political act and the decision should be taken by Parliament and not by the Minister? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no advance spending authorising the PWR simply because the Layfield report has now been published, pending a decision by Parliament and, preferably, by the electorate because during the election this issue will be a central matter between the parties?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I simply emphasise what I said a moment ago that no decision will be taken until Parliament has debated this important issue and that important report.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is not an early decision essential if we are to avoid large sections of the United Kingdom power construction industry going out of business altogether? In arriving at a decision, will he bear in mind that Britain has had 30 years of building and working gas-cooled reactors, which are now in place and performing satisfactorily, but that while the PWR may be

First, will they undertake that no decision will be taken before the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has published its report and the report has been given satisfactory consideration? Secondly, will they ensure that there is sufficient time for the political and public process of consultation to take place on that huge report, especially because on cost and needs grounds the prospect of Sizewell is far less likely to be justified now than ever before?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has a number of points that he wishes to make. In those circumstances, I am sure that he welcomes the fact that there will be full debate on the matter in the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would the security arrange- ments for a pressurised water reactor be any different from those existing at present in Britain's nuclear power stations? Is it true that Mr. R. W. Marshall broke into the Trawsfynydd power station in Wales and that damage could have been done? If such an incident took place in the future, it might turn the British people against nuclear power and some of us do not want that to happen. Can we therefore have assurances about security at power stations?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman's question relates to the Sizewell report. We shall have an opportunity to debate that matter and I take note of the hon. Gentleman's points.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Is the Minister aware that less than 1 per cent. of average radiation comes from the nuclear industry and that chapter 2 of the Sizewell report provides ample justification for going ahead with the Sizewell PWR programme as the most suitable programme for the United Kingdom?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I commend my hon. Friend for the speed with which he has managed to read what he regards as the relevant parts of the report since its publication. However, in all seriousness, it is important that the recommendations and conclusions are read in the context of the report as a whole. They must be considered together before any conclusions can be reached.

Mr. Barron: Paragraph 12 of chapter 108 of the Sizewell report refers to safety and states:

"The examination of safety was not exhausted," It continues:

"many matters were examined only briefly if at all.” It also states:

"Furthermore, the design was incomplete and not yet susceptible of a final assessment of its safety.”

21

14