| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Greenway : I see that my hon. Friend wants to tell us about the Peak district.
Mr. Winterton : I come from Cheshire, where the Peak park plays a major role. My constituency includes many hill farmers who cannot make an income from their farming, so they take on outside activities such as contract work and driving to make ends meet and to keep their families.
Mr. Greenway : My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many farmers exist by successfully claiming family income supplement. if the HLCA payments are reduced, the social security budget will rise--it will rise even more if farms are put out of business as a result of the cuts.
I believe that the decision must be reconsidered. What future can there be for hill farmers if, every time things get better, the Ministry says, "Now things look brighter we shall cut the special help that we have always recognised you need and knock you back on the floor"? What a prospect for the farmers--the proposal will mean kicking men who are struggling to get off the floor, which is precisely how hill farmers in my constituency are viewing it. How much money will the proposal save? I am told that the mean decision will save £20 million. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced a £1 billion package for the coal mining districts a few weeks ago, which I fully support. However, hill farming is in just as much of a crisis as the coal industry. It is time that we had a thorough, open review, not a behind-closed-doors decision by the Minister whereby he issues a press release stating that he has had a review and made a decision.
We should consider the figures. What sort of income levels should we expect hill farmers to achieve? What sort of reasonable income should they be able to earn from hill farming? What is the importance of hill farming to the overall structure of the sheep industry, one of the more successful parts of British agriculture--with 27 per cent. of the EC regime in sheep meat and an increasing volume of exports? Farmers are doing better, partly because of that increase in exports. We want to improve our balance of trade in food and foodstuffs, and the sheep industry is already helping us to do so.
A recovery in prices has helped the entire sheep sector. If the cuts go ahead, the gap between the hard-pressed hill farmer and the rest of the specialist sheep sector will widen. However, the Minister concluded that the HLCA rates are
Column 87
now greater than necessary to compensate for the permanent natural handicaps of farming in those regions. That is totally illogical. Those permanent handicaps have not altered simply because there has been an improvement in the cycle. All agriculture sectors are cyclical, and the cycle of sheep prices will again turn down. If it does so this winter, and the cuts go ahead, how on earth will some of our sheep farmers be able to afford to feed their sheep flocks throughout what is already proving to be a wet and expensive winter? I have represented the constituency of Ryedale in the House for the past five and a half years and, when it comes to issues relating to the local economy, I can think of nothing that has been of greater on-going concern to me than the future of hill farmers. They need extra support, not cuts. It is time that we had a thorough debate on their future so that we can press my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come to the House and to tell us why the Ministry is going ahead with such a mean and spiteful cut in support at such a difficult time.7.57 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : I do not intend to detain the House long. When the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I make common cause, it should at least attract the attention of most other hon. Members. We do not normally find ourselves in the same lobby, but what is happening now with the proposed merger of the Crewe and Macclesfield health authorities is totally unacceptable.
It is important to realise that Sir Donald Wilson was a political appointment. Despite the clear views of my constituents, the creation of health trusts has been pushed ahead, with little concern for the interests of either the patients or those working in the national health service. Now, Sir Donald Wilson has gone too far. It is not in his control to appoint whomever he wishes, when he wishes, where he wishes, irrespective of the interests of those who will be affected, without the Secretary of State taking a clear and firm line. There should be an immediate declaration from the Department of Health that there is to be an independent inquiry into the management of our regional hospital authority.
For far too long, the creation of trusts has meant that employees have created trusts and not only laid down the terms and conditions of the new trusts but often determined the budgets and then gone on to become chief officers of the trusts that they were, supposedly, setting up. We now have a plain case of someone overriding all the interests of open government--of which this Government are so proud--and blatantly appointing someone within the organisation who was herself in the process of creating a short list. She added her own name to it and became the chief executive.
That is not a matter of party politics--it is unacceptable for anyone to behave in that way. That is certainly not in the interests of the NHS or of a Government who think that they want these crazy trusts. It is impossible to obtain accurate information from the trust in my area, but we know that it is overspent every year. Coopers and Lybrand has prepared internal reports which have not been
Column 88
released, and the trust is to be £1.29 million overspent again this year--it will have to fiddle the figures to make them look good. We also know that certain people have lost their tenure of office and have gone off having been paid large sums as compensation. In an open inquiry, many facts would come out--for instance, about the way the region is run--and those facts would give pause to many, including many Conservative Members.I speak with real feeling about what is happening. No public office should be run as the fiefdom of one political party or one political master, yet that is what is happening in the Crewe and Nantwich and Macclesfield area, and it is wholly unacceptable.
8 pm
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : I believe that we should scrutinise the governance of Scotland in some depth before the House rises for the Christmas recess. The Maastricht treaty, when linked to the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome, will have given away massive powers to Europe--away from this Westminster Parliament--and will have created a legal unitary structure known as the union. That means that this Parliament will have many areas of responsibility removed from it. In other words, it will be bypassed.
The consequence for Scotland will be that the cement that binds the United Kingdom together will be fatally weakened. That, I fear, will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I suggest that the cement that binds the United Kingdom consists of the monarchy, the Westminster Parliament, the unwritten constitution and British citizenship. Sad to say, because of recent events the monarchy is under great strain and has been badly weakened ; while the giving away of real powers, financial and political, to Europe means that Westminster Members will not be able to ask questions on behalf of their constituents about matters that will be dealt with by unelected bankers or the people of Brussels.
The free-to-constituents-service given by Members of this Parliament--the cornerstone of the United Kingdom's unwritten constitution--and the right of constituency Members to have questions on behalf of their constituents answered will have been bypassed. For many Scots, redress in the future will be via the European Court, where only the wealthy can be sure of justice. In time, I believe that the Westminster Parliament will be reduced to the administrative and executive level of a medium-sized state in the United States. How long will the Scots tolerate that, and what will they feel about what has been done to the Union established in 1707?
I remind the House that Maastricht creates a legal entity, a unitary European state called the union. Everyone will be a citizen of that union, and the citizen's duty to the union is to be reviewed and revised every three years. That could mean that young Scots can look forward to the possibility, under European foreign and defence policy, of conscription into a future European army. All that makes me believe that following a Conservative victory at the next general election--I expect there to be one --all it will take is for 37 of Scotland's nationalist and crypto- nationalist Opposition Members, many of whom paraded in Edinburgh on Saturday last, to decide to sit in Edinburgh and call themselves the Scottish parliament. Their legal right to do that is sustainable, because
Column 89
Scotland's parliament was not dissolved in 1707 : it was merely prorogued. No constitutional Act on the statute book provides for the means to break up the United Kingdom, and I suggest that in the absence of such an Act those 37 Members will be in a strong position.I also suggest that the weakening of Westminster's powers in favour of Europe's powers will make Scottish independence, inside or outside Europe, a real possibility--perhaps even a probability--because Scots will quite properly question the wisdom of remaining within a union that can no longer deliver the benefits of the Union. As a Unionist, I want that Union to continue. I articulate my concerns tonight because while we have been concentrating on making Europe work we may well have been taking actions that mean that the United Kingdom will no longer work.
This is why I shall continue to oppose the Maastricht Bill. We urgently need a debate in Government time in which we may discuss the governance of Scotland.
8.5 pm
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) : I will not follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) except to tell him that, in the 16th century, Wales was savagely annexed. There was no Parliament then, and it was not prorogued.
There is a gathering crisis in the steel industry in Europe, and the Government appear not to wish to know about it. It is already affecting Britain and British Steel. The former communist states of eastern Europe, in a desperate search for currency, are efficiently dumping the steel that they make in western Europe. British Steel has already cut its production targets by 20 per cent. and has signalled a £51 million loss. That shows how serious the situation is. I want the Government to do something about it and to give a lead. I should also like to mention the aerospace industry. The European airbus project received a severe blow last week, when an order for 74 aircraft was cancelled. That means that, throughout western Europe, there are likely to be grave employment consequences. I should like the Government to come to the House and explain what they believe the consequences for Britain will be ; 7,000 workers here are engaged in making the airbus.
Workers in my constituency make steel, and they make the wings of the airbus. I am proud of Shotton steelworks and its contribution. It is world class. The aerospace factory at Broughton employs 4,000 and has a magnificent record too. I should like to hear some clear answers from the Government tonight about these two industries. In my constituency, 3,000 people are out of work. More than 700 of them are long-term unemployed. I am deeply worried about the Government's review of the assisted area status map of Britain. I believe that the Government plan to take assisted status away from my constituency. I warn them not to do so. The unemployment figures there are serious, and the long-term implications for steel and aerospace could be even more serious. The Government must promise not to tamper with the assisted area map.
Column 90
8.8 pmMr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East) : Because of the pressure of time, I shall confine the bulk of my remarks to topics raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that Conservative Members will realise that I intend them no discourtesy by so doing. I should like, however, to refer briefly first to the speeches by the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Corby (Mr. Powell). They spoke for the whole House when they described the terrible plight of the people of the former Yugoslavia and asked us to consider not just what more we can do to help but the position of our own troops, who are currently doing their best in that area. Committing troops to any conflict is, of course, a serious step, and the whole House will be mindful of the welfare of British service men this Christmas, the task that we have set them, and the difficult circumstances in which they are expected to undertake it.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) : I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the speech made by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). Does he share my anger at the written response by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, which clearly stated and placed on record that our troops are to receive a cut in their allowances while on active service under the United Nations in Bosnia ?
Mr. Brown : The thoughts of us all are with our service personnel this Christmas. No one wants to see them done an
injustice--particularly not at this time, and in the very difficult circumstances that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South clearly described. I hope that the Leader of the House will have something satisfactory to say on my hon. Friend's point.
The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) also commands widespread support for his remarks about war crimes, not just in the House but throughout the country and the international community. Similar points are made on the other side of the Atlantic, and I hope that the Serbs will take careful note of the direction and speed in which international opinion is moving.
I thought that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) would also secure widespread support in all parts of the House. As we have come to expect, my right hon. Friend spoke for the disabled and for the severely disabled, and raised the issue of the independent living fund and its successor funding arrangements. Fortunately, the Leader of the House has some specific expertise in that matter, and I hope that, when he sums up, he will be able to say something that satisfies my right hon. Friend.
It is Christmas, and it is nice to see parties on both sides of the House coming together to raise important matters. Although I am summing up for the Official Opposition, perhaps the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will not find it entirely inappropriate if I speak on his behalf as well. He has made common cause with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in describing the regime now operated by Sir Donald Wilson--himself a political appointee--in the areas in which both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have their constituencies.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield outlined, and my hon. Friend confirmed, that Sir Donald has been behaving in an arbitrary manner. My hon. Friend specifically called
Column 91
for an independent inquiry into the management of trusts in the area, and I formally support that request from this Dispatch Box. The circumstances outlined are clearly unacceptable in any form of public administration. It is not a question of party politics but a straightforward stand against corruption. I hope that the call for an independent inquiry into the affairs of the health authority in question will be carefully noted by the Leader of the House, and that he will draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health.It will not come as a surprise to anyone who follows the affairs of the House that Labour Members have spoken about employment in their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Flynn) raised the question of job losses at Marconi, which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of GEC. He commands my sympathy, because I witnessed a similar closure--that of the Marconi factory in Gateshead, next to my own constituency--in similar circumstances only a few years ago. GEC operates in a ruthless way in such matters. I, like many others, would like to see some of the huge surpluses over which GEC's management preside put back into British industry, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East suggested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), in a brief intervention, declared his support for the 4,000 airbus workers in his constituency, who could not be better represented in the House. My hon. Friend spoke also of the Shotton steelworks and of its high quality products. He referred to assisted area status. In the circumstances that currently obtain in this country, the Government are wrong to consider removing assisted area status from any community.
One of the great tragedies of the current slump is that, when recovery eventually occurs, our manufacturing base may be so eroded that we are unable to take advantage of it. At the depth of the present slump, we still have a balance of payments deficit rather than a surplus, which suggests a fundamental weakness with the British economy. The Government should be trying to address that problem rather than hope that, sooner or later, we will float through the slump thanks to market forces and world circumstances alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) rightly and movingly described the plight of the people of Kashmir. He called for self-determination, and graphically outlined the unsuitability of military occupation as a form of government for that area. I took his remarks very much to heart ; they as much as any will condition my thoughts over Christmas. I am looking forward to Christmas, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members are, but this evening we learned of some very sombre causes for concern from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is much for us to reflect upon, and for the Government to respond to.
8.16 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : The House will understand when I say at once that it is unlikely that in the 10 minutes left to me I shall be able to comment fully and in detail on every speech. I begin by making it clear to those right hon. and hon. Members to whom I am unable
Column 92
to respond as fully as I should like this evening, or who asked for specific answers for which I shall have to draw on information that I may not have with me, that I will ensure, in one way or another, that their concerns are reflected in my communications to my right hon. and hon. Friends, and that I will endeavour to make a specific response in writing or in some other appropriate way.I acknowledge the points made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), to whom I hope to address some points before I sit down, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Flynn), concerning the employment situation in his constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who spoke about Argentina and the Falklands fisheries, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who made an impassioned speech about his experiences in Kashmir, which I carefully noted, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), whose constituency is not far from my own frontiers, and which I visited during my hon. Friend's successful general election campaign.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) expressed concern about the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I shall bring the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) firmly to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food-- although my hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend sought to address many of those concerns in his recent statement, a copy of which I have with me.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) joined my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and we heard also the interesting constitutional observations--as I think I might most safely describe them-- of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Finally, we return to the perceived economic concerns of parts of Wales with the remarks of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) about steel and assisted area status--which were echoed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) speaking from the Labour Front Bench. I hope to return to some of those issues ; first, however, let me deal with a subject that I have not yet mentioned.
Adjournment debates are often light-hearted, and today's debate has had its light-hearted moments. More often than not, however, such debates consist of a succession of constituency problems which, although important to the areas involved, do not give rise to discussions as wide ranging as some of those in which we engage. Perhaps the most striking single feature of today's debate has been the impressive quality of the speeches-- particularly, but by no means only, those dealing with Bosnia. Another striking feature has been the fact that almost 50 per cent. of the debate has concerned important issues of foreign affairs. My hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and for Corby (Mr. Powell), and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir. R. Johnston), made especially striking speeches about Bosnia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby was kind enough to acknowledge that I would be unlikely to be able to respond in detail to some of the points that he raised. I shall, however, undertake specifically to seek from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the information for which my hon. Friend asked about the commission of
Column 93
United Nations experts appointed to deal with war crimes. As my hon. Friend will know, the British Government strongly share his concern, and deplore and condemn both ethnic cleansing and the other atrocities that are being alleged. The conclusions of the Edinburgh Council state, clearly and categorically :"Those responsible for all these crimes against humanitarian law by the different sides will be held personally accountable and brought to justice."
I accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House have sought today to establish how that can be done. No doubt the questions that they have raised will be dealt with in other ways, not least by the United Nations. I hope, however, that we can all agree that that is a very clear-cut statement about the Community's attitude--an attitude which the British Government fully share.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby for acknowledging, in a speech that in other respects had a good deal in common with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, that the question of involvement could not be approached quite as sanguinely as some--including the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber--appeared to suggest. He indicated, at the very least, some hesitation, and--like my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South--he seemed to recognise that the terms of the presidency's conclusions generally from the Edinburgh Council represented a clear and striking statement of the vigour with which the problem is being approached by the British Government and, indeed, the Community as a whole. He also recognised that we are seeking to impose further pressure.
As the statement is long, I shall not quote all of it. It begins by acknowledging--as did my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-- that
"the tragedy in former Yugoslavia constitutes a serious threat to peace and stability in the region the international community will not accept the acquisition of territory by force, nor accept the partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina the Community and its member states will take further steps to assist in tightening sanctions on the Danube, and cause for the rapid despatch of observers to the border between Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina states its belief that the United Nations Security Council should examine the situation in respect of the United Nations Security Council resolution 786, the no fly zone resolution, that the UN security council should examine the situation in the light of operative paragraph 6 of that resolution." After referring to the ministerial-level meeting of the steering committee of the international conference--the follow-up to the London conference--which is due to take place on 16 December, and which will be attended by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the statement continues :
"The European Council, which brings together the Heads of State and of Government of countries which are profoundly peace loving, will continue to give priority to political means in order to resolve the crisis in Yugoslavia. But, given the gravity of this tragic situation, it has no choice but to promote and participate in further initiatives which the international community may be obliged to undertake."
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber made it clear that they would have liked the statement to go further. Nevertheless, it is a firm and clear statement that the problem is not being ignored by either the British Government or the Community as a whole. The Government and the Community are not refusing to consider other action if the difficulties are not resolved in a way that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend would
Column 94
like. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging that the terms of the statement have given him some encouragement during the week.Sir Russell Johnston : None of that enables anything to be done to stop the acquisition of land in Bosnia, by force, by Bosnian Serbs. It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic Adjournments).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 17th December, do adjourn until Monday 11th January.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments. Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Works Interfering with Navigation
That the draft Transport and Works (Descriptions of Works Interfering with Navigation) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.
Guided Transport Modes
That the draft Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.
Road Traffic
That the draft Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.
Education Support Grants
That the draft Education Support Grants Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.
Computer Programs (Copyright)
That the draft Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Question agreed to.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees.).
Bananas
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8372/92, relating to organisation of the market in bananas ; and supports the Government in its intention to secure measures which enable the Community to fulfil all its international trading commitments, whilst also taking account of consumer interests, the need for budgetary restraint, and the protection of access by ACP and EC producers to European Community markets.
Development Co-operation Policy
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6718/92 COR 1 and the supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Overseas Development Administration on 4th December, relating to
Column 95
development co-operation policy in the run-up to the year 2000 ; and welcomes the declaration made at the Development Council on 18th November, which takes full account of United Kingdom interests in this field.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]Question agreed to.
Column 96
Orders of the Day
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]
Column 97
Nuclear Power (North-west)
8.28 pm
Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the nuclear industry and its importance to the north-west. It is timely, not only because of the current energy review but because my hon. Friend the Minister visited Sellafield today. I trust that his visit was successful and was not completely curtailed by the need to return to the debate ; I hope that we will soon see the start of the operation at the thermal oxide reprocessing plant as that plant is vital to employment in Cumbria and will make an important contribution to our balance of payments over the next 10 years. It cost £1.85 billion to build, and £1.6 billion of that money came from abroad. When it is up and running, it will result in 2,000 jobs, either directly or indirectly.
Until now, much of the public debate on the energy review has been about coal, with only passing references to gas and nuclear power, most of which have not been complimentary. Those who want to see more coal and less gas burnt use the limited nature of gas reserves as a reason, forgetting, in the process, that coal reserves, too, are finite and will become increasingly more expensive to mine as time goes on. That contrasts with the plentiful supplies of nuclear fuel available in Britain into the next century and beyond. We have rightly invested considerable sums in recycling schemes to ensure that that will be the case. Strangely, though, schemes that, if applied to any other industrial process, would be widely applauded by environmentalists are condemned by them in this case. The debate associated with the review has also involved grossly inflated costings for nuclear energy.
It is of considerable concern to many in the north-west that the review has taken the course that it has. The north-west can claim to have been involved at the start of the nuclear age in the early 1950s and now, 40 years later, the region still employs the vast majority of people involved in the nuclear industry. Well over 100,000 people in the north-west are involved, either directly or indirectly, in the region's four nuclear power stations--which have a generating capacity of more than 3,000 MW each year- -in its production and reprocessing installations for nuclear fuel and in its research and development activities. Many of the jobs are highly skilled and the technology is very advanced.
In my opinion, those facts alone warrant a closer look at the industry than has so far been evident in the review. If employment is one of the criteria for deciding the number of coal mines that will remain open, we must remember that any resulting redundancies in the nuclear industry will simply transfer unemployment from one region to another. If that happens, it is likely that the redundancy payments provided to those involved in the nuclear industry will be less than those provided to coal miners--to say nothing of the difficulty that former nuclear workers will have in finding employment in some of the more remote locations in the north-west which have nuclear installations, such as Sellafield.
If the development of more efficient and cleaner technology for generating electricity is an important consideration for the review, the nuclear industry's record is impressive. It would be a grave error if we reduced our
Column 98
commitment to the nuclear industry--one of our remaining world-class industries--as the loss of engineering skills alone would be most damaging.Those arguments, compelling in themselves, essentially support the main economic argument for nuclear power. Those who use jobs, rather than economics, as their leading argument, including some--I stress "some"--in the coal mining industry, make people highly suspicious about the true cost of coal. No one denies that the cheapest electricity on the grid today is nuclear power, at between 1.2p and 1.4p per kWh. Similarly, no one denies that, despite its previous problems, the industry's nuclear power stations now produce a larger contribution to our energy needs--at around 22 per cent. of electricity generated--than ever before. Last week was a record week in itself for the production of electricity by the nuclear industry. For the first time, more than 8,100 MW was produced, and our power stations are now some of the most efficient in the world when it comes to load factors.
The real argument is not about running costs but about the other costs of nuclear power. Although the cost of building nuclear power stations is high, much of that cost has already been written off because of the length of time for which Magnox stations have been operating ; that applies equally to coal-fired power stations. Therefore, the fairest way of comparing the two is through their running costs. As I said, at 1.2p to 1.4p per kWh, nuclear power is almost twice as cheap as coal, at between 2.8p and 3p per kWh. If capital costs are taken into account, as they will be with electricity from Sizewell B and, it is to be hoped, Sizewell C, the figure will be between 3p per kWh and 3.9p per kWh for nuclear stations, which compares favourably with that for the new combined cycle gas-powered stations, in respect of which capital costs are taken into account at the outset. The figure for new coal-fired power stations with flue gas desulphurisation equipment fitted is well above those figures. Indeed, retrofitting existing coal-fired power stations with FGD equipment makes coal even more uncompetitive, adding 0.5p per kWh to the cost.
Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : On four occasions, the hon. Gentleman has referred to the coal industry and its effects on power generation. The last thing that I want to do is to cross swords with him over the coal and nuclear industries, but will he explain what the cost will be of demolishing and clearing away nuclear power stations that no longer serve any useful purpose? Will he deal with that in his speech?
Mr. Mans : I most certainly will ; I am coming to that very point now.
The real problem over costs arises when one is discussing the non-fossil fuel levy. I hope that what I have to say will answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). First, that levy is not solely for the nuclear industry. It can be used in respect of renewables too, and could be regarded as a first stab at a carbon tax. In the case of nuclear power, it is used to offset decommissioning costs or, more specifically, the rather vague estimates of what they are likely to be.
It is becoming clear that those costs are not likely to be as great as first thought. The experience of Berkeley--the first Magnox station to initiate decommissioning--shows that the estimates were rather higher than the actual costs.
Column 99
Whatever the costs turn out to be, however, it makes a great deal of economic sense to spread them over as long a period as possible by keeping Magnox stations operating for as long as possible. If the Magnox stations are shut down prematurely, there will be less money in the reserves to cater for their decommissioning. If we keep them going for longer, we shall not only get cheaper power on to the grid but make better provision for decommissioning costs.What is debatable, however, is whether nuclear generators should be saddled with the costs at all. None of the fossil fuel generators have to make provision for their back-end costs--clearing up contaminated land and slag heaps, as well as meeting subsidence claims in the case of coal and dismantling redundant rigs around our coasts in the case of gas, all of which are highly expensive operations. Surely it is only fair--
Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan) : The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned gas for the first time in his remarks. Perhaps we are having an unrealistic battle between the nuclear and coal industries. Gas has a role to play, and it would be less than fair if he ignored that fact or failed to pay attention to the fact that, in the calculation of coal prices for the grid, many of the start-up costs for gas are not being properly addressed. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to refer to that or does he intend to restrict the debate to the relative merits of the nuclear and coal industries? If the latter is the case, he will render rather arid and narrow a debate that could have provided the north-west with a crucible in which to melt a number of materials.
Mr. Mans : The hon. Gentleman may have heard me refer to gas on two previous occasions ; but the majority of my remarks will be aimed at the nuclear industry, simply because I feel that, in the debate on the review so far, an awful lot of attention has been paid to the coal industry and not enough to the nuclear industry. I sincerely hope that other contributions will include further references to the gas industry. I shall refer to gas generation on a couple of occasions but not at great length.
Surely it is only fair that, if Nuclear Electric is to provide for its decommissioning costs, as I have already said, so should everyone else. If there was ever an unlevel playing field, this must be it. Indeed, it is made even more unlevel by the fact that Nuclear Electric inherited from the Central Electricity Generating Board £10.5 billion-worth of liabilities whereas, since 1982, the coal industry has received £14.5 billion of subsidy from the taxpayer. I have left until last the oddest aspect of the debate. It could be termed the dog that did not bark--namely, the environmental aspects of generating electricity. As a former member of the Select Committee on the Environment, I am, to say the least, surprised at the lack of concern shown by organisations such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and, indeed, the Campaign for Clean Air at the prospect of continuing use of coal-fired power stations and the huge environmental damage that that could inflict on the atmosphere through acid rain and carbon dioxide. The high sulphur content of British coal makes the former a particular problem, and I have already mentioned the high cost of fitting FGD devices.
Coal produces millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Indeed, we find a fair amount of carbon dioxide
| Next Section
| Home Page |