| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Hughes : As my hon. Friends say, they would say that, wouldn't they? The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is eminent in these matters. It is clearly a matter of controversy where the liability lies. One of the
Column 681
things that are apparent from the contracts as they were originally drafted and as they have been in the public domain- -one criticism is that they are not generally in the public domain--is that it is not clear exactly where liability lies. The hon. Member for Linlithgow is entitled to challenge that point, and, if he is correct, I hope that the Government will tell us whether that matter has been resolved or whether there is still a dispute. The Minister is in a better position than anybody else to tell us that.Mr. Dalyell : I am sorry to interrupt once again. That was said in the presence of the former Chairman of the Energy Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark). It was only 10 days ago. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman has to accept it.
Mr. Hughes : I was making the point, with which the hon. Gentleman will agree, that the finances of the nuclear industry will be different if we include or exclude the prospective financial benefit to Britain of the THORP process. That is an uncontroversial point and I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow will accept it.
Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes : I will give way one more time and then I want to make the substantive part of my speech.
Mr. Page : At the time of the Parker inquiry, I had the privilege to represent Workington, and I am also a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Leaving to one side the aspect that it could cost 2,000 jobs and the cost of £2 billion, I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman does his economic calculations, he will take into account the compensation that this country might have to pay if we do not go ahead with the THORP process : that has been estimated at £5 billion. [Interruption.]
Mr. Hughes : That would be a very good point if, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) says, we had seen the contracts. If the contracts were in the public domain, as the Government committed themselves to doing at Rio in respect of environmental information, we could see the compensation clause. With respect, as someone whose job used to be commercial contracts before I came to this place, I know that what they do and do not include is highly relevant, and they can make a difference of billions of pounds ; but they are not in the public domain and until they are the figures will be speculative. Also, it is not acceptable for Parliament to accept the view only of BNFL, which clearly has a vested interest, as the hon. Gentleman will accept.
Mr. Page : I made the point that I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The report came forward with the endorsement of the National Audit Office. Is the hon. Gentleman calling into account the National Audit Office's integrity on this matter?
Mr. Hughes : The National Audit Office, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has just produced a report which is to go to the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday. It makes it clear that the costs of decommissioning are uncertain, to put it neutrally, and it certainly does not endorse the figures that have been put forward by BNFL and others. In answer to the point about the Committee's
Column 682
earlier report, what is not clear--the NAO did not say that it was clear--is what the automatic compensation entitlement would be. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why it is not clear. First, it is not clear in what form the waste might be able to be sent back within the contract. There is a debate about substitution, and I shall refer to the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee report in a minute. Secondly, it is also not clear whether the contract would be fulfilled if BNFL--Britain--held on to the waste and put it into dry storage as opposed to reprocessing it.There are many ways in which the contract might be able to be honoured without any compensation having to be paid. As the former hon. Member for the relevant seat, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) might like to persuade the chairman of BNFL to give us a copy of the contract. We could all then take legal advice and we would all be the wiser. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices--
Mr. Campbell-Savours : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours : For the last time ; it is very important.
Mr. Hughes : No. I have given way once.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : The hon. Gentleman knows what is coming.
Mr. Hughes : No, I do not know what is coming. I have given way once. I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will be called if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford) : The hon. Gentleman is frit.
Mr. Hughes : I am certainly not frit. We put the subject on the agenda, for heaven's sake.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : Why does the hon. Gentleman not give way?
Mr. Hughes : Because I have even better points to make, and I am about to make them.
In our motion, we make one general point and three specific points, and we call for one specific conclusion. We make the general point that there is growing international opposition to the reprocessing of spent fuel in a way that increases the amount of uranium and plutonium in the world. My hon. and learned Friend for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will address that matter, too. It is very clear that, over 10 years, the process will add about 60 extra tonnes to the global plutonium surplus of which there is already plenty. I cite nothing less than the most radical and non- Conservative document, The Economist, and an article written only earlier this month. It is clear that the risk of proliferation, particularly in the former Soviet states, is now considerable and that article argues strongly against it. Not only the Administration in the United States but two senior members of Congress are now putting into Congress Bills a provision to make sure that there is a control that could, at the time of the renewal of the non-proliferation treaty in 1995, actually make the
Column 683
THORP process illegal. I ask the Minister to address that matter. When the Euratom treaty is renegotiated, the process itself may offend against international law.There is that growing international opposition, but there is growing international opposition much nearer home. Earlier this month, in Berlin, the member states of the Paris commission on prevention of marine pollution from land based sources met to consider what to do about the Sellafield plant. By a majority of nine to two, including four countries that have customers of BNFL within their borders, they voted, including other matters, to request
"information on the need for spent fuel reprocessing " a full environmental impact assessment ;
"the demonstration that the discharges are based upon the use of the Best Available Techniques"
and that they be consulted before THORP goes ahead. Only in the past fortnight, a motion was tabled in the European Parliament asking for a public inquiry.
There is increasing evidence in Japan--one of the big customers--that there is growing public discontent. That is not answered by a newspaper advertisement this week, which appeared to answer the protest from the Japanese last week. We discover that the advertisment was placed not only by the Japanese utilities but, apparently, in association with BNFL. That is hardly an impartial response. Finally, it is only one year ago this month that the Prime Minister signed us up to principles in Rio, especially article 10 of the Rio declaration which stated that we were committed to full environmental information.
There is growing international concern, and I break it into three areas--I can only be brief, because the debate obviously must allow hon. Members fully to participate. Those three areas are economic, environmental and proliferation. I have alluded to proliferation and I do not intend to elaborate on that now. It is a fairly obvious point that if a process produces uranium and plutonium, and that plutonium is available to be used, even though there may be legal constraints for nuclear weapons, one has increased the danger of nuclear escalation in the world.
I shall deal with the economic point. The figures are difficult to work out because we have not seen the contracts and the market for the product is not nearly as buoyant as it was in 1978. They are also difficult to work out, because, although there may be contracts for the next 10 years, THORP is meant to have a life of about 25 years, and considerable extra costs of decommissioning are added once one starts to operate the plant.
A lot of money has been spent on building the plant and getting it ready for operation, but there is a history of white elephants in Britain and other countries. The argument is not how much we have spent and whether we can afford not to go on, but whether it is the wonderful earner economically for Britain, that BNFL has told us that it will be. Unless the figures are in the public domain and can be examined, and people can cross- examine on them, the economic case cannot be clearly made out.
An important part of the economic case relates to jobs. It is not clear how many jobs at Sellafield might be at risk. I accept that it is in the order of between 1,500 and 2,500. Any job lost is a job that one certainly should try to preserve. I tell the people of Cumbria directly that those of us who advance this argument do not do so with no care whether people should have work--I say that as the
Column 684
Member representing a constituency with double or more the unemployment level of either Workington or Copeland--but we ask whether there is an acceptable alternative.Well validated figures suggest that, if we take the dry storage option, which is much less environmentally damaging, we could have many more jobs on that site than we would have through the reprocessing option. We could have many more jobs and many less dangerous ones. That is another question which needs to be examined, because some people have been taken on ready for the site to be up and running and will be laid off in any event as they will probably not be able to be kept in construction or operating jobs in the interim period if there is further delay, as the Government announced today that there will be.
More importantly, one must distinguish between the number of people whose jobs will be operating such a plant and the prospective thousands of jobs that there would be over a period of up to 10 years in constructing a dry storage facility to honour our international obligations or national contracts. In all probability, according to much of the evidence, such a facility would give much more work than is currently envisaged for West Cumbria or Sellafield in particular.
Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : The hon. Gentleman has asked for a lot of evidence relating to contracts and other matters. Can he outline his evidence that suggests that a dry store facility would employ more people than the reprocessing plant? On top of that, can he tell us what one does when one has stored the specific materials for some time? Is he suggesting that the materials should be stored for ever?
Mr. Hughes : I shall deal with the first question first. Many people have done studies of the alternative job implications for a dry storage facility. I have taken advice from at least three sources about what the alternatives would be. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the best answer that I can now, and I will be happy to pursue the matter with him later.
In option 1, commissioning THORP--the proposal supported by the Government- -BNFL estimates that the number of jobs in the THORP division would be about 850, probably plus a few. Jobs related to the THORP operation but in the Magnox division would probably be in the order of 500. That is a total of 1,350. Abandoning THORP and building a dry storage facility, and management of it, would provide about 520 jobs plus about 500 support jobs and thousands of construction jobs in the foreseeable five years or more.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : They are juggling around with my constituents --throwing them in the air.
Mr. Hughes : We are absolutely not throwing the hon. Gentleman's constituents in the air--we are trying to give them much more long-term employment than they might get from a process that may have no takers at all in 10 years' time. [Interruption.] I quoted the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe in long-term economic solutions, not short-term ones, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents agree.
Mr. Dalyell : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dalyell : Name your sources.
Column 685
Mr. Hughes : I will finish my point, then answer the question. The third point is the environmental one. That point is made best by, first, a Minister writing in the last month and, secondly, a report that has come out only today.
Mr. Dalyell : Who are your sources?
Mr. Hughes : The hon. Gentleman can bellow all he likes. I told him that I will answer his question but finish my point first. This is my speech for a change. We get many more chances to make speeches on subjects of our choosing than he does because of the unfairness of the system. However, that is an argument for elsewhere.
On 25 May, Baroness Cumberlege, an Under-Secretary of State for Health, endorsed by letter--I have a copy here--the comments of the committee that gives advice to the Government on the medical aspects of radiation in the environment. That committee considered the draft authorisations for discharges from Sellafield and said that it had not had adequate time to consider the discharges and was not satisfied that they were safe. The Minister explicitly set out the position almost exactly a month ago. She said :
"I attach a copy of the text of COMARE's response to the authorising Departments on this matter. The Department of Health, which was also invited to comment on the proposals, has endorsed COMARE's comments."
Only today, we have flushed out--this is another achievement of my hon. Friends and myself--the advice-- [Laughter] --Conservative Members should not laugh. It is true.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : It is true.
Mr. Hughes : I am grateful for that support from the hon. Gentleman. The advice of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to the Government was in my dline because insufficient information was provided by BNFL The advice submitted by RWMAC to the Secretary of State is not as comprehensive as RWMAC would have wished because information that was requested from BNFL is still outstanding."
Waste equivalence is an important point to do with substitution and the question whether it can be converted and compacted so that only the high level is sent back and the intermediate or low level is retained, or vice versa.
"The radiological basis chosen by BNFL for calculating waste equivalencies has not yet been agreed by BNFL and its overseas customers."
The RWMAC advised that until there is agreement between BNFL and its overseas customers on the technical basis of substitution, the BNFL substitution exercise should not be approved. That recommendation was made not 20 or 10 years ago, but today, 15 years after the plant was approved.
The RWMAC made two other points :
"The substitution scenario proposed by BNFL depends on the Nirex repository being available to accommodate the foreign
intermediate-level waste and low-level waste resulting from the reprocessing by 2005 and is based on a best case return time of the ground water from the repository to the surface environment". Nirex has said that the repository will not be commissioned before the year 2007 at the earliest and the RWMAC has said that waste is unlikely to be disposed of before 2010, if the repository is sited in Sellafield.
Column 686
"As the site will not be available in 2005, it will be necessary to evaluate the implications for both the UK site currently used for the disposal of low-level waste"--next door at Drigg--
"and for various interim ILW stores."
The RWMAC advised the Secretary of State that until the studies are complete, it was not in a position to be able to comment fully on the radiological and environmental impact for the United Kingdom of the introduction of substitution.
There is some final advice to BNFL that is relevant to the Government. The RWMAC also advises that BNFL should
"examine to case for the return of intermediate-level waste to determine whether the return of foreign waste in this form, rather than the return of equivalent quantities of vitrified high-level waste is viable."
The RWMAC suggests that BNFL should
"document its case demonstrating that retention of foreign intermediate- level waste resulting from reprocessing will not cause health or safety concerns to the UK population. There should be a trial return of high-level waste."
The RWMAC advice sets out a number of issues which the committee believes needs to be addressed by BNFL and the Government before the substitution of high-level waste by intermediate and low-level waste should be approved. The RWMAC
"looks forward to receiving this additional information and at that time would hope to be in a position where it could advise more fully on the BNFL proposals for substitution".
That is not scaremongering from political parties, but information from the Government's official advisers on the medical effects of radiation, endorsed by Health Ministers, and information from the relevant advisory committee which says that it does not have the facts.
Not long ago, the controversial proposal for Torness in Scotland was the subject of a public inquiry. The inspector made it clear in his report that dry storage was not only a possible option and a viable option, but a reasonable alternative option. My friends in Scotland, who have campaigned for many years against the Torness plant, would agree that as it now appears that Government policy--on the advice of inspectors--is not universally and unilaterally in favour of reprocessing, but considers that there is an alternative, the entire logic of THORP is questionable.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : Is the hon. Gentleman aware, when he quotes the numbers of jobs that would be available in dry storage, that, at the recent public inquiry into the proposed dry storage at Torness, Scottish Nuclear Ltd. said that the store would require only 10 to 15 staff during loading and that thereafter, staff requirements would reduce to those required for occasional monitoring and maintenance? In that light, how can the hon. Gentleman talk of 1,000 jobs in dry storage?
Mr. Hughes : That would be a fair-- [Interruption.] That would be a fair and relevant comparison if the size of the two plants were equivalent.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is 100 times as large?
Mr. Hughes : No. They are not equivalent. We know what the contracts currently placed for THORP are, and we know the contracting party and the amount of work involved. The hon. Gentleman quotes figures, which I
Column 687
quoted, for the far smaller element in the debate--maintenance of the dry storage operation--but has left out the amount of people needed for the construction.Mr. Campbell-Savours : Sub-contractors.
Mr. Hughes : Yes, but many of the jobs that have been created in Sellafield have been sub-contractors' jobs, for building.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : They come and go.
Mr. Hughes : Of course, but by and large, they are local employees.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : We are talking about long-term jobs at THORP.
Mr. Hughes : We are talking about some long-term jobs. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such facts need to be the subject of a public debate. That is why the Liberal Democrats are specifically proposing a public inquiry. It is no good the Minister laughing, because, by law, he may be obliged to hold one. He may not have been in the House he is a contemporary of mine and I was not present either--in 1960, when the Radioactive Substances Act was passed. He may not have followed the amendment process to that Act in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Under sections 11 and 12 of the 1960 Act, it seems that there is a strong case that, once the reports have been given to his two right hon. Friends who are the determining authority--the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment, for whom the inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution acts--there is an obligation to consult on that report. Surprise, surprise, today at last, the Government have responded to that request. In a written answer from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)--it may be a planted question--[ Hon. Members :-- "He is not here."] The hon. Gentleman is not here. The question was tabled a couple of days ago, and only after it was announced that we were having today's debate. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that he had received the report and that he and his colleague had considered it. He makes an earth-shattering proposal :
"My right hon. Friend and I propose that there should be a further round of consultation".
I pause to tell the workers in Cumbria that the Liberal Democrats are not saying that there should be further delay, but that the Government are saying that there should be a further round of consultation. In that consultation, the questions raised by the response to the HMIP draft authorisations should be considered. I might add that 108 local authorities, as respondents, are opposed to the operation of the plant.
The Secretary of State's officials are writing to BNFL seeking further information. The written answer continues :
"I shall make their reply available for public comment, together with other material. My right hon. Friend and I do not propose to take final decisions on the exercise of our functions under the Act until after this further consultation."
There we have it : the stories in the press were true. The Government were not going to make a decision. The arguments put to them, from advice given by leading counsel to Greenpeace among others, about the legal case,
Column 688
have resulted in the Government's agreeing that they have to have further consultation. They propose simply to write to BNFL, to seek information, and to make their reply available for public comment, together with unspecified other material. How on earth can there be an objective assessment of jobs, of the economics issue and the environmental issue, unless the people and their evidence are put in the public domain and cross-examined?We do not want a long delay. There need not be one. Mr. Justice Parker's inquiry took 100 days. An inquiry could be held and a decision could be made before the end of the year, providing that the Government and the system move quickly. There would then be an up-to-date appraisal of the facts this year, as was suggested might be necessary in 1978.
One does not embark on a process that has hidden additional costs of decommissioning before the cost of doing that is known. One should evaluate the radiological impact and wait for the judgment of the case where families have brought an action against BNFL alleging that leukaemia results from discharges from Sellafield. I am reliably told that the judgment is likely by the autumn. One can get the facts. My hon. Friends and I put a simple proposition to the House. We want the facts, and we propose the most independent way in which to get them. I shall answer the question that I was asked, and I shall then make the case for the Government to reconsider. I answer now the hon. Member for Linlithgow to whom I can show the figures, and I am happy to go through them with him. The best advice that I was given on the calculations for the job prospects was by Friends of the Earth, which did the first analysis, and by Media Natura, which did the second analysis. I also received advice from the third analysis, which was done on the basis of local research into job prospects in Cumbria. I can go through the documents with the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I have them here and they are available in the House this afternoon. My hon. Friends and I believe that what the Government have not done by their answer is preclude the option of a public inquiry. The Government have not ruled out a public inquiry. It is a bit like the public expenditure review, in which nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. There is still a chance for the Government to take that course. If they do not, they risk protracting the commissioning of THORP or the decision not to commission it even longer.
The Government know as well as I do that there is strong legal advice that, on the basis of planning guidance, of our obligations under the Rio convention, and, more explicitly, of the requirement for an environmental impact assessment for this project under the directive passed by the European Community in 1985, which is now law here, and, above all, of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, they have an obligation to ensure that the facts are put into the public domain. If the Government do not go down that road now, they will prejudice the very jobs that they seek to protect, they will risk the project that they support and, worse, they will allow Britain to go ahead with the development of a project which the rest of the world increasingly regards as undesirable and uneconomic.
We argue for jobs and sanity. We hope that the Government do not press their amendment. If they do, we hope that that is not their final word, because we believe that they are wrong.
Column 689
5.21 pmThe Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar) : I beg to move, to leave out from House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :
congratulates the management and workforce of British Nuclear Fuels plc on the completion of its high technology thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield ; welcomes the 3,000 jobs, mainly in the North West, which the plant supports ; recognises that around 90 per cent. of its £1,850 million capital cost was spent with British industry ; notes that the plant is needed to fulfil the customers' requirements for reprocessing, represented by contracts already won worth £9 billion ; recalls that it is a major example of international inward investment which the chairmen of the ten Japanese nuclear power generators strongly endorsed last week ; expresses confidence in the non-proliferation arrangements that underlie the plant's work for all the overseas customers ; and, subject to receipt by BNFL of such consents as are required by law, supports the commissioning of the plant at the earliest practicable date.'.
The choice of debate today by the Liberal Democrat party is interesting. It can choose four half-days of debate this Session. Not for the Liberal Democrats a debate on the issues about which they claim to care really passionately. There is no debate about proportional representation. There is no debate about local income tax. There is no debate about the economy, nationally or locally. There is none of that.
What do they choose to debate? They choose to table a motion which, if passed, would lead directly to the loss of 3,000 jobs, net of dry storage considerations. If passed, the motion would lead to the closure of a high- technology plant. If passed, it would lead directly to a loss of confidence by overseas investors and by our major trading partners. That says a lot about the priorities of the Liberal Democrats.
Despite the length of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I turn briefly to the general tone of his remarks. What did he do? He took a series of comments out of context. He deliberately misconstrued Government reports and responses. He relied extensively--as, to be fair, he admitted--on the briefing of such eminently objective organisations as Friends of the Earth. It was a pretty shoddy performance even by the standards of his own party.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Does the Minister agree that the most shoddy part of this afternoon's event was his own laughter at the suggestion of a public inquiry? Why does he find the idea of a public inquiry on this most important of issues funny?
| Next Section
| Home Page |