| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : I wish, first, to declare an interest as a non-executive director of Nuclear and General Engineering Ltd. and of Cunnington and Cooper Ltd., which both manufacture for BNFL on a considerable scale. I was previously a director of a company that manufactured for coal-fired power stations and of an oil company, so I have wide experience of energy, not merely a narrow view.
The United Kingdom has no equal in orchestrating delay--it really takes the biscuit. I am talking about Ministers, civil servants, inspectorates and local planning officers. I could go on and on. Who rubs their hands? It is the French across the channel. Why? Because they are our main competitors. They have nuclear power and nuclear processing in a big way. If we do not get cracking on
Column 712
THORP, we will export not only jobs from Cumbria but many jobs throughout the United Kingdom that depend on contracts for THORP going ahead very shortly.We are affecting thousands of people. We are doing a great disservice to our engineers, scientists and inventors, who have made us leaders in nuclear processing. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen say, "It is a question of storage or reprocessing." It is not ; it is a question of disposal and reprocessing, which allows management to decide whether some material is stored in dry storage. Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen have their story wrong and they are not thinking clearly enough. Management wants the choice.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made a very good speech. However, he blamed John Guinness, who I believe is blameless because he was not chairman when many of these things were put in motion. Since becoming chairman, he has been quick to talk to hon. Members who have taken an interest in nuclear energy and to invite them to Sellafield to see things for themselves.
I referred to the United Kindom's orchestrating of delays, of which the Sizewell inquiry was a good example. We are simply handing contracts to our competitors. We have the designers, scientists and the skills. For goodness sake, let us capitalise on that and win trade for the United Kingdom.
The dangers were mentioned. People who live in Cornwall are subject to 7,500 microSieverts of radiation a year. People who live in Cumbria will be pleased to hear that they are subject to only 2,200 microSieverts a year. People who live clodiation level for the whole of Cumbria equates to that experienced on an aircraft trip to Singapore and back.
Why are we talking about safety? If we are worried about safety, why let the French take the lead? They are only 20 miles across the water. If there is a disaster in France, we will suffer. It is absolutely stupid.
I have said all that I want to say in only a few minutes. I wish that other hon. Members would be as brief, because the speeches and stupid interventions that we have heard will serve only to hand contracts to the French. If hon. Members had something to say, why did not they stand up and make a speech? Why did they keep intervening? I reckon that I have said it all in two minutes. 7.8 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen) : I thank the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for initiating the debate.
The key decisions about THORP were taken in 1978, since when there has not been a parliamentary debate on the subject. In those 15 years, circumstances have changed substantially. In the 1970s, oil prices went through the roof and our future oil supplies were uncertain. There was a world energy problem, because we did not know how long our oil and gas resources would last. There was, therefore, a projected energy gap. The answer with which we were presented in the 1970s was nuclear energy-- advanced gas-cooled reactors, pressurised water reactors and, in the long term, fast breeder reactors.
Column 713
The initial justification for THORP was that we would need plutonium to solve the energy problem, and that fast breeder reactors would be the reactors of the 21st century.Fifteen years later, it is a completely different ball game. There is no energy problem. Oil and gas resources are finite, but we are thinking in terms of 50 years and more. Oil prices are no longer the problem that they were in the 1970s. There is a glut of coal on the world market, and it is British. The market for nuclear energy has collapsed. Orders for reactors have been cancelled, and, because of the transparent economics, we now know that nuclear electricity means a £1 billion a year levy on electricity prices. There is no demand for plutonium, although there is an embarrassment of plutonium in Europe, Russia and the United States.
The Government cancelled the British fast breeder reactor programme two or three years ago. In Europe, all work on fast breeder reactors is coming to a halt, including that on the Super Phenix in France. Only Japan is proceeding with a fast breeder reactor, but, having studied nuclear matters for the past 20 years, I can safely predict that within 10 years, or perhaps even five, Japan will also scrap that work.
What is the justification for THORP? Once we had scrapped the fast breeder reactor, there was no need for it. The only justification is the £9 billion of orders for reprocessing, which were negotiated 10 years ago. We now realise that reprocessing is quite unnecessary because dry storage is a realistic, viable and far cheaper option. The Minister said that everyone who is anti-THORP is anti-nuclear, which is generally the case. In economic terms, it would be cheaper for Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear if THORP were cancelled and if they switched to dry storage, which is their preferred option. Germany is now considering removing the reprocessing requirement from its electricity utilities so the German orders can be re- negotiated ; perhaps Germany would be glad if THORP were cancelled. The £5 billion-worth of Japanese orders is not a consolation prize. I am sure that the cancellation fee would be only a small fraction of that. The Japanese do not need the plutonium because there is an embarrassment of plutonium on the world market.
Why should we proceed with THORP? We do not need the uranium, which is much cheaper on the world market. We do not need the plutonium, because there is no market for it, and the radioactive waste produced is the same as that in the dry store facilities.
The future of THORP should be the subject of a full and open public inquiry so that all aspects can be considered. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said in his excellent speech, a public inquiry need take no more than 100 days ; the decision could still be taken by the end of the year. I am sure that the result of a public inquiry would be completely different from that in 1978. The THORP project should be scrapped. It is cheaper to scrap it than to proceed.
7.13 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : For all the passion and certainty that have accompanied so many of the speeches, perhaps the most revealing was the passage in the Minister's speech when he was at great pains--no doubt with his eye on the Strand and the High Court--to
Column 714
make it perfectly clear that certain statutory responsibilities devolve on the two Secretaries of State and that, however much passion and certainty we may display in the Chamber, to a large extent the decisions may fall to be taken under the discretion that legislation affords to them.The speech made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was one of the most significant contributions to the debate. He expressed with great eloquence his and many other people's reservations. His analysis was faultless, but I found his conclusion difficult to justify against that analysis.
He concluded that an environmental impact assessment was necessary. I have seen a few of those in my time, and the one thing we know about them is that they are all based on assumptions. If one wants to challenge the assumptions, the only way to do so is at a public inquiry. I should declare an interest in public inquiries because some of the best and, I suppose, some of the most lucrative days of my life have been spent at public inquiries.
One important issue has not yet been dealt with : public inquiries are an important vehicle for creating public confidence. They are not merely opportunities for points to be scored by either side of the argument or for cross-examination ; they are an opportunity to allay the public's legitimate anxieties. Of course, if a public inquiry were to follow in this case, it would cause delay and costs would also be involved. I agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that jobs could be at risk.
I am not one of those who passionately oppose nuclear power, to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), but the issues go beyond the boundaries of Cumbria and have attracted the attention of and caused anxiety among sufficient people to justify a public inquiry.
Hon. Members should read with care the answer put on the board at 3.30 pm today. The Secretary of State for the Environment made it clear that the functions incumbent on him under, for example, section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 are not to be prejudiced by the terms of his answer. If one reads the Act, one finds that the form of the consultation that the Secretaries of State may yet determine may be that of a public inquiry. The Minister dare not say that there will be no public inquiry ; if he did, he would be trenching on the discretion of those Secretaries of State, and I can assure him that it would be relied on in an application for judicial review in the High Court in the Strand. The consequence of the passion and commitment that have been displayed this evening may yet be a public inquiry. If there were to be an inquiry, I do not believe that it would be against the public interest.
I understand those who support nuclear power with great passion and enthusiasm. I also understand hon. Members who are anxious to support those who work in the industry, especially their constituents. However, before we proceed, and in view of the fact that 15 years have elapsed since the Parker inquiry, is it not right to pause and reconsider?
I do not make that suggestion on an insubstantial basis. On the subject of substitution, the document produced by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee raises an important matter that has not yet been resolved. How is it to be resolved to the public's satisfaction other than through a public inquiry? I wanted to say a little more about the risks of nuclear proliferation, but time prevents me from doing so.
Column 715
One consequence of THORP would be the production of more plutonium. To convert it to weapons grade material takes great skill and is no mean feat. The existence of additional plutonium and the risk of its potential diversion for illicit purposes should cause us great concern. I do not think that the United Kingdom is at risk of a nuclear attack from countries that were formerly members of the Warsaw pact or the Soviet Union, but the United Kingdom's interests will certainly be prejudiced, or at risk, if there is a proliferation of countries with nuclear weapons. That in itself should make us pause and think before we proceed with the programme.7.19 pm
Mr. Eggar : With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
We have had a constructive debate in which a wide variety of issues have been aired. Of course, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take careful note of the points that have been made. They must exercise their functions in relation to the Sellafield discharge authorisation as that is a matter for them.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) urged an environmental impact statement on the House. He was answered admirably by the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). They argued against such a statement very persuasively.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) again urged us to have a full public inquiry. He joins Greenpeace in that request. However, unlike Greenpeace, he was not honest about what he wanted. Greenpeace has stated quite specifically that it wants a public inquiry because that would delay the operation of THORP by a year or 18 months. Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman come clean with the House and say that that was his motivation?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Workington spoke well for Cumbria and made clear the widespread support for THORP. As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) spoke clearly, directly and to the point.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) revealed himself once more to be a fully paid up member of the "We know it all, but we are opponents to nuclear power and we will use every mechanism we can" brigade, as that is what, in effect, he said in his short intervention.
I wish finally to consider the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats. They state in their motion that there is a "hardening of international opposition". There is no evidence of that and customers have supported the plant yet again. The motion states :
"there are strong economic, environmental and proliferation reasons"
against the plant. However, the conclusions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, revealed in today's parliamentary answer, give the lie to that.
The Liberal Democrats also state in the motion that
"all relevant circumstances have changed".
Yes, relevant circumstances have changed : THORP has been constructed ; people have been recruited for the plant, contracts have been signed and people are trained and ready to work. The Liberal Democrats should pay attention to that.
Column 716
The motion states that alternative processes are available. However, customers are not choosing those alternative processes. The motion calls for "full disclosure" of contracts and well it might. As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth made clear, what would that do? It would help the French and BNFL's international competitors.The motion also calls for "economic justification" for the plant. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has done in his announcement today. The motion calls for opportunity for "public comment" and that, too, has been provided in the parliamentary answer today.
The points made by the Liberal Democrats have been answered. I call on the House to vote for the Government amendment to the motion. Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to. Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question :--
The House divided : Ayes 43, Noes 157.
Division No. 308] [7.22 pm
AYES
Alton, David
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bayley, Hugh
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, Andrew F.
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Cann, Jamie
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cryer, Bob
Dafis, Cynog
Denham, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Flynn, Paul
Galloway, George
Harvey, Nick
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Johnston, Sir Russell
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mo n)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Kilfedder, Sir James
Llwyd, Elfyn
Lynne, Ms Liz
Madden, Max
Mahon, Alice
Mullin, Chris
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Rendel, David
Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Salmond, Alex
Skinner, Dennis
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tyler, Paul
Wareing, Robert N
Wigley, Dafydd
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and
Mr. James Wallace.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Amess, David
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Ashby, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bates, Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Booth, Hartley
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Bowis, John
Brandreth, Gyles
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Browning, Mrs. Angela
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butler, Peter
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Cash, William
Clappison, James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Congdon, David
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Dalyell, Tam
Day, Stephen
Deva, Nirj Joseph
Devlin, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
| Next Section
| Home Page |