Clause 41
Energy Bill
11:00 am
Charles Hendry (Shadow Minister, Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Wealden, Conservative)
The work that the NII does at this stage when it evaluates different reactor types is essentially work on behalf of the Government in assessing which ones should be allowed to go forward. That work would not be done if there were not a new build programme in place and I think that it would be right for contributions to be made from the industry towards the cost of the NII’s work in that area. However, I also hope that the NII will be given the staffing levels that it requires because it cannot cope with its current workload.
We must build several reactors of a single type. If we go down the path that we have taken before—having one of this type, two of that one and one more of something different—the whole new programme will become completely unaffordable and unimaginable. We must recognise that we will probably end up with a fleet of a number of reactors to the same design type. We must also ensure that not too many add-on extras are included during that process. During the evaluation of different reactor types, I hope that the Minister will urge the NII not to say that every possible bell and whistle must be added on. That is what happened with Sizewell B—it added £1 billion of extra costs and some of the elements that were included have never been used in over 10 years of operation. That is an important matter.
We are more generally concerned about the skills base within the nuclear sector. It is encouraging to look at places like the university of Central Lancashire and the courses that it wishes to lay on and develop, and at Southampton university, which is keen to develop expertise in those areas. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government plan to build up the skills base in this area, and how he will keep Parliament informed about that.
My own approach has been greatly influenced by what I have seen. The various journeys that I have made are covered in the Register of Members’ Interests and include visits to not only nuclear but wind, oil and gas facilities. I had the opportunity to go to Sizewell B, which is an absolutely extraordinary plant. It has been operating for a year and half at full tilt, and for those who have concerns about the security of modern nuclear plants, bearing in mind that it is over 10 years old, it is an incredibly safe facility and a great credit to the industry.
I also had the opportunity to go to Oskarshamn in Sweden, where a model is being built for the sort of repository that is thought appropriate for deep disposal. I urge all those who are sceptical about nuclear waste disposal to go to look at that facility. It is 500 m underground and they take 10,000 people a year down there. Because of its communications programme, it has managed to get 80 per cent. support within the local community for the burying of nuclear waste in that location. When Nirex appeared in the 1980s, there was 100 per cent. objection to nuclear waste being buried in those communities. However, if we look at how the Swedes have done it, with the thoroughness of their technology, their scientific approach and their approach to involving the local community in trying to persuade it about the right approach to deep disposal, we could learn some significant lessons. I came away convinced that we could manage the long-term deep disposal of waste in a constructive and safe way.
I was also struck by the way in which waste is stored on site; in that nuclear facility, it is kept in pools of water. Somebody on the edge of the pool is a little further away from it than from where I am to where the Minister is, but not by much. If someone stands on the side of the pool with a millisievert counter that measures how much radiation there is, the counter does not move. I did not get any radiation. I was rather disappointed as I had hoped to get a small amount—0.1 or 0.2 millisievert—to know that I had genuinely been there. I got much more radiation in the course of the aeroplane flight on the way, not to mention the carbon issues that will have gone with that. It is fascinating to see how that waste is stored safely on site. If we have doubts about the programme, we should investigate how it is done so that we can be reassured.
We are told by those in the industry that they are happy to invest on that basis of being responsible for their full-term costs and not having a subsidy. Clearly, the greatest issue of concern to the public is how the waste would be handled in the longer term. On Second Reading, I said that I would table an amendment whereby that the industry could not start to operate a new plant unless a site had been identified. We wanted at that point to drive forward the Government’s work in identifying a suitable long-term repository. We have not tabled that amendment because on further reflection we felt that it was not the right way forward. I was persuaded that it would be possible for a site to be found which, on further geological investigation, proved to be inappropriate, so that people would have gone ahead with their investment plans only to have the carpet pulled from underneath them as they got close to it. That would be unacceptable. I was also persuaded that it would give an incredible power to local authorities. If a site was identified and it seemed to be going ahead, an authority could say, on the day before the announcement was due to be made, “Hang on guys, we need another £50 million on this if we are going to do it.” That would give them an unacceptable amount of influence.
I was also concerned that we should not give a signal to the industry that we were seeking to obstruct its investment. We understand that boards around the world are looking with great care at the United Kingdom market, but they are also looking at other markets where they could invest. If we want them to feel that the UK is a suitable place, they have to feel that a potential alternative Government would not put additional hurdles in their way or obstruct the investments that they are seeking to make. It behoves us above all to take a responsible approach to this. We aspire to be a Government. There will be different views on both sides of the Committee about this, but we have to be realistic in our approach.
We are encouraged by the approach taken in the Government’s White Paper on nuclear power published in January. The conclusion on page 99 bears repeating:
“The Government considers that it would be technically possible and desirable to dispose of both new and legacy waste in the same geological disposal facilities and that this should be explored through the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely programme. The Government considers that waste can and should be stored in safe and secure interim storage facilities until a geological facility becomes available.
Our policy is that before development consents for new nuclear power stations are granted, the Government will need to be satisfied that effective arrangements exist or will exist to manage and dispose of the waste they will produce.”
That strikes the right balance in this equation, and we are looking to move things forward with the Government on that basis.
I have a couple of specific questions. Clause 41(3)(a) refers to “written notice”. What does that mean? Does it just mean an e-mail to the Secretary of State saying that this is what is being considered? Is there a standard form that will be expected to be filled out? Can the Minister give us some more information about that? Subsection (7) concerns decommissioning standards and processes. Who will set those? There seems to be a chicken and egg situation. Should not the Government first set the standards for decommissioning so that industry knows what it is estimating the costs for, instead of expecting the industry to come forward with its own estimates which may then prove to be unacceptable to the Government? The Government should take the lead here. The Minister may intend that that is what the Government would do, but otherwise industry will try to guess what is in their mind. That would be an unacceptable way forward. This may be covered in clause 50 on the regulations and guidance, but it would be useful to have some clarity.
More generally, how can costs be estimated, given how construction prices will change? Decommissioning will be carried out in 60 or 70 years’ time, and if there is 10 years or so before the first plant is going to be operational, they will then have worked for 40 or 50 years. We are looking a tremendously long time ahead. What mechanism does the Minister propose to build in to ensure that the funds will be available to reflect the actual costs at the time when decommissioning takes place? What would happen if there was a fundamental shift away from nuclear in that time scale ? For example, what if there was a massive advance in carbon capture and storage technology, renewables or fusion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South often talks about, and that made nuclear no longer economically viable? How is decommissioning going to be carried out, if the plant is not going to be operated for its full cycle, and how would we ensure that the fund had enough in it to look after the waste that had been generated during that time?
I hope that the Minister will see from the comments that have been made that we are seeking to work with him in as constructive a way as possible. I know that some people have deep concerns about nuclear power and how it goes forward. Our obligation is to try to ensure that if people decide to invest in it, they do so in a way that fully takes account of the costs involved in the programme but, above all, provides safety for the nuclear waste and decommissioning regime.