here - United Kingdom Parliament

893 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 894
John Woodcock: The Government talk a great deal
about blank pages. Have they whitewashed their time in
opposition, when one party was dead set against nuclear
and the other wanted it to be a last resort? If they have
converted, that is fine, but let us at least have a bit of
candour about the process through which the Minister
has got to where he is now.
Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is new to the
House and he might therefore be unaware of the extent
to which we worked very constructively with the previous
Secretary of State, the now noble Lord Hutton, and
others to try to ensure that we took this agenda forward.
As the hon. Gentleman has been a special adviser
however, he will be aware that nuclear was taken off the
agenda for five years. There was a Government White
Paper that said, in effect, “We do not see a need for new
nuclear in this country.” There were no qualifications to
that statement; it was just stated that there was no
requirement, full stop. For five years, that delayed the
development of new nuclear.
I completely applaud the work of the previous Secretary
of State, which has contributed to our country becoming
one of the most exciting in the world for new nuclear
development. The reality is that we were constructively
involved in that process, but for five years nuclear was
taken off the agenda.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): To be candid,
the Minister may know that, as per the coalition agreement,
many Liberal Democrat Members are still absolutely
opposed to nuclear power. Will he confirm that at no
point in the last 30 years has it been impossible for
private investment for nuclear to come forward, and if
Government policy was not preventing that, why does
he think no private investment did come forward in the
last 30 years?
Charles Hendry: The Government are seeking to
address a comprehensive range of issues to do with new
nuclear. There have been planning issues; for example,
the Sizewell B project took five or six years just to go
through the planning stage. Also, regulatory justification
is a legal requirement, and that process had to be gone
through. Last week, a measure on that passed through
this House with a massive majority of over 500 to a
couple of dozen, so there has been a significant step
forward in that respect. The long-term cost of waste
management also needs to be known, and that figure is
now being made clear and given to the industry. Other
barriers to investment are also now being addressed.
Therefore, although it is technically right that there was
nothing to stop people investing in new nuclear, it is
also absolutely clear that the circumstances did not
encourage people to come forward with new proposals.
John Robertson: I should declare an interest: I am
chair of the all-party group on nuclear energy. I think
the Minister is being slightly disingenuous towards the
Opposition. It was Labour who led the fight to put
nuclear back on to the table. It was not that it had been
taken off the table; it was just that nobody really
wanted to touch it, including Ministers who were Members
of this House at the time. Therefore, in a spirit of
cross-party coalition, will the Minister accept that we
did our bit in getting nuclear back on to the agenda,
and does he agree that now is the time to make sure
that these new power stations are built for the benefit of
this country
Charles Hendry: I am keen that this coalition should
get larger and grander every day, so I am delighted to
welcome the hon. Gentleman to it. I agree with what he
said. I have already twice given credit to the previous
Secretary of State. I am very happy to pay tribute to
him and the previous Prime Minister for the role they
played in putting nuclear back on the agenda.
In response to the question of my hon. Friend the
Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), I think it is true
that the challenges we face today are in part a result of
not enough construction having been carried out early
enough. If there had been more construction in our
energy infrastructure over recent years, we would not
now be faced with the mountain of needing £200 billion
of new investment.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab): I
am glad to hear that the future of the nuclear industry
in the UK will be a good one. Will there, however, be a
good future for the UK supply chain for the nuclear
industry, particularly in terms of the construction of
these stations? What will the Government do to support
the supply chain?
Charles Hendry: We are very keen indeed to see the
supply chain benefit. We talk to the companies that are
looking to invest in this area, and they are very keen to
use British know-how, skills and businesses. The
Westinghouse approach is to buy where it builds. Therefore,
together with Arriva, it has been setting up workshops
around the country to encourage people to show the
contributions and skills they can bring. From our point
of view, this is a critical part of the project. We want
them to partner British companies and, as part of that
process, we believe there is an opportunity for them to
sell that package internationally as well. That is absolutely
at the heart of what we want.
Angela Smith: Why, therefore, do the Government
refuse to support Forgemasters in its bid to play a
strategic part in the development of the supply chain
for the future of our power stations?
Charles Hendry: The hon. Lady is very familiar with
the argument. We have said that we looked at the issues
as we came into government and we identified those
that were based on affordability, not on their importance.
We believe that Sheffield Forgemasters makes an extremely
important contribution in this area. The Government’s
position has been clear and what we now do not understand
is the Opposition’s position.
We had a vote on regulatory justification last week,
which approved two specific reactor types, the Westinghouse
and the Areva designs. In that vote the shadow Business
Secretary, the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Energy
Secretary voted against the approval of those designs.
How can the shadow Business Secretary make a case for
Sheffield Forgemasters when he has voted against the
exact design that it is supposed to be supporting? There
is a complete hole in the Opposition’s policy in this
area. I hope that this shadow Minister will rise to his
feet to give us clarity on those issues, but when three
members of the shadow Cabinet vote against the heart
of the nuclear policy, the Opposition’s policy is in
tatters.