---

Nuclear Industry

I am encouraged to hear that. It is not what I was able to determine during my researches for this debate, but it is encouraging. Perhaps the Minister could say some encouraging words in his response. I am glad to hear it, because the waste in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency needs to be dealt with, irrespective of any decisions on new nuclear build. I sincerely hope that his optimism is well placed. We need clear, transparent funding arrangements for waste disposal. For example, will the Government charge marginal or average costs to the operators of new nuclear power stations for the disposal of their waste in a facility that the Government will have to construct anyhow? There are important questions not just about the practicalities but about the funding of disposal. The fourth principal point is the need for a review of the planning and licensing systems to reduce the lead time for construction. Those issues are not unique to nuclear power, at least as far as planning is concerned. However, nuclear power stations require a number of specific consents and approvals, for site licences and for planning consent. Under existing regulations, an optimistic projection for the time taken to gain all the necessary consents is around five years, and potential developers believe that that is too long. Proposals to shorten the regulatory process focus on pre-licensing and planning. Developers want the pre-licensing of generic reactor technologies to address design and siting issues right at the start, and to reduce the time required to license subsequent reactors. On planning, the industry wants the Government to set a road map for the process, restricting the ability of public inquiries to question the original policy and requiring them instead to focus on local issues. I know that the Government are moving in that direction. On publication of the energy review, the Government will produce a response to the consultation on the kind of reforms to the planning regime proposed by the industry. I hope that that will be available in May. Reform in this area is essential if we are to fast-track new build, but there are risks. Pre-licensing does not guarantee a faster outcome—a form of pre-licensing was used for Sizewell B, for example. Most of the reactor technologies are untested. A process that is perceived to be cutting corners will not engender public confidence, which is crucial to new nuclear build. Curtailing the planning process would work against encouraging public buy-in to new nuclear build. There have been newspaper reports of some electricity generators putting pressure on the Government to start the type approval of reactors even before the White Paper is published, to save time. I wonder whether those reports are true. Has the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate started work on pre-licensing generic reactor designs? What attitude are British Energy and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority taking to the use of the sites of their current plants for new facilities? I have spoken already for roughly the time that I had hoped to speak for, but I want to say a few more things, briefly. I will therefore rush through a few other issues. There are big issues concerning where to site nuclear power stations. Most of the existing sites—where it is assumed that new power stations will go—are coastal. Rising sea levels resulting from climate change and endomorphic tilt will make some of them unviable in the coming decades. Most of those sites are owned by British Energy and the NDA. How will other developers gain access to them? What impact will the decommissioning work on older power stations have on the availability of adjacent land for new power stations? On reactor technology, traditionally, we have seen two frontrunners in the UK: the Westinghouse AP1000, and Areva NP’s European pressurised water reactor, which is being built in Finland and is due to open in 2009. However, that is the only example in the world of either of those technologies being put to commercial use, so any new build in the UK will be using largely untested technology. That poses risks for the pre-licensing process. However, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd is making a strong case for its advanced CANDU reactor to be licensed for use in the UK, and its experience and track record make it a strong candidate for being added to the list. There are also questions about the supply chain.