Memorandum submitted by Professor Sir
David King
Thank you for your letter dated 1 December 2005
following up my recent appearance before your Committee. I should
be happy to address these issues.
Your first four points, and your suggestion
of a discrepancy between the evidence that I gave to the Committee
and my views expressed in other fora, can be dealt with quite
simply. There is no discrepancy.
I believe you are referring to the Sunday
Times article of 27 November "New tax for nuclear power
stations" which referred to my calling for a "security
of supply levy". I have never called for such a levy or similar
fiscal measure. The Sunday Times have subsequently published
a letter stating my views, which has been copied to you, together
with a correction over the article.
The UK has a liberalised energy market and I
emphatically do not believe in direct Government subsidies for
nuclear energy. Decisions about the economics will be made, quite
rightly, by the private utilities sector guided by government
considerations on the need to meet our emissions targets and to
have a secure energy supply.
What I have consistently said is that there
is the need to treat fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables on a
level playing field in relation to the amount of CO2 they emit
as an energy source - to internalise the environmental and other
costs as far as possible. The success of emissions trading across
Europe is helping to achieve this, making renewables and indeed
nuclear power a more attractive source of energy compared to fossil
fuels as carbon trading heads towards 25 euros a tonne.
The Energy Review will look at these issues
in light of the strengthening evidence on the nature and extent
of climate change and increasing concerns about the future security
of UK energy supplies.
You have also asked how I justify the extent
of my involvement in policy aspects of energy strategy and whether
this compromises my position as Chief Scientific Advisor, and
the role I play in providing independent scientific advice. As
Chief Scientific Adviser I am quite clear that my role is to provide
advice to Government that seeks to ensure that policies are founded
on the best available scientific and research evidence. Ministers
make policy. I certainly make no apology for providing advice
on this basis related to the development of energy policy. There
are no more important and pressing issues that I deal with than
climate change, the linked imperative to transform and decarbonise
our energy systems over just the next few decades, and the options
for achieving this. This is an assessment based solidly on the
scientific evidence and research. I believe it is wrong to suggest
that by contributing on this issue I am in some way compromising
my position or independence. Moreover, as I made clear to the
Committee last month, I give my advice in the real world. I do
not give politically expedient advice, and I do not set energy
policy. I will not be involved in setting policy as a result of
the Energy Review. I will however be consulted on the scientific
evidence underpinning the Review and will continue to contribute
where it is useful for me to do so.
You also asked if my advocacy of a specific
outcome from the current energy review undermines the integrity
and impartiality of the review process. To suggest that I have
advocated a specific outcome from the Review is grossly simplistic.
The Energy Review will quite rightly have a broad remit, encompassing
energy supply, demand and transport. It will examine objectively
the evidence across a wide range of issues and draw views from
a wide range of stakeholders.
There can be no single or simple solution to
achieving the Government's challenging goals for energy policy.
We will need every tool in the bag, including maximising the contribution
from renewables and energy efficiency, and from all sectors of
the economy. To interpret the direction of your question, it is
inevitable I think that the Energy Review should need to take
a second look at nuclear at this time for the reasons I referred
to during my appearance before the Committee. As the existing
fleet of nuclear plant is de-commissioned the UK risks a growing
energy gap in terms of zero carbon dioxide producing power stations.
This is clearly an issue that needs to be considered.
I have dealt with your remaining points, requesting
information on R&D expenditure and Uranium supplies in Annex's
A and B (attached).
Sir David King
Chief Scientific Adviser
| 
