Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-106)
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION AND
BRITISH ENERGY
16 MAY 2006
Q100 Mark Hunter: Could you deal
with the cost issue which I mentioned in the latter part of the
question? If there is a similar programme of support in the UK
to encourage the same amount of new build, how much is it likely
to cost the UK taxpayer?
Mr Spence: We are not talking
about subsidies.
Q101 Chairman: That is very helpful.
You have just said that the nuclear industry needs three things
from government, given that we do not build these stations any
more: a change in planning; a change in carbon; and pre-licensing.
Mr Spence: Perhaps I may add a
fourth one which we take for granted; that is, CoRWM moving forward
and, therefore, a route on waste management.
Q102 Chairman: None of that has any
direct cost to the taxpayer except for the civil servants' time
involved in taking it forward?
Mr Spence: Explicitly, we are
not looking for a subsidy.
Q103 Mr Bone: I come to this with
an inclination towards nuclear power. I am concerned if for public
confidence reasons the industry dismisses any objections as being
emotive and extremist. I wonder whether your very good comment
about not appearing to be arrogant is part of the solution to
that in building public confidence.
Mr Armour: I think that more than
most we rely on public confidence for our licence to operate.
That is very much why we think it is important to go through a
process of open dialogue, whether it is the planning or licensing
process. There is a tendency to repeat those rather than have
legitimate debate. We welcome what has happened with CoRWM which
is a matter of learning from the past. There has to be engagement,
but equally one has to come to an understanding at some point,
deal with things and move forward.
Q104 Mr Bone: Another issue related
to public confidence is that the energy review by the Government
is supposed to be an open one. I am much minded to listen to all
the debates and hear where we should go forward on energy. The
media is presenting this as a done deal and the Government will
come down heavily on the side of the nuclear industry. In the
past there have been examples where this Government has made up
its mind and gone through a process of review or consultation.
That is a concern to me in the area of public confidence. Do you
share that concern—or perhaps you know whether or not it
is a done deal?
Mr Armour: We hear the Government
making very clear statements that it is nuclear neutral, and it
is probably making the right statements. There is not a single
solution to this problem; we need a balance if we are to tackle
security of supply, sustainability, global warming and affordability.
Against the environment in which we find ourselves we need no
one solution. Nuclear is not all of that, but equally it would
be daft to ignore the only proven large-scale generation type
one has that is low carbon. I believe, therefore, that it has
to be part of the ongoing mix.
Mr Parker: One also sees the public
reflecting that view. We do regular polling. When the question
is put, "Would you advocate a mix of generating sources including
renewables and nuclear to provide security and reduce emissions?"
about 63% of the population will agree with that particular proposition.
We are also seeing a growing awareness among the public of the
dangers of climate change and the risks to the security of energy
supplies. Again, that influences the way in which they look at
issues like nuclear; they are beginning to see that it has some
benefits in terms of addressing those concerns.
Q105 Mr Bone: Both evidence sessions
today have been very useful. I would be very interested in your
view about the idea that communities should be given the option
of vetoing the building of a nuclear power plant. If that was
possible it would give enormous public confidence to the whole
process.
Mr Armour: Perhaps one should
distinguish two aspects here. I think that the original question
was asked in the context of a long-term repository which might
be there for thousands of years. In that context should a local
community have to sign up to it? The interesting example is perhaps
the Finnish one where in the latter stages four communities were
competing and it came down to two finalists and one choice, in
return for compensation. The community which was chosen in the
west of Finland also has the nuclear station. We have seen that
replicated overseas. Getting a community to sign up for a very
long-term arrangement is important. If one is talking of a power
station that is there for 60 years, equally there must be benefits
for the local community and it must go through the planning system.
Do I think we should give vetoes to this or any other major infrastructure
project, for example if one similarly regarded power lines? At
the moment there is huge controversy in Scotland over the question
of power line upgrading. There must be a balance in the planning
system between national need and the interests of the local community.
It should take those together, but ultimately we must find a way
through that does not create planning paralysis. In the context
of nuclear waste we have a legacy in the UK and a solution must
be found for it. It should be possible to do that by consensus,
but ultimately we have to find a way through.
Q106 Chairman: The planning issue
hangs above almost every aspect of the energy debate, as we shall
see in perhaps an hour or so when the Secretary of State makes
an announcement on gas storage. Microgeneration faces huge planning
issues. It seems to me it is planning, planning, planning.
Mr Parker: And not doing, Chairman!
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed,
gentlemen. We are very grateful to you for your time and trouble.
I think that we will be hearing from the sceptics next week.
| 
