| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
31 Mar 2009 : Column 201WH—continued
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
The right hon. Gentleman is making a partisan speech. He has just been challenged on the fact that the current leader of his party, at the very time when this Government were saying that we need to move to building more nuclear power stations, was blind, complacent and ill-informed about nuclear power. He rejected it and said that it should be the last possible option. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that much of his criticism should go not just to
his party in the past—even when he was Energy Minister—which failed miserably on this issue but to its current leader?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall not repeat what I said earlier. I am making these points about nuclear power to people of all parties and all persuasions, and I am totally certain of my views on it. The Minister is part of the Executive. He is in office, it is his responsibility and it is his Department and Government who have failed. It is intriguing that they are now more and more interested in our views and what we will do.
I have confidence that my party will take forward these policies, and I hope that we will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells that he is not anti-nuclear, that he sees the importance of what I am saying and that we will do something about it. It will be difficult and urgent, precisely because of the failures of policy that are only too clear from the succession of White Papers, all of which are on the record.
I believe that the private sector must finance, build and operate the reactors, but the framework is inescapably the responsibility of the Government, who regulate, approve and tax the industry. They are responsible for the planning system and for setting the environmental policies to which I have already referred. They are inextricably part of the nuclear programme, and that is where they have failed.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will be suitably humble about past mistakes and candid about the constraints under which he now operates. I believe that he wants eight new reactors built in this country. Will they be built in time to close the energy gap to which even the Government have referred? What supply bottlenecks has he identified, and where are the skills shortages, which we know exist? Specifically, the nuclear installations inspectorate is short of inspectors and skilled personnel to carry out generic design assessment. The shortage has been investigated by the Government, and they have had a report on it. What are they doing about it? Only they can deal with that urgent matter.
Finally, what part is this country playing in the design of the next generation of nuclear reactors? Another mistake that the Government made was to withdraw from active membership of the Generation IV International Forum. That was certainly a mistake because new reactor designs can make better use of existing fuel. They can burn plutonium—indeed, even from warheads. They can operate reactors at higher temperatures and thereby produce hydrogen as well as electricity, and they can be more proliferation-resistant. This country must be part of developing that dynamic technology.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us not simply about the past but about the future. Will we be part of the nuclear industry as it evolves, or will we yet again be relegated to the role of spectators and sub-contractors?
Mr. Eric Illsley (in the Chair): Before calling the next hon. Member, may I point out that I am required to call the Front-Bench spokesmen from midday? I urge Members to make short speeches, so that all Members can take part in the debate.
11.29 am
John Mason (Glasgow, East) (SNP): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr. Illsley. I shall start on a personal note. My father spent his whole working life in the electricity industry, with one company. He was very committed to his work; we were not allowed to have gas in the house; and I remember that, once, we had a family day out to Hunterston nuclear power station.
Despite all that, I think that nuclear energy has many disadvantages, not least its costs. The UK Government estimate the cost of a new plant to be £3 billion, and Finland, as well as facing many delays with its new developments, talks about the cost being £4.3 billion. Furthermore, nuclear clean-up could cost anything between £73 billion and £90 billion.
Reliability is often mentioned, but, in 2006-07, Hunterston’s reactor 3 was off for 353 days and its reactor 4 was off for 244 days. On reliability throughout the UK, in 2004, there were unplanned outages at Heysham 1 and Hartlepool; in 2005-06, there were prolonged unplanned outages at Hartlepool and Heysham 1; and, in 2006-07, there were losses due to boiler issues at Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B. It is often said that wind power is not reliable for electricity production, but, from a Scottish perspective, I can confirm that wind is pretty consistent, and it is used widely in Norway, Canada and Iceland, where they have a mix of renewable sources for electricity production. Hydroelectricity is very flexible and can be switched on and off easily.
On the environment, Greenpeace said:
“Nuclear Power can only deliver a 4 per cent. cut in emissions after 2025... too little too late at too high a price.”
I shall mention renewables later, but, even if we use coal and gas, we can improve on carbon emissions and we could have clean coal technology. Indeed, we could have had carbon capture at Peterhead, but the UK Government blocked it.
Each country should deal with its own radioactive waste, and Scotland is committed to keeping its waste in Scotland. We should not send it to England, and nor should English waste come to Scotland. There is a lack of skilled engineers to fill many of the jobs that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) mentioned. The nuclear industry has been run down, and this country is not going to get many jobs if it has no skilled engineers.
Nuclear power generated 26 per cent. of Scotland’s electricity in 2007, but, in reality, we produce more electricity than we require. We export 20 per cent. to England and Northern Ireland, and Scottish consumption from non-nuclear sources in 2007 was 87.8 per cent. It could have been 92.5 per cent. Scotland is not in a weak position, as the right hon. Gentleman said. That argument applies to England: England may be in a weak position; Scotland is not.
Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab):
The hon. Gentleman makes a case against nuclear power, so why is it his party’s policy to extend the lives of Torness and Hunterston power stations? The issue is important not only because of the electricity generated, but, if he is opposed to nuclear power owing to the waste that it produces, because his policy actually
supports the production of more waste. I am intrigued by the conundrum that the Scottish National party has placed before the Scottish people.
John Mason: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his valid point. However, it raises two separate points: first, the extension of existing nuclear power stations is a decision for British Energy or whoever; and, secondly, new or replacement nuclear power stations should be decided on by Governments. The question is, therefore, should we build nuclear power stations to export electricity from Scotland? There is much talk of, and some argument for, generating electricity near the point of use, so, if the energy is right here, is it not better to use a local nuclear power station? For example, Battersea used to have a power station, and I am sure that it would make a very attractive site. If I can be assured that it is safe, I do not see why Battersea should not have a power station. Indeed, it would be an added tourist attraction for London.
Clearly, Scotland has considerable reserves of oil and gas. There is at least as much left in the ground as has been extracted and, as I mentioned earlier, Scotland will be self-sufficient in gas until at least 2020. Sadly, however, we have not had the opportunity to build up an oil fund, as Norway, Alaska and Alberta have, to invest more in renewables.
The Scottish Government’s target is for 31 per cent. of electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2011, and that is well ahead of the EU target of 12 per cent. by 2010 and even further ahead of the UK target of 10 per cent. by 2010. Indeed, the Scottish target is 50 per cent. by 2050. Scotland is leading the way on renewables, as it is in so many areas, and the UK is lagging behind. In fact, if we add our installed renewable projects to our consented renewable projects, we have 5.5 GW, which is 35 per cent. of our needs, so it looks as if we will be ahead of the target in 2011. In comparison, nuclear capacity in Scotland generates 2.1 GW.
It is clear that new nuclear power stations are neither necessary nor wanted in Scotland. Scotland can have a secure, low-carbon, non-nuclear energy future by combining a growing renewables sector with the exploitation of a range of technologies, including marine energy.
Mr. Ingram: I well understand the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy of complete opposition to nuclear power, but does it mean that he wants the British Energy facility in my constituency—the UK’s nuclear industry headquarters—to close down, Doosan Babcock to stop production for the nuclear industry, Rolls-Royce to leave the industry and the university base at Strathclyde, Aberdeen and Herriot-Watt to close down its nuclear physics and engineering capability? Those could be the consequences of his policy, so I should welcome his views.
John Mason: I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his intervention. I have already tried to make it clear that we do not suggest stopping what is already happening; we are talking about not having any new nuclear power stations. On the point about what a university does, public finances are limited, and, if £1 or £1,000 is spent in a university on nuclear work and research, that is a choice not to make that money available for renewables research. We have a choice, which is either/or, and I would rather see the money and the academic skills going into renewables research.
We can combine marine energy, microgeneration, cleaner energy from fossil fuels and improved energy efficiency. Scotland is the premier location for renewables in Europe, with 20 per cent. of Europe’s wind energy potential and 25 per cent. of Europe’s tidal power potential. The Scottish Government have introduced a £10 million Saltire Prize, the world’s biggest innovation award for marine renewables, and we have had 94 applications from 23 countries.
The renewables industry creates jobs. The Danish wind industry employs 15,000 individuals—slightly more than the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Some of those jobs could have been in Scotland, but our development has been held back because we are in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Wells mentioned top-end jobs, but are they going to be in France, Germany, Japan or here? The Scottish Government certainly intend to use their limited resources through planning controls to block nuclear power stations, so can the Minister assure us that he will not impose the will of the UK Government on the people and Parliament of Scotland?
We do not intend to close nuclear stations during their expected lifetimes, but, when they come to the end of their lives, they will be shut. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that worldwide nuclear output will fall from 15 per cent. to 13 per cent. by 2030. We must accept that nuclear is the fuel of the past and that wind, wave and tidal power are the fuels of future.
11.39 am
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): I represent a halfway house between the last two speakers, because I am pro-nuclear and pro-renewables. I see no contradiction in that stance if we are to meet our two targets of a low-carbon economy and a secure supply.
The next generation of new nuclear stations is starting a little too slowly for my liking, but there are good reasons for that. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on rightly saying in his opening remarks that we need to debate this matter openly and honestly; in the past the pro-nuclear lobby has had a tendency not to do so. The nuclear industry, in many ways, speaks in jargon that the public do not understand and we need to change that as well. When we talk about fast breeders and various other issues, the public do not engage and do not understand the benefits that new nuclear can bring to industry and the economy.
Nuclear energy in my part of the world provides an awful lot of highly skilled and well-paid jobs with transferable skills. I want that to continue, which is why I have been campaigning since becoming a Member of Parliament in 2001 for new nuclear to be on the agenda as part of a rich portfolio of energy sources. Under Conservative Governments—I mention this because the right hon. Member for Wells referred to it—in Wylfa, in my constituency of Ynys Môn, land was set aside in the early to mid-1980s for the development of a second nuclear power station. That was put off for various reasons, in my opinion.
First, in respect of public opinion, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, there were fears and perceptions of high risks in the nuclear industry. If we look at it rationally and consider other sources of energy, nuclear is a safe industry. In respect of fatalities, the number of workers killed in the nuclear industry is
far smaller than in other industries, including hydro, coal and gas. The public’s perception about nuclear being dangerous is now being put to one side when people have an open, honest debate about it.
Secondly, successive Governments have not handled the waste issue well. I support the deep burial chambers, such as the ones going ahead in Finland, although those are late. We could have done that a lot sooner and gone ahead and had safe disposal of nuclear waste.
Mrs. Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the excellent examples of decommissioning of a nuclear site is in Trawsfynydd in mid-Wales, where we are successfully decommissioning and creating a safe site within a national park?
Albert Owen: Disposal of waste is a subject for another debate, because of time restraints, but it can be done at different levels. If people consider it rationally, most of the volume of nuclear waste is low level and can be dealt with alongside what comes out of the military, and with medical and health waste, which needs to be dealt with safely, as does intermediate waste. As the hon. Lady says, intermediate waste is stored safely at Trawsfynydd, which is a fantastic feat of engineering and which is, again, leading to high-skilled jobs in that area.
I want to talk about low-carbon generation for the future, with a low-carbon nuclear industry, with its transferable skills, at the centre of that. We will not meet our targets through renewables alone. In my constituency—I could speak on a number of issues in this regard—we have wind farms, which have been accepted by the local community, and we have plans for liquified natural gas and for marine turbines. Alongside nuclear, the Isle of Anglesey—Ynys Môn—which I represent, can be an energy island and can work with Government at various levels, for the future, to provide the security and the supply of clean energy that we need, with a skilled work force.
The nuclear academy is up and running. We are planning for the future. Many young people in my area who are taking apprenticeships in the nuclear industries will have the opportunity to get the high skills that are needed to keep people in the Ynys Môn area. In the 1980s and ’90s there was a mass exodus of young people from that area because of the contraction of much of the manufacturing and many high-paid jobs. The lynchpin of the nuclear industry has kept many people there and many families and generations depend on it. But that should go further.
I congratulate the Government on considering a balanced portfolio, because development and research in renewables, alongside new nuclear technology, can take place in this country and can put us on a good footing for the future. We need to get this right and we need to do it properly. We also need to dismiss some of the myths that go along with nuclear.
I believe that Wylfa B will happen. It will meet the criteria in the Government’s strategic site assessment, because it has the infrastructure and the skills base and it has potential for the future. That is important. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason), who speaks on behalf of the Scottish National party, says that it wants to extend certain schemes, he is admitting that nuclear power is good for this country in terms of
energy security. But he will not say that because he knows that it is politically damaging to close power stations when they have an extended safe generation period. It is the same with Plaid Cymru in my area: the leader of Plaid Cymru, who is my Assembly Member, says that he is against nuclear in principle but supports it because of jobs. That is not a sustainable position. I have been honest with the electorate and now Plaid Cymru is jumping on the nuclear bandwagon and saying that it is in favour of nuclear power, although its leadership is not so sure because it might lose a few votes.
Nuclear is too important an issue for us to play party political point scoring. We need nuclear for the future security of the United Kingdom. We need to meet the targets. Climate change carries more risks than a nuclear explosion, which many people fear. Many of the top scientists and environmentalists are acknowledging that. People who are ideologically against nuclear power are now coming out in favour of it. Even the leader of the Conservative party, who was not too keen on it when he first became a Member of Parliament, is now suggesting—I am sure that his Front Bench spokesman will confirm it—that we need nuclear as part of the energy mix.
Yes, successive Governments have been too slow in moving forward, but we are at an important juncture and we are now moving in the right direction to get the skills and the security of supply necessary to meet the needs of the future, not just for this country, but on a global scale. Nuclear power should be part of that.
11.46 am
John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on securing this debate. He is right; we do not have enough of these debates in Parliament on a subject that is important for this country and its people’s needs.
I shall just get some of the innocuous stuff out of the way. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) gave his party’s usual line of not understanding the facts, having done no investigation, and does not understand anything to do with the industry at all. In general, his party is run by dogma and has nothing to do with the needs of the people of Scotland. Having got that out of the way, let us talk about the subject we are here to talk about: nuclear energy.
The right hon. Gentleman was good, although he slightly reinvented history. The Government have done well, not only in turning round my party from holding completely the opposite view—from not supporting nuclear to supporting it—but in taking the argument out to the people and letting them make the decision. We have listened and we have come to the conclusion that a balanced energy policy is required in this country.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |