| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has given me the confidence to make this point as strongly as I can. I believe that it is the case in other parts of Scotland that a good deal of goodwill exists, as well as a great deal of understanding. We must not lose that by saying that all this is about clean-up and greenfield sites, ending up with a great rural scene of farming and sheep and all the rest of it. Certainly, Scotland needs a great deal more than that. I am hopeful that the Government might—maybe not now—reflect on that and perhaps, after a bit of deep breathing, put something in the Bill like this.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will remember—because it was not very long ago—that at Second Reading, apart from one or two speakers, there emerged a clear cross-party consensus—I exclude the Liberal Democrat party—that we would need to go to a nuclear rebuild at some stage. But it is widely recognised outside that it is impractical to imagine, however fast the development of renewable sources comes, that one will be able to develop those, keep the lights on and fulfil our Kyoto obligations. I do not want to repeat what was said at Second Reading.
However, I should like to endorse the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Jordan, that there is a difference to be drawn between embarking on such a programme, on the one hand—he was not here to move his amendment, but I think that the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Peyton might have been open to that interpretation—and, on the other hand, of actually making certain that what we are in shorthand calling "the nuclear option" remains viable.
I was looking for the origin of the phrase "the nuclear option", and I turned to the White Paper. Of course, it is not there. There are two paragraphs. I think that it would be as well to put that on the record. It is a clear statement of where the Government stand on the issue. Paragraph 4.67 states:
- "As chapter 1 makes clear, our priority is to strengthen the contribution that energy efficiency and renewable energy sources make to meeting our carbon commitment. We believe that such ambitious progress is achievable, but uncertainties remain".
- "While nuclear power is currently an important source of carbon free electricity, the current economics of nuclear power make it an unattractive option for new generating capacity".
- "there are also important issues for nuclear waste to be resolved".
The paragraph goes on to state:
- "This white paper does not contain proposals for building new nuclear power stations. However, we do not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets".
We have tabled a number of amendments on this. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain mentioned our amendments that seek to ensure that there will be an adequate number of trained and skilled people available, along with amendments to ensure that that research will continue. Points have been made about existing nuclear sites where all the evidence suggests a much higher level of local public support for nuclear rebuild because those people are familiar with the concept and they look forward to the resultant job opportunities in a continuing nuclear industry. But all this requires a clear view. Are we making the option credible, or are we simply leaving it? With respect, I say to the Ministers opposite that we have the impression that they are just leaving it.
Indeed, evidence given to the Select Committee in another place was at pains to stress that nothing in the Bill deals with new nuclear build. As I said at Second Reading, I find that quite incredible. If this option itself is to become credible, then it needs work.
If we faced an oil crisis of the kind we suffered in 1973, then of course it is not possible to build a new nuclear power station in that kind of time-scale. It probably takes between 15 and 20 years. But the forward outlook of energy generation and supply in this country—looking 15 to 25 years ahead—reflects an enormous fund of outside expert opinion that we cannot do the three things we want—keep the lights on, meet our Kyoto obligations and satisfy energy needs—without nuclear build.
We cannot let the Bill leave this House without writing in some provision either on the lines proposed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, or a more specific proposal on training, graduate staff and continuing research, about which my noble friend Lady O'Cathain will speak later. At present, Ministers appear to take some pride in saying that there is nothing, and that is not good enough.
We shall continue to return to this point. Either that paragraph in the White Paper meant something or it did not. I should say that it has been interpreted in a House of Commons Library paper to refer to renewables. It has simply been rewritten with no mention of the nuclear option. It states only that there are no plans to build any more nuclear power stations. That is how the paragraph is being interpreted.
However, that is not the Government's view. They say that we may have to come to that, but that they are not making any provision. As I have said, that is not good enough.
Lord Whitty: I expected a wide-ranging debate on this. Two levels of discussion have emerged as a result of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lea. One concerns energy strategy as a whole and the viability or otherwise of the energy White Paper, while the second concerns the role of the NDA.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and my noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Jordan, do not entirely agree on the viability of the energy White Paper and the calculations made in it, which depend on delivery on the renewables front and, even more crucially, on energy efficiency measures, and various other aspects of policy outlined in it. However, it is the Government's view that if those measures can be delivered, then the figures will add up without requiring any new nuclear component. That is not to say that we should close any contingency arrangements either because we fail on our other provisions or because of a more cataclysmic event, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Jordan. We would reopen the issue should there be a need for nuclear build. But the strategy and, therefore, the assumptions on which current policy and the legislation are based is that the energy White Paper provisions will form the basis of our energy policy over the coming years.
We are concerned about our electricity supply and therefore we must keep open the possibility that we might need to return to the nuclear option within the terms of the energy White Paper. A decision on nuclear power generation may well need to be made in the future, but that is not the focus of the activities of the NDA. Our White Paper, Managing our Nuclear Legacy, published before the energy White Paper, spells that out. The focus of the NDA—or the LMA, as it was known then—is to concentrate exclusively on decommissioning and clean-up; that is, to deal with the consequences of our nuclear past whether or not we create new nuclear waste at some point down the line by reverting to the nuclear option as part of a future energy policy.
The role of the NDA is to deal with nuclear waste, decommissioning and clean-up. It is not to provide the facility whereby, even if we needed to do so, we could
build new nuclear capacity. In those circumstances that would be the responsibility of other organisations, not the NDA.I agree with the secondary or tertiary point made by my noble friend Lord Lea: some of the sites that the NDA will deal with over rather a long term should not be prevented from providing nuclear facilities at some future time. No doubt that will be one of the considerations resulting from government direction to the NDA which might have to be taken into account. However, the NDA itself will not be a part of the planning, commissioning or delivery activities surrounding future nuclear build.
To an extent I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. The expertise that the NDA will rightly be expected to acquire in order to deal with decommissioning and handling hazardous material needs to be recognised. It may be that certain sites which it is managing for decommissioning purposes might be appropriate for other facilities directed at enhancing a nuclear capability. Indeed, reference is made in Clause 9 to the need to preserve and enhance the skills relating to the areas for which the NDA is to be responsible. That means that some of the NDA sites which will need to continue to be licensed for some considerable time for use as storage or disposal might also be used for other purposes—including for research purposes undertaken by the NDA or other bodies. A decision would need to be made on that on a case-by-case basis, but nothing in this Bill rules that out.
Clause 10(2)(d), (e) and (f) will allow the NDA to use facilities for research and other purposes to generate funds—or to allow others so to use them. For example, the nuclear science and technology service of BNFL could in its present capacity be located on a site managed under the NDA and use that site for future research. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that; indeed, under the requirements of Clauses 9 and 10, the NDA would be obliged to help to facilitate it.
So nothing prevents the NDA from facilitating those activities nor, should the Government revert to the nuclear option, from using those sites for nuclear facility purposes—whether power station or other. But the NDA will not be carrying out those activities, as the noble Lord's amendment suggests and as many others have suggested. Under the amendment, the NDA would be a much broader body than envisaged in the Bill—it would be closer to a nuclear power commission, which was envisaged in some contributions to previous energy policy debates, rather than a facility that specialises in the difficult and substantial area of decommissioning and dealing with the storage of nuclear waste.
That distinction needs to be made, even by those who favour a significant nuclear component in future. It will be needed partly for purely operational and focus purposes and partly for the purpose referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Carnegy and Lady O'Cathain, which is to ensure public confidence. One reason why the Government are not disposed to maintain a significant nuclear component
over the long term is precisely because we have not worked out how to deal with long-term waste and do not have public confidence in our ability to do so. If the same body was dealing with waste under the Bill as was responsible for creating new waste, public confidence in the objectivity, cost-effectiveness and priorities of the NDA would be undermined.So even for those who want a bigger nuclear slice in our energy policy, it is not sensible to give the NDA responsibilities beyond those in the Bill. The noble Lord's amendment would provide that, or at least the ability to provide that.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understand what the Minister said, but is there anything to prevent members of the Committee tabling an amendment of this sort to another part of the Bill—not relating it to the NDA? The Long Title includes the words,
- "to make provision relating to the civil nuclear industry".
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |