---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech

My Lords, this is my first debate handling the energy portfolio for these Benches. I succeed the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whose knowledge of the subject is without comparison in this House. It looks as though the portfolio will be extremely interesting and of the greatest importance when one considers our ever increasing demands on energy resources and the impact this is having on climate change. The right reverend Prelate gave the House a timely reminder of the profligacy with which we are using our natural resources. As the Minister is aware, in the previous Session of Parliament I introduced the Renewable Energy Bill. Considering that energy was not mentioned in the gracious Speech, I feel that one or two Private Member's Bills may be in order. At this point I should declare a non-financial interest as a trustee of carbon neutral North East. I believe strongly that everyone—including Members of the House—could do immense amounts to save energy. I wonder how many noble Lords are sitting in the Chamber while their computers, printers and lights are on in their offices. The Government will need seriously to view their commitment to renewable energy. The growing animosity to wind turbines by a minority because of their visual impact on the landscape is short sighted when one considers the major impact on the landscape that climate change will wreak. However, as nuclear power is the issue in hand, I shall concentrate my comments in that area. Nuclear power is a contentious issue with strong and passionate opinions held on both sides of the debate. I hope that the wider national debate on this matter is reported accurately in the media. The Government seek to initiate this debate and I hope that it will be fruitful and result in some consensus. At this stage, my party is opposed to the nuclear option, for a number of reasons. The waste issue is yet to be resolved and the enormous costs that are being incurred and will be incurred to deal with our existing nuclear legacy are almost unquantifiable. Previously, those costs have proved so large that the nuclear industry has required significant financial subsidy from government on numerous occasions. We are all aware of the significant drawbacks to nuclear power. However, there is still a debate to be had over whether a new generation of nuclear power stations should be built. The conclusions of earlier debates on the issue were clear in that they resulted in a programme of decommissioning that will, at its current rate, result in nuclear power stations being phased out completely by 2023. It is to the reason for this apparent change that I now turn. This debate has returned due to the apparent emergence in the Government's consciousness of two issues relating to electricity generation—security of supply and carbon emissions. The need for a resolution to this pair of problems is not new, but so far there have been insufficiently vigorous attempts to solve both. The security of supply issue has arisen as a result of the Government's strategic energy sourcing decision to supplement and eventually replace in large part the North Sea reserves with gas imported from foreign nations. The much longer logistical chains that link these supplying nations to our own carry with them an increased risk of failure. This risk may reach unacceptable levels in some cases. Despite the assurances given to us all by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that the dangers surrounding our gas supplies have been exaggerated, I would suggest that those risks are sufficiently great to form part of the reason for the return to the nuclear debate. Carbon emissions are perhaps the most significant reason for the debate's return. The process through which a nuclear power station generates electricity, as its proponents will tell you, does not generate carbon dioxide. On the other hand, the process of ignition through which our traditional—for example, gas and coal fired—power stations function does. This is, as I am sure all noble Lords are aware, significant from the perspective of tackling climate change, as it has been established that our carbon emissions are contributing greatly to this phenomenon. Climate change is not a new problem. Those working on tackling the problem were undoubtedly heartened in September of last year to hear the Prime Minister state that climate change was the world's greatest environmental challenge, with effects sufficiently far-reaching that they could alter human existence radically. Despite the Government's apparent awareness of the issue, their attempts to tackle it have been wholly insufficient. Not only will the Government, at their current rate of progress, fail to achieve the 20 per cent target reduction on 1990 levels of carbon emissions, but carbon dioxide emissions have risen under Labour. It would appear to be a case of the Government talking a good game in this area and not doing nearly enough in terms of concrete action. Carbon emissions can be reduced in two principal ways: first, by reducing the emissions that arise from generating a given volume of electricity and, secondly, by reducing the amount of electricity that has to be generated in the first place. Nuclear energy is being touted in some parts as a solution to the problem of carbon emissions. That represents a somewhat lop-sided approach to tackling the problem. As the Royal Society has pointed out, the problem of climate change is now so severe that tough political choices will need to be made. In addition to reducing emissions through changing methods of generation, it will be necessary to tackle the apparently insatiable desire for energy that the UK now exhibits. Energy efficiency is a much-touted but little-practised part of the fight against climate change. Despite the lip service that it has frequently been paid in government speeches, the overall energy consumption of the United Kingdom has increased by 7 per cent since the Government first came to power. It is that failure sufficiently to develop and exploit other means of lowering our carbon emissions that has led to the situation where the position is sufficiently serious that we should consider returning to growth in our nuclear generation capacity. It is my hope that during the nation's forthcoming discussion of whether to reverse our policy of reducing the proportion of our electricity generated by nuclear energy we do not forget that it is not the only means of reducing our carbon emissions. I should also point out that nuclear power will not be the wholly painless and easy route to achieving our goals of reduced emissions and secure supply that some would perhaps like it to be. Building a new generation of nuclear power stations will be a potentially difficult undertaking. Owing to our earlier policy of running down our nuclear industry we are facing a skills shortage in this area. Whether we still possess as a nation sufficient knowledge to build this new generation of power stations ourselves is a point of contention. Indeed, it is possible that, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, pointed out, we may no longer be capable even of being an intelligent customer for other people's technology—a fear echoed by the executive director of the UK Energy Research Centre, John Loughhead. In addition, as has been pointed out in this House previously, the public's fears about the safety of nuclear power stations will need to be addressed. Occurrences such as the recent leak at the Thorp reprocessing plant, make that task an uphill battle. The state is likely to have to bear the large cost of building a new generation of nuclear power stations. This is not surprising, given the previous failures of such projects to be completed within budget and on time. Given that previous ventures have failed to make a profit and significant government subsidies have been required to bail out the companies involved, the position is even more serious. Regardless of the final outcome of the nuclear debate, it will be necessary to find solutions to the existing waste problems. We await with interest the findings of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management that should appear next year. Its recommendations will, no doubt, have significant bearings on the outcome of this debate, but it should not be underestimated, considering the size of the present waste mountain that we must dispose of. Building this new generation of nuclear power stations in this context will be a huge challenge and should not be undertaken lightly. What appears on the surface to be the easiest option should not be adopted at the expense of other measures, such as building sustainable renewable energy sources throughout the country—starting within the home. Over the next 20 or 30 years, that could make the nuclear option redundant.