---

Security of Supply

Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), I warmly welcomed the energy White Paper in 2003. For the first time, the Government acknowledged something that many of us had held true for a long time: we cannot separate energy generation and use from the environmental consequences. The White Paper offered, in a global context, the way ahead for the UK for a generation. It showed an exciting prospect—facing the challenge of achieving a low-carbon economy—and pointed to important firsts, such as the first straw-fired power station in Cambridgeshire, the first commercially operational wave power station on the Isle of Islay and the rapid development of wind turbines. None of the annual reports that were promised and have been issued since then—the last one was in July 2005—has indicated any need for a major change of direction. So what has happened? Members and Ministers have cited climate change, but the White Paper stated that our first challenge was environmental and that climate change is real. It accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution for cuts of 60 per cent. in CO2 by 2050. Today, the Secretary of State cited the more rapid decline in North sea gas and net importation, but that, too, was anticipated in the White Paper. It noted that the second challenge would be the decline in indigenous energy supplies and that we would be a net importer of gas in 2006. My right hon. Friend spoke about the decommissioning of our nuclear reactors. That is a fact. The White Paper said that probably only one nuclear plant would be open by 2025. The importation of gas was recognised; the White Paper said that we would need additional supplies of both piped and liquefied gas from a range of sources, and noted that diversity of gas supply would be important. All the key issues were flagged up. The goals set to cut emissions, retain reliability of energy supply, promote competition and ensure that every house was adequately heated were all thought to be achievable without new nuclear build. Nuclear is neither clean nor carbon free. It produces highly toxic waste, which other Members have mentioned. It offers no solution to the problem of climate change. In a life cycle analysis, from the mining of uranium through to the decommissioning of the plant, nuclear power is in no sense carbon free and in the worst-case analysis is just as dirty as a gas-fired station. We need to examine more carefully the nuclear contribution to our energy needs. The debate has really been about electricity generation. Primary energy sources, however, show us that gas is 40 per cent., oil just over 30 per cent., coal 16 per cent., but nuclear is only 7 per cent. Transport uses 35 per cent. of our energy supply. Our domestic use is 30 per cent. Industry uses just 21 per cent. So nuclear power may be a significant source of electricity production, but not many of us heat our homes with electricity or drive cars powered by that source. The very sectors that have accounted for the greatest increase in demand—our home heating and the use of our cars—and created the worst pollution are not being served by the nuclear industry. I suggest that the costs, the risks, the development time and the production of radioactive waste associated with new nuclear build are all far out of proportion to the potential emissions savings. Furthermore, the argument that new nuclear build is essential to meeting our CO2 targets is an extremely dangerous one in the international context. The UK accounts for just 2 per cent. of global CO2 emissions. We all know that the greatest future contribution to and threat from CO2 emissions comes from China, India and Brazil and such developing economies.