---

Energy Policy: Nuclear Power

My Lords, it is a great privilege to thank the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, for a first-class maiden speech. The official biography of Andrew Turnbull is, as one would expect, of stellar proportions. Educated at Enfield Grammar School and Christ’s College, Cambridge, he became an economist—a member of that illustrious group, like many of us here, a ““dismal scientist””. There is nothing dismal about the noble Lord, however. He has a wonderful sense of fun, as witnessed by several of us at the Bloomsday celebrations in the Irish Embassy last June, when he made the Irish-born in the gathering feel totally inadequate by his amazing rendition of Joyce. I do not think that I should go any further. Another humorous occasion was when he was asked by a journalist about club membership—was it Pratt’s, Boodle’s or White’s? No, it was Tottenham Hotspur. The first steps in the career of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, were as an economist in the service of the government of Zambia, shortly after independence. A close friend of mine told me that he played a significant part in the economic development in that country at a seminal time in its history. He has kept up his links there. I feel that it is not out of order to quote my friend’s assessment of him:"““He is very upright—there is a great morality in this man””." My friend has never yet been proved wrong. His career in the Civil Service in HM Treasury seemed to be marked by major promotion every two to three years, but I am afraid that his promotion here will not be as advanced. His career culminated in the role of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service from 2002 to 2005. Throughout his career in the Civil Service he was regarded as an administrative reformer. Perhaps he can come to our help here, too. To the honours of CB, CVO and KCB is now added the peerage—he is a great addition to our House. We welcome him and truly hope that he will continue to contribute at such a high level, as he did today, for many years to come. I also thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for being lucky in securing the ballot for this debate, and for being perspicacious in choosing such a topical issue. We have been around this course many times—probably too frequently—but at least that shows that we are persistent and consistent. We have raised the issue of nuclear time and again, but, to give credit where it is due, the Government have listened and acknowledged that nuclear will almost certainly be part of the solution to the two big problems facing us—the security of our energy supplies and the issue of clean energy, which of course means a reduction in carbon emissions to counter their terrifying effects on the climate. The consultation document, Our Energy Challenge, is a step forward; but time is of the essence and that sense of urgency does not seem to have permeated the conscience of the Government. Why not? Is the subject in the ““all too difficult”” basket, or is it a case of, ““It won’t be our problem and we can muddle along for a few more years before we are forced to take a decision””? Lest this is regarded as unfair, just let me list the evidence. In 2003, there was an energy review. In 2006, there has been a consultation document with, I grant, a cut-off time of April for submissions. But a promise on page 15 of the document says:"““DTI will publish revised projections for the UK shortly together with updated assumptions for future fossil fuel prices . . . Comments will be invited on these projections and assumptions, which have been used to inform the consultation document””." How long will that take? We have publication, then consultation, then review of responses on projections and assumptions, on top of the consultation on the whole document. More worrying than all this is the fact that this excellent background data publication nowhere mentions any date at which a decision will be taken to put an energy policy, as opposed to an energy review, in place and to take action to start proper provision for secure and clean energy for our country in the long term. Many years ago, as a very junior young economist in business, I was told that above all one should avoid ““paralysis by analysis””. I suggest with some trepidation that the Government should give some thought to that quotation. This is not in any way to decry the document. There is a brilliant analysis of the past, entitled ““Progress So Far””, but what about the future? The graphs showing future trends are based on, as the document says, ““current measures only””. The details of emissions by sector are just an attempt to decide what is likely to happen, although the document states:"““An important input for the Review will be work currently being done on comparative costs of emissions reduction””—" yet another review and yet more delay before even an attempt is made to formulate policy. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said in his wonderful maiden speech that we should not rush this thing too much, but, as the right reverend Prelate said, the lights will go out. It is no excuse to state, as the document does, that:"““One source of uncertainty in our projections is that we do not know when new technologies might begin to make a material contribution to our generation mix””." We will never know. What we do know is that new technologies will always be developing. The impression is—I hope that it is only an impression—that the Government want to keep all their options open until technological development stands still. That will not happen. The document goes on in this vein, analysing the past and current state and making feeble attempts to forecast trends, but always with the caveat that another review or piece of work will clarify the situation. Where is the courage to be upfront and propose policy, and when will that happen? The window of opportunity to take firm decisions on the nuclear issue is closing fast. Electricity generation from nuclear will have reduced from its current level by a third by 2012, which is only six years hence, and will continue to decline inexorably from there. Even if a decision to give the go-ahead for new nuclear installations was announced today, it would be at least 2016 before such installations could be adding to electricity generation. In the interim, we will have to rely more and more on methods of electricity that will add to carbon emissions overall. Is this a situation of which the Government, or any of us, can be proud? Can we even regard it as progress? An additional concern is that the gap is not just in nuclear. A similar situation pertains in generation from coal-fired power stations, where the gap is likely to be a 40 per cent reduction by 2020. Yes, I know that such a gap will not have a deleterious effect on carbon emissions, but it will be filled by other carbon emission generation—namely from gas. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, reminded us that gas has 50 times greater emissions than nuclear over the lifespan of the operation. I am highlighting these facts to draw attention to the reality that the new technologies of wind and wave power and all the other renewables, very worthy though they are—and I believe that we must have a mix of generation types—will in no way fill the gaps that are now known to us. It is irresponsible to delay. The future economic prosperity of this country depends on policies being proposed now. The current inability to devise a nuclear policy was described to me yesterday in this way: ““We have stopped drinking in the last chance saloon and closed the shutters””. We cannot rely on over 80 per cent of our electricity being generated by gas. Recent events in the Ukraine and only this week in Italy are a stark reminder of the unstable nature of contracts and actions in the gas-supplying countries of the globe. And why are we being like Janus, looking in both directions—committed to clean energy yet banking on gas, which has an inherent carbon emissions problem, while delaying a commitment to nuclear, which does not? Although our current nuclear capacity has had extensions to reactor lives, I am told that we cannot plan any more life extensions. We were the first in the world to use nuclear for domestic electricity generation—50 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, said in a great maiden speech—but the nature of the facilities now is such that they are not capable of further life extensions. The new nuclear technology, however, would be much more efficient and would have great possibilities for life extensions. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers, in its response to the consultation document, states:"““Current estimates indicate that the economics of new nuclear plants are robust and will not require financial support from the Government””." The cost of nuclear has been a continuing concern but the Institution of Mechanical Engineers believes that, if the financial community regained its past confidence in the sector, there should be sufficient funds to finance nuclear projects, as well as projects in fossil fuel—of a low or no-carbon emission kind—and renewables. That is surely a policy option that should be investigated, actively, by the Government. For confidence-building, we need a strong commitment form the Government that a comprehensive energy policy will be forthcoming in the very near future—at the latest, by the end of this calendar year. My noble friend Lord Jenkin has given us a great opportunity to push this seriously and now.