Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Christopher (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 25 October 2006. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Energy: Radioactive Waste Management.


Energy: Radioactive Waste Management

My Lords, having had, for the second time this year, a three-hour black-out at home, which again reminded me of the 1960s, I have some idea of what could happen in not too many years time unless we move forward on this question. It is absolutely essential that the message is got across to the public and, in that sense, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has raised a very important point. Certainly two of the countries which come to mind, to which my noble friend referred in his list, carried out immense work with the public. The Canadians were outstanding and got a great deal of support. Admittedly it is a very large country and it is not unsurprising that some interest has been shown. But Finland, which is smaller, I think had three competitors for its storage plant. It is important that the public should understand that a number of countries have done this and how they have done it. Secondly, the general public’s perception of nuclear waste is grossly misleading. We have heard it described in this House this afternoon as ““immense.”” That is in the eye of the beholder. I think the last spokesperson for Greenpeace described it as ““mountainous,”” which it is not. Therefore, it would be helpful if some very clear information could be provided to the public, to remove from people’s minds what is being fed to them by those who are, I think, pushing another agenda: that of not having any further nuclear power plants. Maybe I am anticipating something that will come along, but most countries have offered incentives. It would be extremely encouraging for local authorities to know that there is a benefit beyond creating employment for those who do not have it. The French did remarkably well in this, but, again, that is a differently run country, although they run my electricity supply. Lastly, presumably it is possible to indicate that some parts of the country are unsuitable. Why have greater anxiety in those parts if we can say, as I am sure Mr Livingstone will say of London, that they are not suitable?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c1219-20 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Radioactive waste Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Storage Waste management United Kingdom NIREX Waste disposal Committee on Radioactive Waste Management Geology
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk