Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Jamie Reed (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 April 2007. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Nuclear Industry.


Nuclear Industry

Well, there we go. I think that my interests have been declared and are well and truly understood. The report discusses nuclear skills, and the Government have done an awful lot on the issue in the past 18 months or so. The headquarters of the National Nuclear Skills Academy will shortly be based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), and that £30 million-plus project will be fundamental to this country’s nuclear skills portfolio and ability to fulfil its nuclear ambitions, as I believe that it must and eventually will. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire also mentioned uranium prices—for time reasons, he did so only fleetingly—which have increased by 70 per cent. over the past 12 months. The reprocessing of spent nuclear is therefore a live reality—I would, of course, say that, being a former Sellafield employee and having Sellafield in my constituency. This country is good at reprocessing and should continue doing it. There is an undeniable market need for reprocessing internationally, and it is matter of fact that China, Japan and other countries are looking to the British industry to fulfil their huge market requirements. There are four key issues in the report, which the Chairman of the Committee mentioned. Paragraph 5 of the report states:"““A policy designed to enable the construction of new nuclear power stations would be credible only if it was based on four key elements:?" The first of those—I do not want to play party politics with an issue of this importance, but it is a relevant issue—is:"““A broad national consensus on the role of nuclear power, that has both cross-party political support and wider public backing?." How can that be so—how can it be a qualifying factor in a nuclear policy—given that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to nuclear energy and the current net effect of the Opposition’s policy would be no nuclear at all? Nuclear as a last resort means no nuclear ever. If we do not take the decisions now for the nuclear industry, our skills base will wither. That was exactly the argument used by Opposition Members in the Trident debate: if we did not take the decision, the skills would be lost, and we should have to outsource our manufacturing requirements and seek the products overseas. The same is true for the nuclear industry. The Conservative party’s policy has to change.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c157-8WH 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Decommissioning British Nuclear Fuels Construction Carbon dioxide Energy supply Radioactive waste Nuclear power Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Nuclear fuel reprocessing Nuclear power stations Pollution control Proliferation Safety
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk