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

Thank you, Mr. Cook. I am grateful for your guidance. In the interests of other hon. Members who wish to make a contribution I will expedite my remarks. It is clear that there is a need for nuclear generation as part of a balanced energy policy. In addition, whether we are in the Kyoto protocol or future international treaties with countries including India, China and the US, carbon trading mechanisms will rely on non-CO2 generating sources to offset intensive CO2 generating sources for any system to work. The use of high-volume, non-CO2 emission energy producers must be maximised, as the chance of such schemes being effective without significant nuclear generation is exceptionally low. Moving on to the more germane issue of radioactive waste, there are no technical or scientific obstacles to the safe disposal of radioactive waste in the UK. To suggest otherwise is simply not true. Scientific research in that body of work is both robust and mature. The decommissioning of UK civil and military nuclear facilities, in addition to existing waste situated around the country, requires a final disposal route, irrespective of whether or not a new generation of nuclear stations is built in the UK. That policy issue requires resolution and, as I said, the Government have made significant progress. It is misleading to cite the current lack of a final disposal route as a reason for not progressing with a new generation of nuclear power stations. Such arguments lack credibility and do not withstand any serious analysis. New reactor designs, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned, produce far less radioactive waste over their lifetimes than current reactor designs. A new fleet of nuclear power stations would, over its operating lifetime, only fractionally increase the already existing inventory of waste. CoRWM has made its recommendations, which Government have accepted. Many groups and non-governmental organisations seize upon the opportunity presented by a policy investigation such as this to distort the facts of the industry. I am pleased to say that that is not at all present in the report. I thank the Committee for the in-depth and robust way in which it has addressed the issues. In assessing the component parts of a balanced energy policy, which enables the UK to retain a strong economy, secure and reliable energy supplies, an effective and progressive foreign policy and, above all else, the ability to play our role in a global fight against climate change, nuclear power must be used. The Government are doing and have done the right thing, and must move with some urgency on the issue. The need for an energy policy that enables the UK to fulfil its ambitions in all those areas is absolutely undeniable. Such a policy must include renewable generation—I think that there will be unanimity in the House about that—in addition to coal and gas-powered generation, but we will inescapably need new nuclear. I understand the purpose of the report. I understand the issues that it homes in on as being problematic, but I believe that the Government have comprehensively and demonstrably shown that they have the solutions to those barriers.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c162-3WH 
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