---

Nuclear Industry

My understanding is that 29 per cent. of our electricity was generated by nuclear in 1979. That percentage is now lower at 19 per cent., and heading for 18 per cent. because the Magnox stations have been turned off. The profile in the 2003 report was that it would fall to 7 per cent. with only Sizewell B running by 2020. The replacement is not available and the idea that it does not matter is contradicted by the fact that I celebrated, as did the Liberal Democrats and all the supporters of renewables, that we reached 2 GW from wind power. That is fantastic, but it does not represent a great proportion of what we use. It is a question of whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. The hon. Gentleman would say that it is half-full when talking about renewables, but half-empty when talking about nuclear. I would be much happier if we had made a commitment to maintain that 30 per cent., and Patrick Moore made a good argument for showing that the carbon footprint would be much better if we considered going to about 60 per cent. That is not to say that the other 40 per cent. cannot come from renewables elsewhere, but we have a different perspective. The Scottish dimension worries me because we have parties committed to no nuclear rebuild, and that would be a problem for me. Turning to the legacy and reprocessing, I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) said about what goes on at Sellafield, and its 17,000 jobs. That may be a strong argument, but things must be done properly, and it cannot be good just to keep employing people. It is clear that Sellafield and reprocessing are vital to the nuclear industry, and it is important to me as a Scottish Member. We have no reprocessing facilities in Scotland, and we must reprocess Scottish waste somewhere in England. I am not sure how that squares with the policies of the parties who would abolish the use of nuclear power in Scotland.