---

Nuclear Industry

May I begin by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, which shows that, last year, I went on a trip sponsored by E. ON to look at nuclear waste disposal in Sweden and a nuclear power plant in Finland? In case people fear that my soul has been bought, it is listed alongside the entry for a trip to look at onshore and offshore wind farms and oil and gas facilities. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) on the way in which he has introduced this debate and the extremely robust report that his Committee has produced. The way in which he drives these things forward and his energy and commitment are evident throughout not only in his speech, but in the thoughtful report that has been produced by his Committee. We have had some extremely good contributions in this debate. A lot of knowledge and constituency interest have been brought to bear. I will pick up on a couple of those points. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is quite right to say that decisions need to be made soon. This is not an issue where we have the luxury of time on our side and where we can put off decisions until a future date. We need to make progress quickly. I also pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) makes, namely, that we need a strategy for waste disposal. Regardless of whether we have a new generation of nuclear power stations, it is to our shame as a nation that we have not addressed that issue more substantially and earlier. I listened with interest to the personal journey of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) from old Labour leftie perhaps to Blairite, modern, new Labour luvvie, in a way that would bring joy to the hearts of the Labour Whips Office. However, I would not encourage him to take a swim in the tank in which the radioactive waste is stored. I understand that the water contains the radioactive waste and radioactive particles, and if he gets in it, he will be in very serious trouble indeed. That may also bring joy to the Labour Whips Office, but I would discourage him from doing so. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) made an interesting reference to fusion. Fusion has been 20 years away for the past 50 years. One day, we will get there. However, that makes the point that we are making decisions that will stand for relatively few years and, in time, some new source of energy, which as yet is perhaps not even thought of, may come through and address these issues. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) talked rather idealistically. He talked initially as though carbon capture and storage were a certainty, and under pressure from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk he said that it was quite possible that carbon capture and storage could outbid nuclear energy quite soon. I felt that that was quite a qualified comment in the circumstances. The challenge of this debate is that we are expected to make the decisions now, when the technology for many aspects of energy and electricity generation is not yet clear. We do not know what their potential will be. I agree with a great deal of what is said in the report; indeed, I agree with it overwhelmingly. The report is right to say that there should have been a more detailed assessment of future generating capacity before the energy review was published last year. I think it likely that the nuclear installations inspectorate will give life extensions to many of the power plants involved, but the Committee was being over-optimistic in saying that there was not a serious energy gap, because we do not know the role that coal can play. If carbon capture and storage can be made to be economically feasible, coal has a very bright future. However, without that feasibility, we would have a very serious energy gap opening up. I absolutely agree with the report as well that the Government should be technology-neutral in these matters. The Government should be setting a framework in which business decides how to invest. That is why we have recommended that there should be a system of cap and trade. Under such a system, the Government would say that, over a period of years—many years, 40 or 50 years ahead—if carbon is going to be produced in the course of generating electricity, a certificate should be required to do so and the number of certificates would decline year on year. Therefore, people could invest with great confidence and great knowledge of exactly what the price of carbon was going to be 20 or 30 years ahead. However, the Government absolutely should not be picking winners. They cannot build a dome, or a football stadium. What on earth makes anybody believe that they could decide on the right balance for our energy policy? The report is also right in saying that the public are more supportive of nuclear power when it is linked with a greater commitment to renewables. A YouGov poll said that 56 per cent. of the population backed nuclear power in conjunction with a greater commitment to renewables. I am sure that that is true, but I query a little the statement that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire made about the need for a national consensus. That consensus is certainly desirable, but it is noteworthy that in Finland the public support followed the political decision and the decision of the Government. It is the case that, once that decision was made, the public have been moving more in favour of the nuclear debate. There is no doubt, however, that the Government are in something of a mess over the issue. There is no doubt that they should have consulted more on the nuclear aspect of this debate. As Mr. Justice Sullivan said in summing up the Government’s consultation proposals, it contained information that"““was wholly insufficient for them?—" that is, the public—"““to make an intelligent response.?" I think that Greenpeace is largely right in saying that any consultation process requires clarity in identifying the problem; integration, to ensure that it ties in with wider energy policy and climate change debate issues; independence, in that it should be carried out by professional experts; a layered approach, so that the technical discussions should run alongside public engagement; and feedback, which shows how the consultation will affect the outcome of the Government’s policy.