---

Nuclear Industry

I will not give way, because I want to give the Minister time to respond. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee when he says that there are inherent complications if the Government decide to launch the nuclear consultation document at the same time as the White Paper, because that would require assumptions to be made that cannot necessarily be delivered. Our preference is clearly for as much energy as possible to be generated through renewables. I believe that we are on the brink of a revolution, in terms of what is going to be possible. Indeed, every week we are seeing new ideas being developed. This is an extraordinarily exciting time for energy. However, we do not have a philosophical objection to nuclear power. The Opposition view is quite simple. We have said that we would prefer to see other sources of energy being developed, but we accept that, if nuclear power must be used to keep the lights on, then it has a role to play. More than that, we accept that, if people wish to invest in nuclear power, without subsidy and taking account of the full long-term decommissioning costs, then, as the Chairman of the Select Committee has said, it is not the role of the Government to stop that sort of investment. Therefore, there should not be a subsidy, and potential investors must take account of the cost of disposal of the waste. We are quite to happy to see that investment made, as in Finland, on the basis of pre-sale agreements, where customers are found in advance and therefore it is known exactly who will buy the electricity that is produced. We take what is an entirely realistic view on the subject, but we need to see who will come forward on that basis. E.ON, EDF and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd have all told us that they will do so. However, the challenge for the Government is what happens if such companies do not come forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford said, there is a significant chance that, when they look at the economics, they may decide simply not to take forward that investment. That would leave a gaping hole in the Government’s energy policy, one that we would avoid by saying that we take a much more neutral approach towards these issues. If the nuclear policy is to move forward, the industry itself must do more to try to win this debate. Yesterday, a statement in the House highlighted the secrecy that has traditionally gone with the nuclear industry. It will only win hearts and minds by much greater openness than has been the case so far. I have visited Sizewell B and know that the issue of safety there is paramount, but too many people do not believe that science has moved on since Chernobyl. They accept that there have been advances with their television and their car, with aviation and every aspect of science—everything, apart from the nuclear industry. The industry has to get out there more and persuade people that the world has changed. We must learn from overseas and look at how the debate was changed in Finland, for example, if this is to be the course that we take in this country. In Finland, two towns were bidding for a nuclear power station, partly because they wanted the business rates that went with it. In Sweden, there are two communities bidding for the nuclear waste site. Mr. Cook, you will remember that 20 years ago it was suggested that Billingham in your constituency should be a nuclear waste site, but I do not think that 1 per cent. of the population would have backed that. However, in Oskarshamn in southern Sweden 80 per cent. of the population think that nuclear waste should be buried in that district. The nuclear industry there has won that debate, because it has been open and taken thousands of people a year to look at the potential site. It has, in many ways, put our nuclear industry to shame by the way in which it has conducted that debate. We should also recognise where we as a nation can lead this debate. The work that Nexia Solutions, a former nuclear research body, is doing could lead to its playing a global role in using British technology and expertise. Regardless of whether we go down the route of new nuclear build, it has a significant contribution to make. We are committed to changing the planning regime. There should be a level playing field. If people are going to come forward to invest in nuclear power, which is not our preferred option, the planning regime has to be changed. There has to be site and type approval. We must learn the lessons of the past where we have gone wrong. If we are going to encourage economies of scale, nuclear power stations must be built to the same design on various different occasions, without people saying, ““We have chosen one from this design, two from another and one from that one?, which will massively increase the costs of building them. If that is to be a realistic option, we must learn to achieve the economies of scale, as they have done in France. This has been a useful debate. The Select Committee’s report is excellent. There are three alternatives available to us: the not-at-any-cost approach of the Liberal Democrats, which is to put one’s head in the sand; the Government’s approach, which is that this must be an integral part of our energy policy, without necessarily having the means to deliver it; and the realistic one, which is to say, ““Let Government create the framework and let business decide.?