Nuclear Power
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4329, in the name of Shiona Baird, on a pledge against new nuclear power stations in Scotland.
The Executive has stated:
"We will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 26 August 2004; S2W-9846.]
In the face of the pro-nuclear signals coming from the Prime Minister, that might look like some sort of barrier to nuclear power from Jack McConnell's Executive. However, in reality, the word "unresolved" is, unfortunately, a deliberately ambiguous smokescreen that is designed to give Executive members of all persuasions something to hide behind. People who are opposed to nuclear power can say that the issue of waste management will never be resolved and that new nuclear power stations will therefore never be permitted, while the pro-nuclear side can say that all they are waiting for is the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management to recommend how best to deal with nuclear waste before the go-ahead is given for new nuclear energy.
I specifically asked Mr McConnell at First Minister's question time to clarify what the word "resolved" means, but he ducked the issue, which he clearly finds difficult. If he came out as anti-nuclear, pro-nuclear members of his party—including the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—the nuclear workers union and industry lobbyists would be on his back. If he declared support for nuclear energy, he would risk alienating the majority of the Scottish voting public, who are against nuclear power and favour renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Does Shiona Baird accept that the National Union of Mineworkers, among other trade unions, supports a balanced energy policy that includes investment in nuclear energy, clean coal and renewable energy?
I will address that later in my speech. There are serious issues around having a balanced policy.
Political fudge is by no means a new tactic, of course, but exposing the fudge that I am talking about is important, because it is crucial that in the approach to a Scottish Parliament election—which is less than a year away—the intentions of all political parities, if they are to have a role in Government, are made clear to the Scottish public. It is unacceptable for Executive parties to be deliberately ambiguous to curry favour with the electorate ahead of an election, only to reveal their true colours after it.
Last week, CORWM published its interim report. For the third time, deep geological disposal appears to be the least bad option of Government advisers. It is like a recurring dream from 30 years ago. It is hardly a new solution.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I want to continue.
Crucially, CORWM stated:
"the process of implementation will take several decades. This period could last for as long as one or two generations".
Management issues are therefore not quite resolved. CORWM recommends more
"research and development aimed at reducing uncertainties … in the long-term safety of geological disposal".
That is hardly conclusive. On the basis of the interim report—the final report in July is unlikely to be much different—there is no way in which anyone can claim that the issue of nuclear waste management is anywhere near being resolved.
I ask John Home Robertson to listen to what I am about to say: the Greens repeat our call for existing radioactive waste to be managed in monitorable and retrievable stores that are secure against attack and near to the point of their generation in order to avoid the hazards of unnecessary transportation. We also repeat our call that no further nuclear waste should be deliberately created.
Nuclear waste management is only one issue. Of course we will need to find a way to protect people and the environment from existing nuclear waste as best we can, but reaching a decision about how to manage the existing nuclear waste legacy cannot be used as justification for building more nuclear power stations. CORWM is clear about that. It states in its report:
"CoRWM takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear new build … The public assessment process that should apply to any future new build proposals … will need to consider a range of issues including the social, political and ethical issues of a deliberate decision to create new nuclear wastes."
The health service is a major generator of nuclear waste. Is the member suggesting that there should be a freeze for the health service if we follow her demand for no more nuclear waste?
That is a totally different subject. Phil Gallie is undermining the seriousness of what we are discussing.
Today, the Greens are asking all parties, no matter their stance on nuclear waste management, to pledge that there will be no new nuclear build in Scotland. The justification for ruling out nuclear power is available right now. The Government's sustainable development advisers have ruled out nuclear power in favour of renewable energy and energy efficiency. Westminster's Environmental Audit Committee has stated that nuclear power has no place in meeting future energy needs. The Executive's research into the potential of renewable energy in Scotland shows that it far and away outstrips the minimal contribution to energy needs that nuclear power could make. Independent experts have shown that there is plenty of time to bring in renewable energy and greater energy efficiency.
A majority of parties in the chamber and of MSPs are against new nuclear power. Even the Tories—at least in some parts of the United Kingdom—are beginning to question nuclear, based on the facts. Sadly, although he is outspoken in his opposition to nuclear power, Nicol Stephen has refused to say whether it would be a non-negotiable issue for the Lib Dems in any future coalition. The motion and the debate seek to clarify for the Scottish public what the political parties that are represented in the chamber would do if next year they were given the responsibility of government. Let us remove the smokescreen of waste management, recognise all the reasons that should make new nuclear build an impossibility and pledge to make no deals with any party that would bring in new nuclear power. I call on all parties to support the motion in my name.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the interim report of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) which states "CoRWM takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear new build. We believe that future decisions on new build should be subject to their own assessment process"; further notes that government advisors on sustainable development have reported that there are issues other than waste management that should rule out new nuclear power, including risk of accident, terrorist threat, security of supply, economic cost and the availability of safe, clean and economic renewable energy and energy efficiency measures; recognises the opposition to nuclear new build in Scotland by the Green, SNP, SSP and Liberal Democrat parties; notes in particular that Nicol Stephen MSP recently stated "The Liberal Democrats have a tough, clear and consistent position across the UK … We oppose new nuclear power ... the Liberal Democrats remain determined to oppose this year, next year and every year", and calls on all political parties opposed to new nuclear power stations in Scotland to pledge that they will not be part of, or support, a Scottish Executive that allows new nuclear power stations to be built, even if the issue of nuclear waste management may be considered to have been resolved.
I welcome the opportunity for Parliament to debate the important issue of how Scotland should deal with its radioactive waste. Our amendment is not about whether we should or should not have nuclear power as part of our energy mix. Clearly, that is a matter for another day. The Parliament and Scotland need to address how we deal with the legacy from historical practices that we have in our country. That legacy cannot be left—we must manage it now and in the long term.
We should remember that we are talking not just about highly active and long-lived waste; we must also deal with large volumes of short-lived, low-level waste, much of which will be generated by decommissioning and cleaning up our existing sites. Radioactive waste is a devolved responsibility. The Scottish ministers decide how we should deal with our waste, and we have done so. We should be clear that we have the power to act and to take decisions on how we in Scotland deal with our waste.
I turn now to the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which we set up jointly in 2003 with the UK Government and the devolved Administrations of Wales and Northern Ireland. CORWM has been engaged in a lengthy process to identify options for the long-term management of higher-activity waste and has consulted widely on those options with the public and stakeholders.
CORWM is now nearing the final phase of its work. Last week, it made a statement on the recommendations that it proposes to put to the Scottish ministers and ministers elsewhere in the UK at the end of July. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on specifics until I receive CORWM's final recommendations. To reach this stage, CORWM has taken advice from, consulted and tested out its propositions on a wide range of people—members of the general public as well as experts.
Although this is very much an environmental issue—one of the biggest challenges that we face—we must not forget that there are also opportunities.
I ask the minister a simple question: when will she consider the waste issue to have been resolved?
The Scottish ministers will make their own decisions, and I am not able to give the member a timetable for that. We must await the recommendations of CORWM. However, we will deal with the matter expeditiously.
I mentioned the potential opportunities that will follow from the CORWM recommendations. There will be opportunities for companies and communities in Scotland, such as Dounreay, to develop skills, technical solutions and practices to deal with radioactive waste. Such skills and solutions are sought not only here in Scotland and across the UK, but more widely. Many countries have radioactive waste and are seeking better ways of dealing with it and people of high calibre to manage it. The Executive has been and is committed to finding management options for the higher-activity radioactive waste that we have in Scotland. Through CORWM, we at last have proposals for dealing with that waste. We should be up for seizing the opportunity, and we should not repeat past failures to find solutions.
I move amendment S2M-4329.3, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:
"appreciates the work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management; welcomes the position statement on its draft recommendations published by the committee on 27 April 2006; agrees that the review of options for the long-term management of radioactive waste, currently being undertaken by the committee, is the correct means of engaging Scotland on the crucial issue of finding a long-term management option for higher activity radioactive waste, and notes the Executive's position, as outlined in the Partnership Agreement, that it will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."
It is an enormous pleasure and privilege for me to make my first contribution to the Parliament's proceedings as the member for the beautiful constituency of Moray. I have the hardest of acts to follow, given that my predecessor Margaret Ewing served the people of Moray and Scotland so effectively both in the Westminster Parliament and in this Parliament for nearly 20 years. During the past few weeks, I have been struck by the fact that every person to whom I have spoken in Moray has taken a few moments to pay a personal tribute to Margaret, irrespective of whether they agreed with her cause. That alone speaks volumes about the high regard in which she was held by her constituents the length and breadth of Moray.
I know that Margaret Ewing would have taken a keen interest in this morning's debates, as she passionately supported an independent, nuclear-free Scotland and over the years pursued on behalf of her constituents many energy-related issues at Westminster and in this Parliament. In particular, her track record in campaigning for fuel poverty to be eliminated in our energy-rich nation was second to none. Like all SNP members, Margaret wanted Scotland's billions to be spent not on new nuclear power stations, but on cleaner forms of energy and on tackling the fuel poverty that blights our nation. One of my roles is to continue her good work.
My task as the new MSP for Moray is straightforward—it is to help to build a better life, in a better country, for the people of Moray. The SNP firmly believes that a nuclear-free Scotland will be a better country. We will join forces with others in the chamber who support a nuclear-free Scotland. In the previous debate, we argued against the new generation of weapons of mass destruction. In this debate, we are arguing against the false case for building a new generation of nuclear power stations on Scottish soil.
Importantly, we also pledge as a party to stop Scotland being turned into the UK Government's nuclear dustbin. Moray, like the rest of Scotland, has a pristine and renowned environment. It would be a public relations disaster for Scotland's clean image and for our tourism sector, among others, if the UK Government were allowed to turn our nation into a nuclear dustbin. We have a responsibility to deal with nuclear waste that is generated in Scotland, but we can rest assured that the people of Moray and the rest of Scotland will resist any attempt to import nuclear waste to Scotland and to turn any part of our beautiful country into a nuclear dustbin.
We are aware that five of the 12 sites that Nirex has identified as potential dumping grounds are in Scotland, so we all know that the UK establishment has earmarked several sites in Scotland as potential locations for waste dumps. Any attempt to take forward those plans will be resisted by the people of Scotland. One thing is certain—public resistance in Scotland rules out any possibility of Scotland playing host to new nuclear dumping grounds. If the UK Government thinks that the waste is very safe, perhaps it should propose to dig a big hole in London and bury it there. We all recognise that that will not happen and that the Government's eyes are facing north.
I am intrigued by CORWM's recommendations, because they shed little light on the debate on the management of nuclear waste. The same problems that existed several decades ago exist today in Scotland at the beginning of the 21st century. The fact is simple: there is no safe, long-term storage solution for nuclear waste. The best way of dealing with it is to stop producing the stuff in the first place. That means refusing to allow any nuclear power stations to be built in Scotland.
The debate about nuclear has been well aired in recent years in Scotland, and it is now time for the Labour-Lib Dem Administration to come off the fence. It must give us today a concrete statement of when it believes that the problems of future nuclear waste will be resolved. The SNP believes that it is time for MSPs from all parties to stand shoulder to shoulder with the public in Scotland and reject once and for all the case for new nuclear power stations. Let us invest instead in Scotland's potential for clean energy, which is safer, cheaper and cleaner, can protect our environment and can create thousands of new jobs at the same time. The clock is ticking; we have to start taking decisions now. We can do that today by supporting the SNP amendment and the motion.
I move amendment S2M-4329.2, to insert at end:
"and therefore agrees that no nuclear power stations should be built in Scotland."
I congratulate Richard Lochhead on what was technically a maiden speech, although it seems as though he has never been away. I associate myself with the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, Margaret Ewing, whom I held in great respect.
When dealing with the subject before us, the Conservatives have always made it clear that we believe in a balanced energy policy—a broad range of energy sources including those for the generation of electricity. In the limited time available to me today, I cannot go into depth about things such as clean coal, gas, biomass, wind, hydro, microgeneration and energy efficiency, all of which have a major role to play in anything that we do in the future.
The key point that we must keep in mind when we decide how our energy is to be provided is how we achieve genuine economic sustainability and continued growth in the Scottish economy. For that reason, the Conservatives will always have a broad mind about how we might provide energy to support the economy and ensure that we do not drive ourselves into a position where growth cannot be sustained simply because of decisions that have been made for political, rather than practical, reasons.
Does the member accept that if we go down the new nuclear route it is likely that foreign technology and jobs will be created, whereas if we go down the renewable energy route there is at least a possibility of a new renewable energy set of opportunities?
That might have been the case if we had been prepared to grasp the nettle rather earlier and had not lost our technological advantage.
In addition to the need for sustainable economic growth and affordable energy to support it are concerns about fuel poverty, which have been raised widely in the chamber in other debates. If we cannot provide affordable energy to the poorest in our society, fuel poverty will increase greatly.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you. Not at the moment.
For the reasons I have just given, we need to address how we will supply energy and affordable domestic and industrial electricity in the future.
We have to consider a broad range of technologies, and nuclear should be considered as part of that broad range. For that to be done effectively, we need to make decisions now. I agree with the way in which Richard Lochhead concluded his speech. He said that we need to have a debate about whether we are to replace nuclear capacity in Scotland. It is time that the Executive—as individual parties or together—addressed that question. It is ironic that every debate on the subject so far in the Scottish Parliament has been introduced by Opposition parties, whatever their motivation.
Although nuclear waste has become the centre of the debate, it is something of a red herring. Our nuclear waste problem is largely historical, caused by the early civil nuclear industry and the military demands of nuclear decommissioning, including the decommissioning of nuclear weapons for which many in this chamber have argued, although that also creates a lot of waste. As we heard from Phil Gallie, we are creating nuclear waste in the national health service. The problem is on-going and must be addressed in whichever way we decide. A new generation of nuclear power stations would have the capacity to produce cleaner, safer and more efficient electricity than the generation that it would replace.
Liberals are leading Labour by the nose on this subject in the Scottish Parliament. Labour has deliberately misinterpreted the motion today and dealt with only one part of it—the waste issue. We need to have a debate. We need to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the replacement of nuclear capacity in Scotland.
I move amendment S2M-4329.1, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:
"believes that Scotland needs a balanced energy policy to meet the energy needs of the nation, including a mixture of generation from a range of technologies, including coal, oil, gas, renewables and nuclear; further believes that our energy policy must support sustainable economic growth while simultaneously fighting against fuel poverty, and believes that the decisions on the future make-up of our energy provision, which should include a nuclear component, need to be made now."
The Greens' motion does not call on the Scottish Labour Party or the Scottish Conservatives to do anything, so I suspect that some of the intention behind it is to discomfit our Liberal Democrat coalition partners. I am sure that they will deal with those arguments when their time comes.
My position is well known. I was pleased to support the motion—Christine May referred to it in an intervention—which was proposed by Amicus and supported by the National Union of Mineworkers, that was passed at this year's Scottish Labour Party conference. It recognised that the long-term future security of energy supply is crucial to the UK's industrial and domestic economy, and it called for a balanced energy policy that should include replacement nuclear new build and clean coal technologies to meet the nation's needs.
It should be recognised that we also passed a motion at the conference that called for increased Government support for renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures. Like those at the Scottish Labour Party conference and the Scottish Trades Union Congress later on, I and many of my Labour Party colleagues are in favour of a mixture of measures to ensure a secure supply of energy generated in the UK—we are unionist parties and I am not ashamed of being a unionist, so I am talking about an energy policy for the union—to meet the country's needs for the foreseeable future.
Nuclear fission technologies, which are making progress at long last, will play a part in the next generation of base-load capacity. They will be part of the mix with other technologies, such as a wider variety of renewables technologies, which will be developed further in the hope that, in 50 years' time, we will no longer need to use nuclear fission technologies.
We need to have ambitious targets for renewables generation to ensure that the momentum in developing renewables technologies of all sizes—micro and large—is sustained.
Does the member deplore, as I do, the fact that so many people who stand against the nuclear industry constantly remind us of the threat to safety? Does she agree that the safety record of the nuclear industry in the UK is exemplary?
Indeed. Experiences such as that at Chernobyl, which was horrendous, have no bearing on the argument in favour of nuclear power stations today. I was going to say later in my speech that the Sustainable Development Commission recognises that the UK nuclear power industry has the best safety record.
I do not believe that nuclear power is the total solution; we need to have separate targets for the generation of power from non and low-carbon-producing technologies. Nuclear should not be included in renewables targets because it is not a renewable technology.
I must address the rest of the motion, which says
"CoRWM takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear new build."
CORWM was not asked to do that. It is an independent body of experts that took three years to look at the burial of waste. What it has proposed is in line with what happens in other countries. It is all very well to try to make out that it is rehashing old solutions or to talk about nuclear dumping grounds, but there is no reference to nuclear dumping grounds in the CORWM report—and referring to the old list of possible Nirex sites is just a red herring.
The Sustainable Development Commission did not say that nuclear should be ruled out; it recognised the UK nuclear safety record and said that, on balance, nuclear power is not the option at the moment but that it could be revisited through technology exchange. Some of the arguments that are being put forward by the anti-nuclear lobby are red herrings and scaremongering stories that are not relevant to the scientific arguments.
There is a sentence in the partnership agreement that papers over, I suppose, the differences between two parties that have different policies. Indeed, people in the same parties have different views. I do not think that such differences are a deal breaker at the moment.
Somebody has to want to build a new nuclear power station. The Scottish Executive will become involved when a company proposes a plan for a new nuclear power station. I do not think that that will happen before May 2007. I do not think that any future coalition agreement between any parties will contain such a statement. In any case, this whole issue, which is simply a political point aimed predominantly at our Liberal Democrat coalition partners in the run-up to the May 2007 elections, is not relevant to the much more serious scientific debate that we must have on nuclear power.
It is a pleasure both to take part in this debate and to follow what might be described as the retread speech of my colleague, Richard Lochhead. I warmly welcome him back to the Parliament and congratulate him on a very fine election victory in Moray. Given Margaret Ewing's outstanding work in representing that constituency, he has a very hard act to follow; however, from my experience of his election campaign, I believe that he is more than able to carry out that task.
In his intervention on Elaine Murray, Phil Gallie referred to the exemplary record of this country's nuclear sector. He should, perhaps, reflect that, as a result of that exemplary record, Windscale nuclear power station had to change its name to Sellafield because of its atrocious reputation for committing environmental damage. Indeed, if Mr Gallie spoke to the Government of the Republic of Ireland, he would find it deeply bitter about the safety record of Windscale, Sellafield or whatever it is called and the damage and pollution that it has caused in the Irish sea and on Ireland's east coast. Of course, if either the United Kingdom Government or the Scottish Executive was more concerned about such environmental issues, more might have been said on the subject.
Does the member accept that he might be confusing experimental and reprocessing plants such as Windscale with civil nuclear generating plants?
My example simply proves that the nuclear industry has a pretty awful record and that we should not go back to generating nuclear power.
I agree with Mr Johnstone that we need to make progress on this issue, because we cannot put off for ever the debate on nuclear issues and on finding ways of dealing with our energy requirements. My most trenchant criticism of this Government is that although this serious issue affects our economy and communities, it has been handled very loosely. The Government is drifting along and is simply not making any big bold decisions on energy policy. For example, it could pursue a balanced renewable energy strategy that developed a number of opportunities, including carbon capture, biomass and wave and tidal power, but it is not doing so on any of those fronts. As I have said, it is drifting.
Along with Mr Ruskell of the Scottish Green Party, I have been trying to get biomass heating systems into public-private partnership schools projects. I have also bored the Parliament senseless pressing this Government to join up its departmental thinking on the matter. The whole process has been far too slow, and I just wish the Government would take the issue to the heart of its policy making and make progress on it. I believe that a balanced renewables strategy could counter any decision that might be made on nuclear power, but the Government needs to make progress immediately.
I fear, however, that the Government is deliberately pursuing a one-legged strategy of dependence on on-shore wind farms, which are unpopular in many parts of the country, to undermine confidence in any renewables strategy. Such an approach would be very cynical—
Rhona Brankin indicated disagreement.
The minister shakes her head. I know that she is not a cynical person, and I appeal to her to make progress on this issue to guarantee that we do not undermine any opportunities to pursue a balanced renewables strategy. I also urge her to take bold decisions on, for example, energy efficiency, to ensure that we reduce our overall energy requirements rather than waste energy to the extent that we do, presided over by the Government.
It would be environmental and economic folly to develop the nuclear sector in Scotland. Instead, we must develop a balanced renewables strategy; protect our natural environment; and deliver energy and safety for the generations to come without ruining the precious country of which we are the custodians.
Another debate, another opportunity to make crystal clear Liberal Democrat opposition to new nuclear power stations.
In their motion, the Greens have—oddly, but very generously—publicised Scottish Liberal Democrat policy on this issue, as spelled out at our spring conference by our Scottish leader, Nicol Stephen. However, a debate on CORWM's recently published interim report on nuclear waste disposal, rather than this peculiar, playground-politics motion that seeks to dictate to other parties what should be in their manifestos for the next election—and it compounds that presumptuous approach by pre-empting the electorate's response to those manifestos—would have been a more constructive use of parliamentary time.
On the basis of CORWM's interim report, does the member believe that the waste issue has been resolved?
Anyone who reads the report will see that that is clearly not the case.
CORWM has worked exhaustively to arrive at the best—or, more accurately, least worst—methods of dealing with radioactive waste. Its recommendations, and whether they could or should be implemented, deserve serious consideration. Like it or not, there is a nuclear legacy that must be disposed of responsibly. The Liberal Democrats want as far as possible to limit the production of any more such waste, and believe that nuclear power generation is uneconomic, unsafe, unneeded and unwanted.
We are not alone in that view. The UK Government's official advisory body on environmental issues, the Sustainable Development Commission, has advised UK ministers that
"there is no justification for bringing forward plans for a new nuclear power programme, at this time"
and has rejected nuclear power on no fewer than five key grounds.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I do not have the time. I have four minutes' worth of points to make, and I want to make them all.
The Sustainable Development Commission rejects nuclear power because no long-term solutions to the problems of radioactive waste are available. It also believes that the economics of nuclear new build are highly uncertain and that there is a clear risk that the taxpayer will be left to pick up the tab again. A new nuclear programme would lock us into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years at exactly the point when we should be pursuing microgeneration and it would undermine the message that urgent and effective action is needed on energy efficiency and development of renewables. Finally, on international security, the commission feels that, under the terms of the framework convention on climate change, if the UK goes down the new nuclear route, we cannot deny other countries the same technology.
The sooner we accept that new nuclear power generation is not to be part of our future energy mix, the sooner we will grasp the economic and environmental opportunity that renewable energy offers Scotland and begin to launch a serious attack on energy waste. We must make those our priorities.
In Scotland, the Liberal Democrats and the Executive have put renewables at the top of the agenda. Indeed, we are on track to meet and exceed our target of generating 18 per cent of our energy from renewable sources by 2010, while the UK Government is failing to meet its 10 per cent target. That is no coincidence.
I also want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats' involvement in the Government in Scotland has led to the Executive policy that no new nuclear power stations will be built while waste issues remain unresolved. With decommissioning and safe disposal, we will have a nuclear-related industry for many years to come. However, new nuclear generation is not the answer to our energy needs.
We must deal responsibly with our nuclear waste legacy, but I reiterate that our future and opportunities lie in a revolution in renewables, energy efficiency and microgeneration.
Nuclear waste has been an issue in parts of my region for many years. I recently visited the Dounreay site to find out how decommissioning is progressing, and found it sad in one respect. One of the people who kindly showed me round has worked on the site since the plant's construction stage in the 1950s. He described how, at the time, nuclear power was seen as an exciting way of harnessing the latest science and the power of the atom to give electricity that would be too cheap to metre. As he was telling me that, I could not help but think that the cost of decommissioning the site will run into billions.
The site has had its problems, of course, whatever people may say about the safety record of our nuclear industry—to say nothing about the controversy over whether reprocessing should have happened at all, the discharge directly into the sea of the large volume of low-level liquid waste produced by reprocessing and the transport of highly radioactive material to be reprocessed and its subsequent transport back to where it came from. Then there have been the regular discoveries of radioactive particles on Sandside beach—and that is without discussing the explosion in the waste shaft in 1977.
The record has not been great, but I am not here to criticise Dounreay, because I actually have a lot of admiration for what is going on there now. As the minister said, it has become a world-class centre of excellence for decommissioning. Last night, some Highland MSPs attended a helpful briefing by Dounreay management about the plans for dealing with low-level waste, about which I shall say more later if time permits.
The decommissioning process will result in a large amount of radioactive waste. As Shiona Baird said, we believe that any radioactive waste should be managed by on-site storage that can be monitored in future, as all radioactive waste should be. However, if a decision to go for a national underground repository for all our long-lived or highly radioactive waste is made, as seems to be suggested in the CORWM report, Dounreay could well find itself considered for that.
Elaine Murray mentioned the fact that the list of Nirex sites was historical. I accept that, but the sites are bound to be looked at again. Interestingly, all the Scottish sites were in the Highlands and Islands—Dounreay, Altnabreac in Caithness and two small islands near Barra. The search criteria may be different this time, but people in those areas will obviously be concerned. CORWM refers to the need to have a willing host community for a disposal site. I for one do not believe that volunteer communities will be lining up for that privilege— they are certainly not in the Highlands and Islands.
Although we are talking about the long-lived, highly radioactive waste that CORWM looked at, the same disposal—or perhaps I should say concealment—route could well be used for spent nuclear fuel, uranium and plutonium. CORWM's report mentions that as a possibility. After all, we do not have any other ideas about what to do with spent fuel. It tends not to get discussed, as it is not currently classed as waste. At Dounreay, however, there is fuel and spent fuel, including enriched uranium and plutonium, totalling—other Highland MSPs who were at last night's briefing can correct me if I heard it wrong—about 100 tonnes, and staff are simply waiting to be told what to do with it.
I would like, briefly, to mention low-level waste. At Dounreay, I saw how the staff are dealing with such waste. I will not go into detail, but what they are doing is impressive and I recommend that other members go to see their work. I have no problem with the technique that they are using. Low-level waste may be low risk, but it is not no risk, and it is not the sort of thing that anybody would put at the end of their road. Nevertheless, the people of Buldoo, near Dounreay, are faced with just that, because of where the repository is being sited. I have no disagreement with the techniques that are being used at the site to deal with low-level waste, but I think that managers should think again about where they want to have the repository.
When people built power stations in the 1950s, they did not foresee the problems, the hazards, the terrorist threats, the health risk or the huge expense with which we are only too familiar when it comes to nuclear power. Perhaps they should not be blamed for the decisions that they took, but we would certainly deserve blame if we, knowing all that, went ahead and added to that deadly legacy.
The debate about energy policy is too often narrowly based around the single issue of nuclear power. Nuclear waste management, which is addressed in today's motion, is an important issue, but if we are to have a mature debate about energy generation, and particularly about the role of nuclear power in generating electricity, that debate should take full account of all the energy needs of the country, of how we can make more efficient use of our energy and of the environmental impact of all the different modes of electricity generation. If we have a debate on the single-dimensional issue of nuclear power, that debate will serve the people of this country ill.
Labour's position on energy policy has been referred to by Elaine Murray, who identified the fact that our approach to electricity generation is to seek a balanced energy policy that uses all the potential modes of electricity production and, critically, emphasises the importance of developing Scotland's renewable potential and of improving our energy efficiency. At the UK level, the Labour Government has initiated a further review of the country's energy requirements, which sets out the central aim of securing clean, affordable energy for the long term, along with four goals for energy policy, including cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, maintaining the reliability of energy supplies and ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated.
A number of developments in energy have driven that further review, including further evidence about the impact of climate change, the recent rises in fossil fuel prices, which were far higher than had been anticipated, the fact that the UK is now a net importer of gas and difficulties in the European Union energy markets. The problems of some of the major exporters have also added to concerns about price volatility and security of supply in future. In that climate, it is important that we at least consider renewing our nuclear electricity capacity, as that might help us to address many of the challenges that we currently face.
The Government has commissioned the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management to examine the options and make recommendations on the long-term management of long-lived and highly active radioactive wastes. We have recently seen CORWM's draft recommendations, and the final recommendations are due shortly. It is important to recognise that, irrespective of whether one supports new nuclear generation, we must tackle the existing nuclear waste created during 50 years of nuclear activity in this country.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I do not have sufficient time.
I am sure that the CORWM recommendations will be strongly debated when they are published, but if CORWM comes up with conclusive and comprehensive proposals to address the waste issue, we should be prepared to be adult about it and to recognise that that might reopen the issue of replacement or new nuclear electricity generation plants. The motion reveals the fact that Green members are not interested in whether CORWM comes up with a conclusive recommendation about dealing with the waste. Theirs is a fundamentalist position, which opposes nuclear power even if the issue of nuclear waste management may be considered to have been resolved. The Greens rule out nuclear generation, even if that leads to insecurity of supply, to additional CO2 emissions, to further soaring electricity prices and to additional fuel poverty. Theirs is a fundamentalist, ideological position, and it seems, sadly, that the Scottish National Party also backs that position.
We should welcome the draft recommendations of CORWM while we await the final recommendations, but it is also essential that, in deciding future energy policy, we should take in the broad range of factors that I have mentioned during my speech. We should reject the fundamentalism of the Greens and be prepared at least to consider the role of nuclear power as part of a balanced energy policy.
Last night, I was watching CNN. It was a live press conference from the United Nations—yes, I know, I should get a life. Everybody who came to the microphone, ambassador after ambassador, said, "Iran must not develop one nuclear power station. If you even think about building a nuclear power station, you're going to suffer sanctions and a lot worse." That made me think about the stench of hypocrisy that I would encounter at this morning's debate. Scotland does not exist in a bubble, but a global context. The idea that we can argue for a new generation of nuclear power stations while laying down the law throughout the world is utterly reprehensible. The people who are arguing for that are probably the same people who will support sanctions and maybe even military intervention in Iran. They should step back for a minute and try to see where that will end.
The most fraudulent idea in the debate is that nuclear power will save the planet. If Blair pulls this off, he will be a bigger trickster than David Blaine. We all agree that climate change is killing the planet, but punting even the idea that nuclear power is safe beggars belief. There have been 60 critical accidents since 1945, not just in the Soviet Union, the Ukraine or Bulgaria, but in Japan, Finland, the United States of America, France and other countries across the world. I point out to Phil Gallie that the nuclear industry is so keen to advertise its safety record that an accident in Britain was kept secret for 30 years, one in America was kept secret for 45 years, and one in Scotland, at our own Dounreay plant, was kept secret from Government investigators for 20 years. I do not call that confidence in the safety record of the nuclear industry. Chernobyl is not the only place where there has been a nuclear accident.
We know that storing nuclear waste is not safe. If we have solved the problem and such storage is safe, why does no one want a deep underground repository next to where they live? We must face those arguments. I will be interested to find out how Labour will sell new nuclear power stations, especially as it will cost £70 billion—in my opinion, that is an underestimate—to deal with existing waste.
In the debate we have had hypocrisy, fraud and irony. I will explain the irony. We bemoan the fact that young people do not get involved in politics—that they are not interested and do not vote. Every cloud has a silver lining. If the Labour Party insists on pushing through new nuclear power—especially in Scotland—we might just see the emergence of a youth movement that is similar to those that have grown up in France, Italy and other countries. Ironically, the Government's decision may breathe life into the anti-nuclear movement and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That will not benefit the establishment parties; it will benefit the Scottish Socialist Party, the Greens and those political organisations that argue for a different type of energy—the clean energy that renewables provide.
I want the Government to go ahead and have an honest debate. The decision about the future of nuclear power should not be made behind closed doors. When hundreds of thousands of young people take political action, I hope that Labour members will be on the sidelines applauding. We intend to build a movement that will engage in extra-parliamentary action to stop the development of new nuclear power stations in this country.
We have heard too much from the Greens about their monopoly on morals. How dare they? They have been disingenuous to their core in the debate. I am glad that Shiona Baird's motion quotes my party leader's views on new nuclear power stations. It asks all the parties to be clear about their policies and their intentions. The views of my party leader, Nicol Stephen, are clear. If only the Greens were as clear in their presentation of their energy policies, not only in the Parliament, but around the country.
I seek clarity on the Liberal Democrat position. If the waste management issues are resolved, will the Liberal Democrats still oppose new nuclear power stations?
We have said repeatedly that we are opposed to new nuclear power stations. We are searching for a resolution to the current waste problem and, as Nora Radcliffe said, we do not want to add to it.
The Greens' energy policy is to renationalise Scotland's utilities, but they do not promote that in their motions. Instead, they promote renewables—as do we—which is great. We would not nationalise every electricity generating company, but the Greens would, although they do not promote that policy. If a renewables company wanted to have a national presence and to generate nationally, the Greens would nationalise it. That is their policy, but they do not promote it.
In February 2004, I asked Mark Ballard whether it was the Greens' policy to nationalise utilities. He said:
"We believe that the most effective way to deliver basic utilities such as electricity is through state provision."—[Official Report, 12 February 2004; c 5896.]
Although their motion quotes my party's policy, it does not promote theirs, on which they need to do more work. In March 2005, I asked Patrick Harvie whether he favoured the state control of electricity prices that nationalisation would bring. He replied:
"Off the top of my head, I say that I will be happy to discuss that with my colleagues."—[Official Report, 16 March 2005; c 15383.]
Instead of quoting our policy, perhaps the Greens should concentrate on working out what theirs is.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I do not have time. If the debate had been longer—which it would have been if the Greens had not decided to hold this morning's first debate—I would have had time to give way.
Alex Johnstone was right to say that we must debate the long-term security of generation and the subject of waste. He was clear about the Scottish Conservatives' position, which is that they favour new nuclear power stations in Scotland, but he offered no ideas on waste management. To be fair to the Scottish Conservatives, their position is distinct from that of their UK colleagues, whose spokesman said that he was instinctively hostile to nuclear power.
Nora Radcliffe highlighted what CORWM said in its draft recommendations. It stated that there was insufficient agreement to allow geological disposal to proceed and that, in any event, the process of implementation would take several decades and could involve technical difficulties. It advocated an intensive programme of research and development.
In his speech, John Swinney made a good point about delays in energy policy, which he bemoaned. That criticism can be made of the UK Government's approach, but not the Executive's, which has more ambitious targets for renewable energy generation and is on course to meet them. He mentioned the use of biomass in schools PPP projects. He might well know that I have been campaigning for the three new high schools in the Borders, which are PPP projects, to be heated and powered by biomass. The promoter stated that no bid should be made unless it incorporated a renewable energy solution. Those schools will be heated and powered by biomass because the environment that we are creating in Scotland means that developers are not afraid to adopt renewable solutions.
In the election campaign, I will campaign for Liberal Democrat policies to be implemented. We will be open about our approach to nuclear power, nuclear waste, renewables and energy in general, and I hope that the Greens will be, too.
I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my colleague Alex Johnstone.
I think that it was the Roman politician Cato who famously ended every speech in the senate with the words,
"and Carthage must be destroyed",
regardless of the context. We have almost reached that position in the Parliament because hardly a week goes by without our debating nuclear power and hardly a Business Bulletin appears that does not include the words, "and we must have no new nuclear power stations in Scotland." I am not sure how educational, instructive or useful such an approach is. The positions of the parties—with one exception—are quite well fixed.
Will the member give way?
Let me make some progress.
We know that the Greens and the Scottish nationalists oppose the building of new nuclear power stations—the Greens' motion and the SNP's amendment make that clear. The Liberal Democrats say that they are against new nuclear power. The motion quotes Nicol Stephen as saying:
"The Liberal Democrats have a tough, clear and consistent position across the UK",
but, bizarrely and rather confusingly, the Liberal Democrat amendment, which is in the name of Ross Finnie, who is an Executive minister, says that the party
"will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."
There seems to be some confusion about whether the Liberal Democrats would be in favour of new nuclear power stations if we resolved the waste management issues. Their position is not tough, clear or consistent.
Murdo Fraser will understand the distinction between comments that are made by someone who is a party leader and those that are made by someone in their capacity as an Executive minister. [Laughter.]
Order.
Will the member explain why Alan Duncan, who the UK Conservative party's spokesman on the issue, is instinctively hostile to nuclear power?
The Conservatives believe in Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. At least we are not in the situation in which the Liberal Democrats find themselves, whereby Mr Finnie—an Executive minister—and the party's Scottish leader—also an Executive minister—are saying quite contradictory things. That is for the Liberal Democrats to explain away.
We are generally in favour of new nuclear power stations in Scotland, as we have said on many previous occasions. To be fair to the Scottish Labour Party, it is generally in favour of new nuclear power stations in Scotland. We know that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, who is posted absent this morning, favours that policy. I repeat what we have said to the Labour Party on previous occasions. If it has the courage to decide to go ahead with the planning of new nuclear installations in Scotland, it will have our support, which will ensure that there is a majority in the Parliament in favour of proceeding with that work. That is what Scotland requires.
I congratulate Richard Lochhead on what was almost a maiden speech. He has a new constituency, but his message and tone are the same. In referring to Scotland as a waste dump, he somewhat overegged the pudding. Such language does not assist the debate. We have produced our fair share of nuclear waste. I am by no means proposing that a new waste dump should be located in Scotland, but to expect that the waste that we have created should be exported elsewhere seems an unreasonable position to take.
Our amendment says that decisions need to be made now. In its report, CORWM said that its recommendations must be acted on urgently. I do not believe that we can afford to wait. There is potentially a major gap in energy production in Scotland, which must be filled. We must undertake a parallel exercise of commissioning new nuclear power stations and dealing with existing waste. Each year, the use of nuclear energy prevents the UK from emitting around 8 million tonnes of CO2. In 2003, the production of energy in Scottish nuclear power stations resulted in an avoidance of CO2 emissions that was equivalent to removing all the traffic from Scotland's roads. We cannot afford to do without nuclear power.
Imagine if we were another country not far from here. Sweden announced earlier this year that within 15 years it would wean itself off the oil and fossil fuel economy without building a new generation of nuclear power stations. Imagine the circumstances of a Scotland deciding a policy that suited its needs. This debate once again presents a picture of either a British policy or a Scottish policy. Unless we support the Green motion and the SNP amendment—which do not preclude nations co-operating with one another nor the export of energy from Scotland to other countries—we will find ourselves without a Scottish energy policy.
If there was an energy deficit in the hypothetical independent Scotland, would the SNP be in favour of importing electricity generated by nuclear means in England?
The potential is to move in the direction that I have mentioned. Of course, the idea of making such a move overnight is nonsense—it is a figment of the imaginations of people who are opposed to having a properly balanced energy policy for a country such as Scotland. No one knows the total costs of nuclear design, build, use, decommissioning and waste storage. Nobody has ever worked it out. At the Dounreay presentation last night, it was interesting to hear that the cost of low-level waste—from one small place—that is drummed and will be stored above ground is about £26 million. Let us remember, though, that low-level waste is the least of our problems. Intermediate-level waste makes up 73 per cent of the volume of waste that we have to deal with. The issue of where and how we deal with such waste is at the heart of the CORWM proposals.
If we create new nuclear power stations we will add to the huge waste streams that already exist. It has been pointed out that Britain has some 1,100 streams of nuclear waste to deal with, thanks to our civil and military nuclear activities of the past 50 years. That is a lot of different sorts of intermediate-level waste to deal with. Finland had about 30 such waste streams. With some pain, it has been possible for Finland to move towards an intermediate underground storage solution. Scotland does not have that opportunity. We are the unwilling host of activities that have left us with massive streams of nuclear waste, which we are prepared to take responsibility for.
If the Opposition parties that support the Green motion and the SNP amendment become the Government, we will have a Government that believes in a balanced energy policy without nuclear power. The clean power option is the one that rejects nuclear—the debate today merely confirms that. If Parliament says that no new nuclear power stations will be built in Scotland, that will be the first step in the Parliament's decision to have a policy that is suitable for Scotland. That is why I ask members to support the SNP amendment.
I congratulate Richard Lochhead on his maiden speech and associate myself with his remarks about Margaret Ewing's record in representing Moray.
The debate has shown the high importance that members attach to the need to deal with our legacy of radioactive waste. As I said in my opening speech, we need to deal with the current waste problem, not debate the waste from new nuclear power stations that we might never have.
Richard Lochhead and several other members have assumed that CORWM is about potential sites. It is not. No sites have been chosen. Government has not yet even received the final recommendations and it is certainly not the case that a site has already been selected. We have said that after policy has been decided in light of CORWM's recommendation, there will be a public debate on the implementation, including site selection criteria. Decisions as to where any future facility or facilities may be sited will be considered in the next steps. A public debate on siting is important to ensure that the public and stakeholders have the opportunity to express their views and influence the process.
The minister will recall that I mentioned that, of the 12 potential sites that Nirex has earmarked, five are in Scotland. Does she accept that she is unable to rule out Scotland being chosen as a location for such a facility, should the UK Government go down that road?
I repeat that absolutely no sites have been chosen. There will be a full public debate on the implementation of CORWM's recommendations, including site selection criteria. I wish to be clear about that: no sites have been chosen.
Since the 2001 consultation, the Executive has been committed to finding a solution to the waste problem. We have supported the extensive public and stakeholder engagement undertaken by CORWM, the lack of which in the past has contributed to a failure to find solutions. Participation is one of the Parliament's founding principles. Radioactive waste is an area in which, without such engagement, we are unlikely to progress. I emphasise that the Scottish ministers will decide whether to accept CORWM's recommendations.
John Swinney referred to renewable energy. Scottish Executive ministers absolutely agree that if we are going to meet the highly ambitious targets for renewable energy—18 per cent of electricity by 2010 and 40 per cent by 2020—we will have to support a range of renewable energy options. Our policies are not just about wind, though. We are committed to supporting the development of all renewable technologies. Wind energy—offshore as well as onshore—will make a significant contribution and we are spending significant sums on the development of marine energy—wave and tidal—where Scotland has a world lead; for example, in the £3 million investment in the new Orkney test centre. Consent has been granted for a number of hydro projects this year. A developer has announced its intention to construct a biomass power plant in Dumfries and Galloway, and a number of devices have been tested at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney.
I am grateful for the list of initiatives that the minister has recounted, but does she accept my fundamental criticism that the Government is not moving nearly fast enough to develop a range of different resources to guarantee that we can have a balanced, renewable energy policy?
I would not accept that. The information that I have given members illustrates that we have the development of renewable energy policy right at the top of our agenda.
Several members have made the link to potential new nuclear energy. I restate the partnership agreement position:
"We will not support the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."
CORWM's remit is to consider the management options for dealing with the waste. It is not necessarily about solving the waste management problem. CORWM has made considerable progress in what is, at least in radioactive waste terms, a relatively short period. We should recognise the efforts of all those involved: public, stakeholders and experts, but particularly the members of the committee who have dedicated so much time and effort to the process.
We are not alone in trying to find a way to deal with radioactive waste. Many countries are grappling with the problem and they too have failed to do so in the past. We are getting the chance to redress what has happened. We want to clean up the legacy in Scotland and we need to take the opportunity that CORWM presents and not leave radioactive waste for future generations.
The debate has been interesting and wide ranging. We have focused, with rather nervous speeches, on what the word "resolved" means. The dictionary definition of resolved states that it means to make up one's mind. The question is, when will we make up our minds about the nuclear waste issue? In the debate, the minister added a new word to the Executive's lexicon. It seems that we will make up our minds expeditiously. What does that mean and when will the issue be resolved?
Listening to Nora Radcliffe made it clear that the Lib Dems do not consider CORWM to have resolved the nuclear waste management issue. We agree with that. However, Bristow Muldoon then tentatively admitted that the CORWM report may well have resolved the issue. If that is the case, we are looking at a green light for new nuclear build in the years ahead.
There is also the question of what waste we mean when we talk about the resolution of the problem. Eleanor Scott identified a range of types of nuclear waste, such as spent fuel, for the management of which there has been no resolution and which CORWM has not considered. It is clear that we are decades away from a complete resolution of the nuclear waste issue.
What we need is no more fudge from the Executive and clarity from the political parties and the Executive about when the waste issue will be resolved and what criteria will be applied to resolve it, so that we can remove the fig leaf of Executive policy and get down to real politics that the electorate understand and that will allow them to make the necessary hard choices at the next election.
As on numerous previous occasions in the chamber, we have debated the cases for and against nuclear power. Bristow Muldoon said that the debate was about more than just waste, and I agree. The debate is about renewables, energy efficiency and whether we are bringing forward the commercialisation of offshore renewables fast enough to fill the gap that is currently filled by nuclear power. Serious issues are involved. I agree with the minister that there has been much testing of marine renewables, but there has been no major commercialisation of them. I worry that we will spend more time being concerned about the views from the 18th hole of a trumped-up golf course than getting renewable marine energy parks and schemes going offshore.
Frances Curran expressed a valid concern about nuclear proliferation in an age of globalisation. There are also the concerns of the 19 nuclear operators, which in the past five years have lodged complaints about 100 aircraft that have come too close to nuclear power stations. Those are real concerns.
I agree with Bristow Muldoon that climate change is of course an issue and that we must consider nuclear power. However, we must bear it in mind that when we add the CO2 emissions from the mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor construction and fuel storage that is connected with uranium, then nuclear power is about neck and neck with gas-powered electricity production in the emission of CO2. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral and it is not a solution to climate change.
There was an interesting debate on the politics of the issue. I admire the Tories; they are wrestling with having Dave the Chameleon as their new leader and they are not afraid to back a loser. I say to Bristow Muldoon that perhaps the Tories are the real fundamentalists. They seem to have a best-of-British attitude to nuclear power: "To hang with the £83,000 million cost of nuclear power! It is right in principle and we should support it." To the fact that city investors will not go near nuclear power because they realise that it is too risky an investment, the Tories say, "Oh, it doesn't matter. It is important in principle that we push it forward." Well, I say to Mr Fraser that, unfortunately, the only way that he will get his policy through is by being Allan Wilson's deputy, which is something that he may want to consider.
Will the member give way on that point?
I am running out of time, but go on then.
I am grateful to Mr Ruskell for giving way. On the question of subsidy, does he appreciate that the only reason that people invest in renewables is because high levels of Government subsidy encourage that investment?
We must consider the vast amount of subsidy that goes into trying to resolve nuclear waste management; waste that Mr Fraser wants to increase for thousands of years to come. He must grasp that that is simply not good for the economy.
I turn to the Liberal Democrats and another quote from Nicol Stephen:
"I want us to be seen as the Liberal Democrats, with our own policies, our own manifesto, that focuses on winning more votes at the next election."
That is all very well and I respect his anti-nuclear stance, but the key question is what he will do with the mandate that the electorate might give him at the next election.
We have a Liberal Democrat amendment from a Liberal Democrat minister that sends a clear message that nuclear power is a negotiable issue for the Liberal Democrats in any coalition. That point was raised earlier—and dealt with adequately by Murdo Fraser—when Jeremy Purvis made an intervention. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are prepared to negotiate on nuclear power. They will come up against the same problem that the Finnish Greens had recently with the construction of a new nuclear power station in Finland. The Liberal Democrats will have to decide whether to stay in Government or to leave it over the nuclear power issue. However, it is clear that they are prepared to negotiate on that issue, which does not send a clear message to the electorate.
Key questions must be answered in this debate; moral and political issues must be considered. We cannot afford to deal with a growing legacy of nuclear waste. We must invest in real energy solutions that will last for thousands of years. That means directing public money into renewable energy and taking the responsible decision to build no more nuclear power stations in Scotland.