Nuclear Waste
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-890, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on nuclear waste, and three amendments to the motion.
Obviously, we are all aware of the passage of the Energy Bill through Westminster. Much as I would prefer the subject matter of that bill to be dealt with in this legislature, the effect of last week's Sewel motion at least means that this Parliament is aware of what is going on at Westminster. However, other discussions that are taking place at European level will also have a direct impact on nuclear waste management, which has been a matter of great public controversy from time to time in Scotland.
Here are just a few of the matters that are under consideration. The Commission proposes to expand its competence in nuclear safety control. There is a push towards developing deep geological disposal sites. Consideration is being given to approving the transportation of shipments of nuclear waste from one member state to another or on to a third, presumably non-European Union, country. There is discussion about making European Atomic Energy Community money available not just for safety improvements and decommissioning, but for financing new nuclear power stations. Europe is considering not requiring any advance consultation with, or even notification of, local authorities when nuclear waste is transported through local authority areas. Do the Parliament and ministers have a view on any or all of those issues, which are under discussion in Europe?
We may be heading down the road of granting public money to build new nuclear power stations, thereby increasing the production of nuclear waste well before we have a clue about how to handle it—leaving aside other aspects of the debate on domestic nuclear energy. We may end up having the waste schlepped across land and sea to a few as yet undisclosed deep burial sites. However, no one will be informed when that waste is on the move, not even the emergency planners. The little control that we in Scotland have over aspects of the issue may be eroded further.
That is not some theoretical worry. A year ago, a lorry carrying radioactive waste crashed on the Friarton bridge in my constituency. The emergency services knew nothing about the potential dangers until they arrived on the scene. That rather negates the point of planning for emergencies.
We need to minimise the transportation of nuclear waste. When waste has to be shifted, we need to ensure that the responsible authorities along the route are aware of what is happening. Wherever possible, nuclear waste should be stored and monitored on site and above ground. As burial of waste comes back on to the agenda, surely the history of United Kingdom efforts to find such solutions should alert Scotland to the distinct possibility that we will end up as one of the favoured areas for disposal. We already know that 25 of the 45 proposed sites under consideration in the public domain over a period of years—more than 55 per cent of the total—were in Scotland.
That is before we remind ourselves of the secret list, whose existence is openly acknowledged, even if we are allowed to know only two of the sites on the list: Sellafield and Dounreay. Those who doubt the existence of the list should have a conversation with representatives of Nirex and ask them directly about it. Nirex is honest about the list and equally honest about its inability—at the insistence of the Government—to divulge the details. The list names potential sites for nuclear waste.
I commend Nirex for making huge efforts to repair its reputation with the public. Any contact with Nirex now is a vastly more satisfactory experience than it might have been 10 or 15 years ago. Nirex wants to be able to discuss nuclear waste management in the open and honestly. I suspect that it would much prefer to make the secret list not a secret. However, as long as the list exists, it will fuel suspicion about the current agenda—and rightly so.
The SNP believes that, in the interests of both safety and democracy, it is essential that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency should have responsibility for the regulation of waste storage and disposal. Currently, we have the nonsensical position that Her Majesty's nuclear installations inspectorate regulates the storage of waste at nuclear sites and SEPA takes over responsibility only when the waste is to be disposed of.
Shifting responsibility for nuclear waste storage to SEPA would provide a more seamless regulatory framework for the handling of nuclear waste and would increase openness and democracy in the system. Such a move would mean that waste storage sites could be subject to public consultations and it would effectively devolve responsibility for nuclear waste storage to the Scottish Parliament. Before any member gets too restive about the fact that this call is coming from the SNP, I inform the chamber that it is not an exclusively nationalist position. In 1999, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee recommended exactly the same thing.
The statutory guidance for SEPA for which the motion calls has been promised and is long overdue. Draft statutory guidance for the Environment Agency in England and Wales was produced as long ago as November 2001. We do not need to reinvent the wheel, but the Executive must get moving on the issue. The groundwork has already been done in the England and Wales draft, which refers to a "progressive reduction" of discharges taking
"primacy over other considerations, apart from safety"
and states that
"the unnecessary introduction of radioactivity into the environment is undesirable, even at levels where the doses … are low."
In the light of those comments, the Executive's amendment today is particularly disappointing. It welcomes the "UK strategy for radioactive discharges 2001-2020", which means accepting, among other things, increased discharges from Sellafield from now until 2012 and beyond and allowing the thermal oxide reprocessing plant to remain open until 2024.
At least the Tories are honest in their open support for the unbridled development of nuclear power, but they show absolutely no concern for the serious issue of how we should deal with the waste produced by the nuclear process. The Green amendment adds to my motion and I will support it if we get there.
Support for the SNP motion will signal the Parliament's intention to put public safety, openness and democracy above all other considerations in dealing with nuclear waste. The communities of Scotland deserve no less.
I move,
That the Parliament is concerned that policies related to nuclear waste management are being discussed and debated at UK and European level without significant input from Scotland; believes that appropriate statutory guidance for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on radioactive discharges is urgently required, and considers that decisions regarding the control, management and disposal of nuclear waste material in Scotland should be a matter solely for the Scottish Ministers.
I thank the SNP for securing the debate. As I said last week when we debated the Sewel motion on the Energy Bill, I am happy to discuss radioactive waste management issues and I welcome the opportunity to do so today. Given the range of issues that were raised during last week's debate, however, we need to be clear about what we are discussing.
I made it clear last week—and will do so again today—that radioactive waste management is a devolved matter. Discussions can sometimes lead us into issues relating to nuclear energy, nuclear installations, nuclear safety, security and the transportation of radioactive materials, but all those matters are reserved. I do not intend to revisit the devolution settlement today. It is important for the Parliament to consider those matters for which we are responsible.
In that context, some of the speeches last week, including—dare I say it—Roseanna Cunningham's, called for a Scotland-wide debate on the best options for dealing with radioactive waste, a call that she repeats today. However, what we heard last week made me realise just how much some people, including the Opposition spokesmen, are unaware of the work that is already going on.
As I said last week, the need to have a national debate—in Scotland and the UK—on how we deal with our long-lived radioactive waste is precisely why we have set up the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Members will recall that, in September 2001, we—the UK Government and the devolved Administrations—jointly published the consultation document "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely". We were then, as we are now, of the view that it is important to work together to identify long-term management options. In response to that consultation, the decision was taken to set up the new independent body to review all radioactive waste management options.
CORWM is an independent committee, jointly appointed by ministers from the UK Government and devolved Administrations at the end of last year, to review options for long-term management of long-lived radioactive waste. CORWM is the product of a partnership between those Administrations. Its remit demands that it operates openly and transparently. It has held its first open meeting this week in London. It will also hold meetings at locations—
Does the minister accept that, although different bodies, including the one that he mentions, can give advice to the Government, at the end of the day ministers take the decisions? Will he rule out today the prospect of Scotland's becoming the national depository site for intermediate-level waste?
The member misunderstands. The point of setting up a body independent of the Government to advise ministers on matters such as the long-term management of nuclear waste is precisely to secure the type of independent advice that we desire. For me to pre-empt the outcome of that process would be pointless.
I am not clear how our involvement in CORWM shows that there is no significant input to the process from Scotland, as has been claimed. Ministers and officials have been involved in the process from day one. I assure members that CORWM is well aware of the high level of interest and concern in Scotland about radioactive waste. We have made that clear and we will continue to do so.
That is not the point.
I will develop the point. CORWM will shortly present its proposed work plan to ministers for agreement. It will be for all of us— Scottish ministers and our colleagues in Wales, Northern Ireland and the UK Government—to agree jointly to what is proposed. As I said, it would be pointless for me to pre-empt whatever CORWM decides in advance of our ministerial meeting to consider its recommendations.
On the alleged relationship between Nirex and CORWM, we should make it absolutely clear—as CORWM has done—that public and stakeholder engagement is critical to the success, and will be at the core, of the committee's work programme.
If we are to decide the future of radioactive waste in Scotland and the rest of the UK, we must look forward, not back. We must seize the present opportunity to do something positive about the future. However, we cannot achieve that without the full and active involvement of everyone within and outwith the chamber.
Will the minister give way?
The Presiding Officer is indicating to me that I am in my last minute. I will come back to the member in my closing speech.
We want to ensure that, once CORWM has reviewed the options, it will deliver its recommendations to ministers on its preferred option or combination of options by the end of next year. We also expect SEPA to implement policy changes as a result of any decision on those options, although we acknowledge that some—but by no means all—of those changes might require further guidance from the Executive. If so, guidance will be produced as soon as is reasonably practicable, following consultation with SEPA and others as necessary.
I make it clear that the Executive takes its responsibilities very seriously. However, we also need to recognise that the reserved and devolved aspects of the issue must be handled in such a way that we are able to influence as well as to make decisions.
I move amendment S2M-890.3, to leave out from "is concerned" to end and insert:
"agrees that the review of options for the long-term management of radioactive waste, currently being undertaken by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, is the correct means of engaging Scotland in the debate to find a long-term publicly acceptable solution to the disposal of long-lived radioactive waste and that the Scottish Executive should continue to input into UK, European and international radioactive waste issues and require the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to implement policy such as the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001-2020."
I thank Roseanna Cunningham for securing the debate. We need to discuss the issue; indeed, the Conservatives will always be happy to discuss it.
Because we in Scotland must know exactly where we are in relation to nuclear waste, the Conservatives will support the Executive amendment, which ensures a proper and continuous process that will deliver on the country's requirements for disposing of nuclear waste in the long term. I doubt that I will find much support for my amendment, whose purpose is to highlight the crisis facing Scotland's capacity to produce energy, particularly nuclear energy. However, I will move it nonetheless.
The Executive is committed to achieving 40 per cent of electricity generation through renewables by 2020. However, we are gravely concerned by what constantly happens when I and other Conservative members try to elicit information on exactly how the remaining 60 per cent of energy will be generated. For example, when I asked the minister with responsibility for energy, Lewis Macdonald, to tell me what he thought the level of electricity consumption would be in 2020, he said that he did not have any figures for that.
We need to think long and hard about how we will generate the electricity that we require to ensure not just that the lights stay on but that industry has the fuel that it needs to maintain growth. We must also take into account our extremely important commitments to reducing CO2 emissions. Indeed, I will concede the importance of those commitments whenever I am asked about them. Nuclear energy has a key role to play in closing the gap, but we have only a short time in which to make decisions on the matter.
That is why the Conservative amendment makes it clear that we not only support the development of the handling of nuclear waste, but believe that the process of replacing our capacity for generating electricity through nuclear energy must begin. We can achieve many positives in that respect. For example, the decommissioning that is being carried out at certain sites in Scotland and that will expand as other plants are decommissioned—
What impact did the closure of Torness for several months last year have on Scotland's industry and economy? Indeed, did anyone really notice that it had been closed down?
The member knows as well as I do that some nuclear stations are reaching the end of their capacity and that two major coal-fired stations will terminate production within the timescales that we are discussing. It is critical that we examine the balance of energy that is available to Scottish industry if we are to support its growth.
As for the assumption that building new nuclear power stations will increase the amount of nuclear waste that we have to handle, figures that I have received from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd indicate that replacement of nuclear capacity will dramatically reduce the amount of nuclear waste that is being produced. Significant reductions in both intermediate and low-grade waste are very much achievable.
In my final remarks, I must criticise the SNP for lodging the motion without taking into account our future electricity generation needs in the generation of electricity. I must also to some extent criticise the Labour Party for failing to address the issues and perhaps being misguided into short-term political opportunism by their Liberal Democrat colleagues. I express my support for the Executive amendment, but urge everyone to consider what the future holds if we do not address the issue of nuclear generation capacity.
I move amendment S2M-890.1, to leave out from "is concerned" to end and insert:
"believes that nuclear power capacity is vital in meeting Scotland's future energy needs; recognises technical advances in the handling and disposal of the associated waste materials, and considers that the resolution of nuclear waste issues and the development of new nuclear power capacity can and must run in parallel, as the lengthy commissioning process means that decisions about new nuclear power stations cannot be put off any longer."
We in the Green party agree with the thrust of the SNP motion that issues that relate to nuclear waste in Scotland must be determined by Scottish ministers. However, the debate needs to address the core issue: the production of nuclear waste. The first step in managing the hideous legacy of 50 years of nuclear waste is to stop making the stuff in the first place. As the phrase says, "When you're in a hole, stop digging." The nuclear industry is not sustainable under any definition of the term. Any industry that leaves countless generations with the thankless task of looking after our highly toxic and environmentally damaging waste is almost uniquely unsustainable.
We are talking about geological time. In a quarter of a million years, somebody somewhere will have to factor in the effects of the nuclear waste that our generation is creating today. People can stick their heads in the contaminated Dounreay sand and they can throw public subsidy at the nuclear industry that the renewables sector would die for, but they cannot ignore the laws of physics. The reality is that safe, clean nuclear electricity has turned out to be dirty. As for its being too cheap to meter, that myth has been well and truly debunked. Even when Government bodies have accepted the decommissioning costs and liabilities, the nuclear industry still has not managed to make electricity generation pay. When British Energy went cap in hand to the Government for a handout that would have been illegal for any other industry, it exposed the financial abyss into which the nuclear energy is staring.
The member has given the chamber a litany of criticisms of nuclear power. Could he explain why the Green party in Finland has supported the introduction of new nuclear power stations?
We are talking about Scotland and we must look at what Scotland needs to do to produce base-load electricity for the future. I argue that, contrary to what the Conservative amendment suggests, we need to start investing in far-market renewables that can take over from base-load energy generation in the future and meet Scotland's electricity needs.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I need to move on.
The financial abyss into which the nuclear industry is staring is perhaps the same abyss as the one in which people want to stick the waste. During the early 1990s, Nirex, in its infinite wisdom, dreamed up a plan to bury nuclear waste in an earthquake zone and under an aquifer. Thankfully, the Government gave the plan the thumbs-down. However, we are still waiting for the next crazy suggestion and we are still waiting to find out where the dozen potential target sites are that Roseanna Cunningham mentioned.
Let us face it, nuclear waste has no safe disposal route. The industry has spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money trying to find a way in which to make the problem go away. Good money has been thrown after bad and the problem is still with us. The waste must be stored in secure facilities, it must be able to withstand terrorist attack and, if necessary, it must be able to be retrieved for further treatment.
If waste is created at Torness, it must be stored at Torness—likewise at Hunterston, Rosyth and Dounreay. Nuclear power is a job lot; we cannot welcome the jobs that the stations create but turn up our noses at the waste that is generated. Scotland must not become a final resting place for anybody else's waste. Although we have a moral responsibility to look after waste that we produce, there is no case for importing waste.
Will the member take an intervention?
Sorry, but I do not have time.
We do not need to rely on fossil fuels or nuclear fission in the future if we invest in far-market renewables today. A combination of hard energy efficiency measures and renewables can provide predictable supplies and offer us clean energy and more long-term employment than the nuclear energy industry has ever done in the past or ever will in the future.
I move amendment S2M-890.4, to insert after "Parliament":
"acknowledges that radioactive nuclear waste for which there is no safe disposal route will remain harmful to human health and the environment for many thousands of years and that responsibility for nuclear waste created by this generation will have to be inherited by countless future generations; considers that the most important step in tackling the growing problem of nuclear waste must be to stop creating the waste in the first instance; believes that Scotland should not accept nuclear waste originating outside Scotland and that waste arising from Scottish civil and military nuclear facilities should remain on the site of the originating facility in secure, monitorable and retrievable storage;"
Liberal Democrat policy is to phase out nuclear power stations in Scotland. However, we accept that nuclear decommissioning and the storage of waste must be carried out on a UK basis. The debate underlines the key point that no safe method of storing nuclear waste has been found and that remaining nuclear power stations must be decommissioned.
The motion centres on whether Scotland is sufficiently in control of her own destiny on the matter. Policy on the management of radioactive waste is devolved, as are the land-use planning and environmental control regimes for which SEPA is responsible. The UK does not have a policy on the long-term management of radioactive waste, but the process of reviewing the options for waste disposal was initiated in 2001 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which, with the Scottish Executive and the other devolved Administrations, produced the consultation paper "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely". Ministers have jointly appointed the new, independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management to carry forward that process and to prepare recommendations for ministers on a preferred option or combination of options by the end of next year. At that point, it will be for Scottish ministers to decide whether they want to accept or reject those recommendations, following public consultations on the options that are proposed. I see no merit in running a separate and parallel assessment process. However, I hope that the undertaking fares better than previous attempts by bodies such as Nirex to deal with the problem of radioactive waste.
At Westminster, the Energy Bill will establish a nuclear decommissioning authority, which will oversee the decommissioning of public sector nuclear facilities that are owned by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and BNFL. Under the bill, the NDA could operate a disposal site, but such a site could not be located in Scotland without the joint agreement of the secretary of state and Scottish ministers. It is therefore wrong to characterise the NDA as a UK body that could foist nuclear waste on Scotland.
The UK Government is responsible—thankfully—for the liabilities of past nuclear activity, but there is a complex mess of reserved and devolved responsibilities in relation to the issue. The funding of the NDA and decommissioning are reserved matters, as are nuclear installations and sites. Moreover, the NDA will become the owner of such sites and will be wholly funded by the UK Government, but the clean-up process will naturally involve the creation and management of radioactive waste, which is a devolved matter.
I am fascinated by the member's list of devolved and reserved powers. What is her answer to this mess, as she characterised it? Is it to bring some of those powers to this Parliament, so that it can take a more strategic view, or is it simply to hand power back to Westminster? That would seem to be a curious position for the Liberals to take.
If the member allows me to continue, I will give my view on that when I sum up.
Any development that requires planning permission at the proposed sites will be a matter for the area's planning authority in the first instance. Scottish ministers have powers to call in and determine planning applications, but only on planning grounds. Defence is a reserved matter, but radioactive waste management policy, its regulation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and planning procedures are devolved matters.
What is important is that policy decisions on the long-term management of radioactive waste still rest with ministers. The NDA will implement decisions, but it will not be able to take a decision on the final disposal route for the waste. In conclusion, although the whole situation is a mess, I support Allan Wilson's position that the Scottish Executive is sufficiently represented and influential in the matter.
One of Scotland's oldest nuclear power stations is in my constituency. It was opened in 1959 and at its peak was able to produce 200MW of power. Since the power station opened, it has been a major employer in Annandale and Eskdale. Currently, more than 400 people are employed there, and it also supports a substantial number of local contractors. Although decommissioning will take a number of years, the cessation of production and the gradual dismantling of the site will result in the loss of a significant number of well-paid jobs in the area. Well-paid jobs are not especially easy to find in Annandale and Eskdale.
We have a strong interest in attracting some of the functions of the nuclear decommissioning authority when it is established next year—especially as its establishment will coincide with the cessation of power generation at Chapelcross. Because of the expected job losses and because of the existing expertise of the local work force in nuclear issues, we feel that we are well placed to create a centre of excellence in decommissioning in Annan.
I was pleased that the Scottish National Party scheduled nuclear waste for debate. It is an important issue. I was, however, a little disappointed when I read the text of the motion, because it appeared to relate to constitutional issues. However, Roseanna Cunningham raised a number of legitimate concerns. I do not agree with all of them but it is important that we should discuss them.
The power companies that generate 25 per cent of the UK's electricity through nuclear power are UK companies, and the NDA will operate UK-wide—partly because energy policy is reserved to Westminster. I therefore do not have a particular problem with these issues being discussed on a UK basis.
Mark Ruskell referred to the dangers and the dirtiness of the nuclear industry. In all the years of nuclear operation in Elaine Murray's constituency, were there ever any major accidents? Have there been any major accidents in Scotland?
I was just about to come on to that point.
Fortunately, there have been no serious incidents at Chapelcross in 45 years. If there had been, Cumbria would probably have been more affected than many parts of Scotland. Similarly, Sellafield—where much of the waste from Scotland goes—is in England but, if there had been a problem there, it might have affected my constituency more than many parts of England. I do not think that the nationalistic argument applies.
I am sorry but I have only four minutes.
I am now going to annoy a large number of my coalition colleagues: I am one of those people who believes that nuclear power generation has a future. I believe that the global environment is more seriously threatened by greenhouse gas emissions than it is by the new generation of nuclear reactors that is currently being developed and researched. Of course, I believe that renewables are part of the solution, but I do not believe that they are the whole solution. A 1,000MW advanced passive reactor—1,000MW is five times the power of Chapelcross—would, over a 60-year lifespan, produce something like 2,000m3 of low-level radioactive waste and about 700m3 of intermediate-level waste. I therefore believe that we must not close the door on nuclear power.
I have some sympathy for the Tory amendment—although issues arise over who will develop the power capacity that it refers to. There is currently a lack of appetite for investment in power because the power market is poor.
I will not deceive the work force at Chapelcross by saying that next year we can somehow have a brand spanking new nuclear power reactor and that everybody will get a job. However, I think that research can continue and that licensed sites such as Chapelcross would be ideal for such research. People in such areas are sympathetic towards nuclear power. My plea is this: do not close the door on nuclear power, because it will prove to be an essential part of the global energy supply.
In his opening remarks, the minister criticised the SNP for straying into areas that he said were reserved to Westminster. As the minister knows, like him, I live close to the Hunterston nuclear power station. I make no apology for referring to matters that a Parliament in London tells me that I should not refer to. I will refer to nuclear energy because although the community that I live in has grown used to accommodating a nuclear power station, that does not mean that the community is happy to have it on its doorstep.
When the civil nuclear programme was launched in the United Kingdom, we were told that it was a new dawn for Britain and that we would have a bright future. We were told that nuclear power was cheap, clean and safe. At that time, the media were full of good-news stories about how nuclear power would provide cheap electricity for the people of the United Kingdom. The stories were usually illustrated with photographs of bright, shiny children doing their homework in brightly lit rooms that were powered by bright, shiny power stations. However, we should bear it in mind that, at the same time, the Government was telling the people of the United Kingdom that the best way to survive a Soviet nuclear attack was to hide under the kitchen table. If we learn anything from the British Government's propaganda back then, it is that British unionist Governments then were as trustworthy as the British unionist Government is today and that we should perhaps not believe everything that it says about the nuclear industry.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thanks—I have a lot to get through.
The claims that were made for the nuclear industry back then are still made today by people such as the minister's very good friend the Labour MP for Cunninghame North, Mr Brian Wilson. Mr Wilson is very pro-nuclear but conveniently forgets that back in 1987, when he was a mere Labour Party candidate, he supported a resolution that was passed at the Scottish Labour Party conference that called for the mothballing of all nuclear power stations in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
No, thanks; have a wee seat, pal.
Back then, the pro-nuclear Brian Wilson was anti-nuclear but, back then, so was Tony Blair. That is how much the Labour Party can be trusted.
Let us talk briefly about what the Labour Party said about nuclear power back then. It said that nuclear power was going to be a clean source of energy, but it seems to have overlooked the fact that nuclear power produces toxic waste that contains plutonium, which can stay radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, so it is not a clean source of energy. The Labour Party also said that nuclear power was going to be cheap but, if it was cheap, surely it would have been able to compete in new Labour's energy market; if it was cheap, surely British Energy would have been able to compete in the market without having to be bailed out with £650 million of taxpayers' money. That is the amount that was poured into one favoured private company to keep it going.
What is the Government's strategy to deal with the toxic nuclear waste that is produced from supposedly clean nuclear energy? Last year, I asked the minister whether there was
"an acceptable solution for dealing with existing nuclear waste".
The minister's initial response was that he would get back to me as soon as possible, so it is clear that a lot of thought was going into the response. When he finally provided a substantive response, he stated:
"The Executive's policy is that radioactive waste should be disposed of where a disposal route exists."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 28 July 2003; S2W-1114.]
A hell of a lot of thought went into that answer. I invite the minister to take the opportunity to tell us exactly what the Government plans to do to dispose of our nuclear waste.
When the minister sums up, he could perhaps also indicate the cost to the public purse of the liabilities management authority taking on the financial burden of clearing up nuclear waste, which was estimated to be £48 billion in 2002. What is it now? More public money is going into it. If there is to be no new nuclear build and no new generation from renewable sources at Hunterston, perhaps he can tell the workers at the Hunterston nuclear power site how he intends to guarantee their 400 jobs.
For the past five years, I have felt that, when the opportunity to speak out in favour of the nuclear industry in the Parliament presents itself, it should be taken by those of us who support the industry.
There is no doubt that nuclear waste is a very serious issue; it is a serious issue that is dealt with by serious political parties. The debate has again shown that within the United Kingdom, and within Scotland, there are only two serious political parties that are willing to engage in a proper discussion on the subject.
Will the member give way?
No—the SNP has chosen the topic of the debate and I want to concentrate on my issues.
As Roseanna Cunningham mentioned, disposal of waste has been examined by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's review is on-going. In my view, much of the debate is about the SNP greening itself for what it sees as potential votes rather than about the seriousness of the issue. It is up to the SNP whether it wants to scramble about for that minority vote; we need to concentrate on providing for the energy needs of this country in the future. That will be done only be developing new nuclear power stations.
For once, I was heartened to hear Elaine Murray's comments. I want her to encourage her colleagues within the Labour Party—nationally and here in Scotland—to come off the fence and come down in favour of the nuclear industry. They need to face up to the Liberals in Scotland and tell them what is what, rather than fawn on their policies on renewable energy and foist wind farms on people in rural areas of Scotland. The Labour Party in Scotland should convey clearly to the UK Government that there is support for the nuclear industry, which is needed if we are not to have the blackouts and cuts in supply that have happened elsewhere.
As always in such debates, the SNP takes a pick-and-mix approach to European countries. Of course, as my colleague Brian Monteith alluded to, the one country that is not mentioned in debates about the nuclear industry is Finland, which has come out clearly in favour of nuclear power.
Will the member take an intervention?
I took an intervention from Mr Ruskell on the issue in a previous debate. The answer to his question then was that, if the Romans had had nuclear energy, they would still be here.
A false impression is often given in the media that the green anti-nuclear agenda has a national consensus behind it—it does not. The case for the nuclear industry deserves to be made. My one criticism of the industry is that it sometimes does not present itself on the front foot, although it needs to do so. If we do not have nuclear power in a decade, people in this country will not be able to enjoy the lifestyles that they have now.
I fear that in the debate and in decisions taken about nuclear waste, people who are anti-nuclear power are using the waste issue in an attempt to delay the commissioning of new nuclear power stations. That is why I call on the Scottish Executive to support what Mr Johnstone and I said in last week's debate and run the two processes in parallel so that we can begin the commissioning of new nuclear power stations, whether they are at Hunterston, Chapelcross or Torness. Let us get on with that work. The lead time for new stations is long and if we delay any further we will only open ourselves up to an energy gap.
Given that the debate is about nuclear waste management, SNP members must be well aware of the internationally acclaimed nuclear decommissioning at Dounreay. The policy change from nuclear fuel reprocessing to decommissioning was brought about by partnership working between the UK Labour Government and the Scottish Executive. The main mover was the late Donald Dewar, both as Secretary of State for Scotland and as First Minister.
Ten years ago, I would never have dreamed of standing up in a public place to praise Dounreay's environmental record. Although Dounreay was a welcome provider of high-quality jobs in Caithness, it had a reputation for secrecy and cover-ups of possible leakages from waste pits, particularly the infamous waste shaft. There were cover-ups of the loss of radioactive material and other possible incidents of contamination. In those circumstances, rumours abounded, some of which were justified. However, Dounreay is now a model of nuclear waste management. All waste is to be stored on site. High-level waste is vitrified in a new purpose-built unit; intermediate-level waste is conditioned for long-term safe storage on site; low-level waste is also stored on site; and the new waste receipt, characterisation and supercompaction plant has led to significant advances in managing low-level solid waste.
Will Maureen Macmillan take an intervention?
I am sorry but I have only three minutes.
The recently opened low-level liquid effluent treatment plant, which replaces a 1950s plant, will also mean lower levels of emission and higher standards of environmental protection.
In the past five years, Dounreay has become an outstanding example of transparency in managing nuclear waste. In fact, it carried out public consultation on how to deal with the infamous waste shaft. The decommissioning programme has already provided 1,000 apprenticeships. Elaine Murray has nothing to fear from decommissioning because it provides many jobs. The expertise that is building up locally in Caithness can be used to decommission other nuclear sites. Caithness's reputation for expertise in technology and the new skills that are being gained are attracting more high-quality firms to the area.
Partnership work with the UK Government has given us, in Dounreay, a first-class example of how to manage nuclear waste. I have no reason to doubt that future radioactive waste management plans will be any less responsible.
At present, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, jointly set up by the Scottish Executive, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other devolved Administrations, is reviewing the options for dealing with existing waste and waste decommissioning. Its work will be carried out transparently and I associate myself with everything that the minister has said on the matter.
The Energy Bill, which we discussed last week, provides for the establishment of a nuclear decommissioning authority so that there will be necessarily consistent approaches to decommissioning across the UK. The bill recognises the responsibility of the Executive and the Scottish Parliament in that area and provides for joint decisions between Scottish ministers and the secretary of state.
I am content that the Executive and Westminster are putting in place robust standards. If the SNP's motion were passed, it would destabilise that. Safety is what is important. Some of what has been said by the SNP today has been 20 years out of date. We must not jeopardise safety through pre-set ideas.
Sold out!
How dare you?
We now move to the winding-up speeches. I call Shiona Baird.
I cannot believe that I am sitting here in 2004 listening to a serious argument to commission more nuclear power stations. Have we learned nothing in the past 50 years? Have we really become more technically adept at storing nuclear waste? There are still far too many unanswered questions—
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
Has the member ever visited Dounreay?
The member is not taking the intervention.
There are still far too many unanswered questions, an additional list of which we heard from Roseanna Cunningham. Not even the nuclear industry has answered the questions. Dounreay has not even started building its vitrification plant and we are told that burying high-level waste in concrete means downgrading it to intermediate-level waste, as if changing its name makes it safer.
The UKAEA wants to be able to move liquid radioactive waste from old to new storage tanks but wants to discharge some of the liquid—into the sea, presumably—to maintain space in the tanks for emergencies. Such solutions do not inspire confidence. We look to the Executive to stand by its statement that it will not commission any more nuclear power stations until we are absolutely convinced that the industry has learned how to deal with the waste of the past 50 years.
Nobody has talked about the cost of commissioning new power stations. A figure of £2 billion per station has been mentioned to me. Given the present financial arrangement, we can safely assume that that figure would have doubled by the time any station was completed. That does not even take into account the £3.3 billion of taxpayers' money that the Government has given to British Energy to help it to comply with its decommissioning and waste management responsibilities. How can Alex Johnstone and others in the chamber seriously defend such a bankrupt business and propose burdening the taxpayers of Scotland with even more waste?
Brian Monteith ought to get his facts correct. The Finnish Greens left the Government on 26 May 2002 due to the vote in Parliament two days earlier in favour of the new nuclear power station. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will take similarly principled action if such a decision ever has to be made in Scotland. I was a bit concerned to see Allan Wilson nodding rather too often at comments that were made by the Conservatives. We will need to watch that situation.
Mark Ruskell is right: members should get their heads out of the contaminated Dounreay sand and get back to the real world. The huge legacy of nuclear waste that Scotland already has is surely more than enough for future generations to deal with.
We admit that we have an energy gap and believe that we must work on filling that gap with a variety of measures that do not include the totally unsustainable and polluting nuclear power industry. That is another debate, of course, but I ask members to imagine what the renewable energy companies would say if they were given £5 billion to advance their businesses. We would certainly welcome that sort of initiative.
Today, we must concentrate on ensuring that we manage our own waste and decommission our own nuclear submarines, not anyone else's. Scottish ministers must retain direct responsibility for all nuclear waste management issues in Scotland. That area is devolved, and we must at least not abdicate that responsibility to others.
The Greens will support the Scottish National Party motion as amended by our amendment, which addresses the real core issues.
You will excuse me, Presiding Officer: I thought that the debate was about nuclear waste, but it seems to have become about nuclear energy. It is important that we take the issue seriously because no matter what one's personal position is on nuclear electricity generation, we have a legacy of nuclear waste that must be dealt with, and it must be dealt with seriously. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and try to pretend that it is somebody else's problem, because it is our problem.
It is not a problem that my generation wished to have. My generation did not make the decisions to have a nuclear industry and a nuclear-waste legacy, but it is left with the problem of how to deal with that legacy and it will have to pass some of that liability on to future generations because of the nature of the nuclear industry. That means that we cannot get rid of nuclear waste overnight—it will take generations.
I say to Roseanna Cunningham that it is easy to make comments about Sellafield and why it should be closed down immediately, but I have visited Sellafield—
I did not say that.
I am sorry. The point that Roseanna Cunningham made was that Sellafield was increasing its contamination, but it is not doing that; rather, it is making efforts to reduce the amount of contamination that it causes. However, it has to continue to carry out some of its processes; it cannot stop the Magnox reprocessing procedure, which is the major cause of the contamination that comes from Sellafield, because the Magnox fuel that has to be reprocessed from British nuclear power stations is in an unsafe state and must be reprocessed to make it safe for future storage. Unfortunately, we are left with that process, which will carry on until, I think, 2012, when the final Magnox fuel is reprocessed.
However, I have more concerns about Sellafield's role as an international depository for waste and reprocessing. It is time that the British Government got off the fence and made a decision on whether that should come to a stop, as most of us feel that it should, or whether it will allow British Nuclear Fuels Ltd and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to continue to tout abroad for reprocessing business.
The decision that we have to take in Scotland is how we want to deal with the problem. The SNP seems to suggest that nuclear waste should become entirely the Scottish Parliament's responsibility, but I would not welcome that. I do not wish the Scottish Parliament to become responsible for the decommissioning of Torness, Hunterston, Chapelcross and Dounreay. Why should we become responsible for that decommissioning process when the fact that we have those liabilities in Scotland is part of a United Kingdom energy policy? Those liabilities have to be part of United Kingdom policy, although the Scottish Parliament obviously must have a role in considering our concerns about where nuclear waste is stored and ends up. That is why the Scottish ministers must be involved in the final decisions and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency must be involved in the key decisions.
I remember campaigning against Torness 20 years ago, fresh-faced youth that I may have been. Perhaps it was not 20 years ago; perhaps it was longer. I was not against nuclear energy per se: I was against it because it had not been proved to be 100 per cent safe—since Torness was built, there have been nuclear accidents in the world; because the costs of decommissioning had not been sorted out and nobody had worked out how to decommission; and because dealing with nuclear waste had not been sorted out.
That has still not been sorted out.
I agree with Roseanna Cunningham and ask her to let me finish my point.
I say to the Conservatives that the problem is that those issues have still not been resolved. That is why I remain opposed to new nuclear power stations and why the Liberal Democrats believe that nuclear power stations that are reaching the end of their natural lives should be decommissioned.
I cannot give way because I am into my concluding comments.
Existing nuclear power stations should be decommissioned so that the waste can be dealt with and there should be no new nuclear power stations unless and until a long-term solution to the problem of nuclear waste has been found. To date, no such solution has been found.
Today, Parliament has once again divided into two groups: the realists and the rest, as David Mundell has said. Of course, there are varying degrees of reality and unreality, and the spectrum ranges from those of us who want a secure future energy policy, to those who want to take us back to the dark ages, namely the Greens, the SNP, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Liberal Democrats.
Parliament has divided in debate, and will do so at decision time, into those who accept that decisions need to be made now in order to secure our future energy supplies, and those who are prepared to gamble on renewable energy meeting most of our future energy needs. The matter is largely to do with the issue of nuclear waste. We need to consider closely the issues around this material, which is stopping realistic decision making, as Roseanna Cunningham pointed out. The minister pointed out that CORWM is addressing those issues, which is the correct way forward.
We must accept that nuclear electricity generation is in many ways one of the most sustainable forms of energy production. First, it produces no greenhouse gases. Secondly, 97 per cent of nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and reused as nuclear fuel, with only 3 per cent becoming waste after reprocessing. Although today's debate is about nuclear waste, we ignore at our peril the lack of decision making on energy supplies. Everyone here agrees that, in an ideal world, 40 per cent of Scotland's electricity would be generated from renewable sources by 2020. That is the world that Mark Ruskell lives in, with far-market renewables. We do not live in an ideal world, however. It is now 2004, and it is looking less and less likely that we will produce 40 per cent of our energy requirements from renewables by 2020, whatever the Executive says.
Will Mr Scott take an intervention?
I have only a very short time.
It will be a very short question and answer. Can the member tell us how much it would cost to decommission the nuclear power stations in Scotland?
I have no idea whatever, but I am perfectly content that the way in which Dounreay has been decommissioned—properly and well—will also apply in due course to the other power stations in Scotland. The Executive and the Government need to take hard and binding decisions now about the other 60 per cent of our generating capacity, as Alex Johnstone said. Currently, most of Scotland's power comes from six plants: two coal-fired plants, one gas-fired power station and three nuclear power stations. The coal-fired plants have a life expectancy of less than 20 years, and there are no plans to replace their capacity. The gas plant has a modest 30 years left, but gas is running out and it is getting more expensive. Our three nuclear power stations are licensed until 2005, 2011 and 2023 respectively, with no plans to replace them. In addition, we currently export 50 per cent of our generating capacity to England, Wales and Ireland, but we will soon become net importers of electricity, unless we start making plans now to avoid that.
The Conservative position is that we should start making decisions now to stop the lights going out in future, as has already happened in California—I note that Campbell Martin appears to be unconcerned by that prospect. We must replace current nuclear generating capacity with new nuclear generating capacity, and we should start at Chapelcross. We must accept that, in environmental terms, safe storage of small amounts of nuclear waste is more sustainable than emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases from fossil-fuel power stations. As Brian Monteith pointed out, that is recognised in Finland by parties other than the Greens.
We have to accept that we cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs, and that renewable energy, as the technology currently stands, is still little more than a pipe dream supported by an inadequate grid system. Although we wish its development well, its future contribution should be regarded as a bonus, rather than as something on which we have to depend as we allow our traditional generating capacity to decline. For those reasons, we cannot support the SNP motion or the Green amendment. I urge members to support our amendment.
Let me begin by being clear: for all the issues that have been raised today—Nirex, the NDA, the storage of submarines and so on—if the problem is waste, then the answer is CORWM. CORWM, which will report to the Scottish ministers, is the body that will make recommendations about how we deal with the problem of waste to us and to ministers in other Administrations in the UK. CORWM represents a fresh start and a new approach to tackling the legacy or long-term management of radioactive waste.
We have stressed the importance that we place on that committee's independence and on the need for it to engage transparently with the public. CORWM is tasked with reviewing a range of options for long-term management of radioactive waste in order to achieve long-term protection for people and the environment. Deep geological disposal, which was the sole focus of the Nirex research, is only one of the options to be considered.
As we have stated previously, CORWM will recommend the best option, or combination of options, to adopt; it is about the how rather than the where. Some members have speculated that those issues are somehow linked in a grand conspiracy whose ultimate design is the dumping of radioactive waste at a predetermined location here in Scotland. That is simply not true; it is a myth and a fabrication.
Does the minister support disclosure of the 12 sites that are contained in the list that is held by Nirex, but which it is not allowed to disclose to the public?
Why? Would disclosure give the member another headline in the Daily Record? What difference would disclosure make? What point does the document have any more? It is an historical document that has no bearing whatever on the new and transparent process that I have described. I have no interest in giving the member headlines in the Daily Record or in repeating scare stories that the SNP will use to scare the electorate.
To turn to the amendments, I assure Shiona Baird that I have not been seduced by the Conservatives' superficially attractive amendment: I do not support it. The nats laughed when Nora Radcliffe said that the situation is a mess, but the truth is that it is the nationalists' policy that is a mess. The Greens are at least honest—their amendment says that we should stop creating waste in the first instance. They want to close Hunterston B and Torness, and I was interested to hear Roseanna Cunningham say that she will support that proposition. I will be equally interested to see the outcome of the vote.
As Conservative members have mentioned, we often hear the nats talk about Finland and Scandinavia—indeed, we heard that in the previous debate, when we were talking about football. However, they do not talk about Finland in this context, perhaps because that small, independent nation on the northern fringe of Europe recently took a decision to choose nuclear new build. Why did it do so? It did so for environmental reasons. Let us be absolutely clear about the matter; Scotland is a substantial exporter not only of nuclear energy, in the form of electricity, but of nuclear waste.
Will the member take an intervention?
The minister is in his final minute.
The SNP says that it is Scotland's waste—that phrase has shades of "Scotland's oil"—and that it should be dealt with in Scotland. By definition, therefore, the SNP advocates the establishment of nuclear storage facilities in Scotland, but it is not clear whether that storage would be on site or underground.
We have always said that.
Is the member also saying that we should repatriate our waste that is currently in England? Clearly, on-site storage has security implications: if that is the SNP's favoured solution for Scotland's waste, is it really saying that it would prefer Scotland's waste to be stored over-ground here rather than underground in England? Is that what the member is telling me and the people of Scotland? On the other hand, if the SNP wants to put the waste underground, that represents a massive or—dare I say it—a seismic shift in SNP policy. Who knows, perhaps the geology of Perthshire will be suitable for such a storage facility.
We in the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats see this as a UK-wide issue. Unlike the SNP, we are committed to the facilities being located in Scotland if that is the best answer for the UK as a whole. Indeed, the SNP's new-found determination that Scotland must have its own nuclear waste facilities represents a good illustration of how narrow nationalist thinking leads to unnecessary narrow nationalist conclusions.
I call Rob Gibson, who has a tight seven minutes for his speech.
The basic principle of the SNP's policy has never changed—if waste is produced in Scotland, we will look after it and store it here safely above ground in monitorable storage. Until the situation changes, we will follow that policy.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
The public's second-greatest fear about environmental issues concerns what happens to nuclear waste and nuclear installations. The debate has given us no hope that the Government will dispel that fear, because it is leaving many decisions to other people.
Roseanna Cunningham introduced the subject by saying that many issues that are being discussed in Europe could affect Scotland, but the minister did not deal with one of those issues. He did not address European matters such as—I will repeat them—the possibility of the European Commission's having competence over nuclear safety control, possible deep geological disposal, transportation of nuclear waste shipments between member states, Euratom money to build new nuclear power stations, and not requiring advance consultation of local authorities on waste transportation. The fact that the minister addressed none of those issues makes it obvious why people are frightened about nuclear waste to this day.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have supported keeping local authorities in the dark on those matters. In a debate about waste transportation, a majority of members of the European Parliament voted against an amendment by the Greens and the European Free Alliance that proposed that local authorities should be told about nuclear waste that is transported through their areas.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Labour and Liberal Democrat representatives in the European Parliament voted with their blocks against that proposal. That shows members how much they want people to know about what happens with nuclear waste.
Highland Council has asked the Government and nuclear authorities time and again to provide information about waste transportation. I gave evidence as a teachers' representative in earlier discussions about Nirex, so I know that teachers have considerable concerns because the roads and railways that take waste from Dounreay to the south pass close to the majority of children who are educated in the Highlands. The local authority is not allowed to know that information. Perhaps the police might be allowed to know, but the minister's refusal to provide that information and the refusal of his party and his Executive partners to vote in Europe for its provision show how much they care about our local authorities. [Interruption.]
Order. Far too many private conversations are going on.
The SNP has the ambition to tackle nuclear waste in Scotland. As I said at the outset, we believe that we should deal here with the waste that is here. SEPA's powers need to be expanded: there was the opportunity to deal with that in the debate on the Energy Bill, but the Executive lacked the ambition to deal with such matters in Scotland.
Many parts of the country have a clean image and we have fragile economies. The last thing we need is the potential for more nuclear accidents. That is why we lodged the motion and that is why we want to take responsibility for nuclear waste here in Scotland.
I will deal with the Tories' amendment. The Tories have worked on all the arguments about nuclear power for many years—at least they have been consistent. However, I point out that Nirex made a mess of dealing with nuclear waste in the Tory years. The Tory spokesman did not know how much it would cost to clear up nuclear power stations. Surely such facts should be known before any more stations are created.
I am not taking any interventions.
The energy output of Chapelcross nuclear power station can now be supplied by a simple wind farm.
The fact is that much of what the Tories say is completely beyond the pale for most people in Scotland because most people in Scotland want us to use energy wisely and not to create more waste and more problems in future. Twenty years were wasted by the Tories in respect of progressing the development of wave power. Dr Salter's ducks, which were being investigated more than 20 years ago, were lost. He said in debates about renewable energy only two years ago that 20 years of expertise in renewables were lost while Governments in London fiddled the figures relating to his experiments. The Tories were responsible for that.
The Government says that it wants transparency and openness. Large numbers of consultations are taking place that the public are finding it difficult to respond to. If environmental principles had been written into the UK Energy Bill—which is at the root of much of the debate—that would have made it much easier for the public to respond to the consultations.
The Executive has failed to ensure that the people of Scotland have a clear picture of what is going on and it has failed to be ambitious in dealing with waste that is here, which is why the SNP lodged its motion. We ask members to reject the Government's and the Tories' amendments because we believe that, fundamentally, we must create excellence and jobs that export technology but do not import waste, and that decisions should be made in Scotland, where they deserve to be made.