Nuclear Power
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2691, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on nuclear power.
During the previous debate, I noted the complaints that were made against the Scottish National Party for choosing to debate a devolved issue during a Westminster election campaign. I hope that all members are happy with the topic for this debate, because we have lodged a hybrid motion that covers devolved and reserved issues. That should ensure that we keep everyone on the Government benches happy.
The debate is important. It is about protecting the future of our people in Scotland and our environment and it is about securing a safe and affordable source of energy to meet our future needs. Most of all, the debate is about creating a non-nuclear Scotland. The SNP was interested to note that, in the manifesto that was launched yesterday, Labour refused to rule out a new nuclear power station for Scotland. The Labour Party's obsession with everything nuclear continues, whether it is considering weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde or more nuclear power stations, which will create mountains of nuclear waste. As a result, all the signs are that Scotland has been lined up to become the United Kingdom's nuclear dustbin. Allan Wilson and his Labour colleagues might raise the spectre of new nuclear power stations for Scotland, but it is for the Scottish Parliament to oppose such plans, which is why we are having this debate.
In recent years, many authorities have scouted for sites in Scotland in which they can store deadly radioactive waste. We have to lay down a marker today by rejecting the prospect of more expensive, polluting and dangerous nuclear power stations for Scotland. We have to say that this nation will not be used as a nuclear dustbin.
It has been reported that 18 million cubic metres of soil and rubble are contaminated by leaks, spills and discharges over the past 60 years from the 30 sites throughout the United Kingdom. It is no wonder therefore that the vast majority of the public in Scotland are opposed to nuclear power. Only last week, the most recent opinion poll stated that 83 per cent of Scots oppose the nuclear option.
One of last night's news programmes featured a tourism conference in Aberdeen at which many of the overseas delegates praised Scotland. They said that more and more people want to come to this country because of our reputation for having a fantastic environment and for being a safe place to visit. What on earth would those people think if they knew that, of the 33 sites that are earmarked in the UK for high-level radioactive waste disposal, 22—or two thirds—are in Scotland? Those include sites in Caithness and Sutherland, in Argyll and Bute, in Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, in Banff and Buchan, in Gordon, and in North Ayrshire and Arran. Those communities deserve the support of the Parliament in order to ensure that they are not turned into nuclear waste dumps. A further seven sites have been identified in Scotland for low to intermediate level nuclear waste disposal.
The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management estimates that 470,000m³ of radioactive waste will have to be stored, two thirds of which could make its way to Scotland. That dangerous radioactive waste would have to be transported on our road and rail network and in our sea lanes and so would pose many risks to our local communities the length and breadth of Scotland.
If Scotland is turned into a nuclear dustbin, waste could be brought here not just from the rest of the UK, but from overseas. Under another Labour Government, Scotland faces the prospect of becoming not only the nuclear dustbin for the UK, but an international nuclear dustbin. Of course, the best way of dealing with nuclear waste is not to produce the stuff in the first place.
Over the past 60 years, the civic nuclear industry has been a hugely expensive drain on the public purse. When we inherited the industry from the defence sector, which is where it started, we also inherited that sector's culture of open-ended budgets and secrecy. The Royal Society said last year that the cost of dealing with existing waste throughout the UK could amount to £85 billion. Another authority said that it could cost £50 billion to decommission the 19 UK sites over the next 25 years.
According to a recent parliamentary question at Westminster, in the five-year period between 1997 and 2002, the Department of Trade and Industry subsidised the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and BNFL alone to the tune of £11 billion. The public purse has had to pay a price tag of £150 billion over the past few years to run the nuclear industry and yet we have not even begun to look at the construction costs of existing nuclear facilities in Scotland and the rest of the UK, never mind the cost of building new nuclear facilities. Let us not forget that Sizewell, which was the last nuclear facility to be built in the UK, took 15 years to build and cost way over budget. It is estimated that the life-cycle costs of a new nuclear power station in Scotland would be £2.5 billion. In an age of security concerns, do we really want to build new targets for international terrorists in Scotland, especially as it would cost an arm and a leg to protect those sites?
Some members on the Government benches and some Tory members have said that nuclear power is needed to fill the energy gap. We should be talking not about an energy gap, but about a window of opportunity for the development of Scotland's renewables sector, which has enormous potential in relation to meeting our energy needs in the near future. Taking that opportunity would also help us to tackle climate change.
This country possesses 25 per cent of Europe's wind and tidal resource and 10 per cent of Europe's wave resource. There is also fantastic potential for biomass, solar and other renewables technologies. If, over the coming decades, we were to spend even a fraction of the money that is used to subsidise the nuclear industry on renewables, Scotland could become Europe's energy powerhouse within a matter of years.
It is unfortunate that the minister who is responsible for developing the renewables sector in Scotland is also the minister who is responsible for the promotion of nuclear power. The minister should get his eye back on the ball and start promoting renewable power so that Scotland can become a clean, green country. He should ensure that we develop the fantastic potential of renewable energy.
The purpose of the debate is to let us speak with a united voice to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the ultimate say on whether new nuclear power stations are built in Scotland and on whether this small nation is turned into an international nuclear dustbin. Once we get that say and get that power, we must say no to nuclear; we must say no to more nuclear power stations in Scotland and to turning Scotland into a nuclear dustbin. I urge the Parliament to support the SNP motion.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM) is due to make its final report in July 2006; notes that the decision on where to locate sites for the long-term storage of nuclear waste is likely to be taken shortly after that date and that a number of potential sites in Scotland have been identified; notes that the UK Government is clearing the way to build new nuclear power stations; further notes that the UK Government has agreed to accept and store nuclear waste from overseas; agrees that only the Scottish Parliament can take the decision to locate any sites in Scotland for the long-term storage of nuclear waste, and rejects the need for a new nuclear power station in Scotland.
We will now get back to reality. We must get away from ridiculous and childish scaremongering and look at the development of a safe, reliable and balanced energy policy. The Executive position on nuclear power is set out absolutely unambiguously in our programme for government. Although we are not averse to yet another debate on nuclear power, we have made it clear in the various consultations that have taken place that, as long as we do not have a solution to the issue of the safe disposal of nuclear waste, we should not build new nuclear power stations. I am not sure how I could make that position any clearer.
When will the minister consider the issue of waste storage to be resolved? Will it be when a disposal method has been identified or when a site has been put in place?
The issue will be, of course, a work in progress and I will address it in due course. I am sure that the member is familiar with the consultation that is taking place on the matter. I am also sure that he will be making his contribution to the consultation in due course.
The Scottish Executive is working with other UK Administrations to identify the long-term radioactive waste management options. We are working in partnership through the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which is entirely independent, to consider how we might best dispose of our nuclear legacy.
Will the minister take an intervention?
If the member does not mind, I would like to make some progress. I have only five minutes.
The Executive places a great deal of importance on the committee's independence and on the need to engage with the public and stakeholders in Scotland. The CORWM process is the right way of building confidence, trust and respect in the decisions that need to be taken on the way forward in the UK.
CORWM represents a fresh start: its establishment marks a new approach to tackling the long-term management of radioactive waste, which takes into account the consequences of the 1997 Nirex planning inquiry failure. The so-called Nirex list, which Richard Lochhead did not mention by name but which he quoted extensively, is an historical document. It does not in any way form part of the Executive's policy on radioactive waste management.
The criteria for radioactive waste management options are being assessed by CORWM in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. On 4 April, CORWM announced its shortlist of four options for the long-term management of higher-activity waste. The options are deep disposal, phased deep disposal, shallow burial of short-live waste and interim storage. CORWM has begun the next phase of public engagement and consultation on the four options and on the methodology that it will use to assess them. I encourage all members and people around the country who have an interest in the management of radioactive waste to get involved in the consultation.
After CORWM has reported, ministers from the UK Government and the devolved Administrations will decide whether to accept its recommendations, which will be the subject of stakeholder consultation and wide engagement with the public. It is at that stage that siting will become an issue. The criteria for such decisions are yet to be determined and I say to Mr Lochhead that his list of sites in Scotland is entirely spurious.
Under its terms of reference, CORWM will have to consider issues such as compensation, volunteering and veto. Consent for a waste facility is a separate issue. We have said consistently in the Parliament that any proposals for such facilities in Scotland would be subject to environmental and planning regulations, responsibility for which is devolved to Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. All such decisions will be taken by members following due process.
CORWM is due to present its final recommendations to ministers in July of next year. I stress that it is not looking at sites, contrary to what Mr Lochhead's scaremongering indicated. The identification of sites will be undertaken separately, once ministers are confident that they have a publicly acceptable management solution. Public consultation is an essential part of the process. CORWM's recommendations will inform Executive policy on the future management of radioactive waste in Scotland.
The people of Scotland, including MSPs, have a genuine opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. Given that we have a waste legacy, we need everyone's commitment to face up to the responsibility of dealing with that environmental challenge. We need the nationalists to grow up, join the rest of the adults in the communities concerned and get involved in the process.
I move amendment S2M-2691.2, to leave out from "that the Committee" to end and insert:
"the work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management; welcomes the Scottish Executive's study into present and future energy supply and demand in Scotland; endorses the Executive's position of not supporting the further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved; supports the Executive's continuing commitment to the development of renewable energy in Scotland, including wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydrogen, biofuels and biomass power, as a key element of a balanced energy supply portfolio; supports the Executive's commitment to achieving 40% renewable electricity generation by 2020, and welcomes the ongoing review of the Scottish Climate Change Programme and the priority being given to strengthening the contribution of energy efficiency and renewables to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."
I welcome the debate and will take the opportunity that it presents to run briefly through the Conservatives' position on nuclear power again.
The Conservatives believe that the future development of Scotland and the economic growth that is essential to maintenance of our public services must be fuelled by availability of reasonably affordable electricity supplies. Without such supplies, we will not have an economy to talk about or to tax in the future. Half of our electricity is generated by nuclear means, so it is essential that we address the future of nuclear power and decide what place it has in the structure of our economy.
We must also consider climate change—which is at the top of the Environment and Rural Development Committee's agenda—and how we can reduce the emissions that contribute to climate change. Nuclear energy is one option for greatly reducing CO2 emissions over time. Even if we do not choose that option, it must remain on our agenda because it is being actively pursued by a number of other countries.
Will the member give way?
No—I just do not have time.
Today we are talking about not only nuclear power, but issues surrounding nuclear waste, on which Richard Lochhead went into great detail. Let us address those issues. In this country, nuclear waste is essentially an historical problem. Such waste was generated in large quantities by our early nuclear power stations, which were designed basically to generate fuel for our atomic weapons programme. Since then, nuclear power stations have gone through several generations of development and, at each stage, the amount of waste that has been produced has been significantly reduced. When they generate nuclear energy, the most modern nuclear power stations are capable of producing as little as one tenth of the waste that was produced by the original Magnox reactors.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I cannot.
Waste is an historical problem and we must not confuse that problem with the problems of this country's energy needs and its requirement to address CO2 emissions.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I just do not have time.
I want to deal with the position that is taken by the Scottish National Party and, to some extent, by the Liberal Democrats in this Parliament. It is essential that we understand that although there are matters to address, we must progress the argument over time.
The "Meeting Scotland's Future Energy Needs" report was published by the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee and set out in great detail the discussions that need to take place. I praise Allan Wilson, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, for what he said both before and after publication of that report.
The debate must be engaged now, which is why the Conservatives have lodged an amendment that sets out that our position is that we need a balanced range of options for meeting Scotland's future energy needs. Although we accept that renewables are one of those options, we are clear that there is more to renewables than simply covering Scotland's hills with wind turbines. There is, for example, the option of using technology to generate electricity through cleaner use of our existing coal reserves. Nuclear energy must play an important part in generating affordable electricity for Scotland in the future. Richard Lochhead stated that it is a heavily subsidised form of power generation, but the cost of nuclear power pales into insignificance when we calculate the real cost of supporting development of wind energy.
If we are to address the issue properly, we must be concerned about the fact that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning is a Liberal Democrat. If his opinions on Scotland's future energy requirements are coloured by his party's policies, perhaps it is time we had in charge someone who understands the issues.
I move amendment S2M-2691.1, to leave out from first "UK Government" to end and insert:
"House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee concluded in its report, Meeting Scotland's Future Energy Needs, that it is ‘vital that decisions are taken now, to obviate the possibility of, quite literally, the lights going out in Scotland in the foreseeable future'; further notes that nuclear power is currently estimated to save the United Kingdom annual emissions of eight million tonnes, and therefore urges the Scottish Executive to support any plans brought forward by the UK Government to replace current nuclear power stations with new nuclear power stations in order to protect our energy supply, protect existing jobs and reduce our CO2 emissions."
We have already invoiced our grandchildren for an incalculable amount—the cost of clearing up the waste that the nuclear electricity we have burned so far has produced. I welcome the opportunity for a realistic and mature debate, which the minister spoke about. Let us have such a debate on cost, on the AP1000 and on climate change.
First, I will deal with cost. The Department of Trade and Industry has set aside £4.4 billion for the first two years of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's work. It is projected that the job of decommissioning Hunterston A, which was the first major nuclear plant in Scotland, will take 90 years. To date, only £4 billion has been set aside from the sale of nuclear electricity to clear up the mess that Hunterston A left behind. That is not enough to fund the first two years of a 90-year programme. The nuclear industry has so badly underestimated the cost of clearing up that waste that it has set aside enough money to pay for only two years of a 90-year process. The rest will be paid for by generations to come. How immoral and irresponsible is that? How dare we consider increasing the figure on the invoice to our grandchildren by even £1?
It is all very well for Chris Ballance to make such arguments in Parliament and in the leafy suburbs of Edinburgh, but why does he not show the courage of his convictions and raise those matters with the people of the community of Annan by putting up a Green candidate in that constituency for the general election?
Mr Mundell knows perfectly well that I have been to Annan and have discussed the issues with the workers at Chapelcross.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Would you care to draw to Mr Mundell's attention the document that the Scottish Parliament has produced on candidates who are standing at the approaching general election, which refers to their inability to raise general election issues in the Parliament?
I note what the member has said.
In the case of Hunterston, the timeline assumption is that most of the cost of decommissioning will be spent not in the first two years of the budget, but in 60 years' time. According to the NDA, that is because the eternally optimistic nuclear industry hopes that the decommissioning costs will be cheaper in 60 years. What a legacy we are leaving.
Fifty years ago, the industry that is so optimistic about future costs promised us electricity that would be too cheap to meter, and 25 years ago, during the inquiry into the dumping of waste in Mr Mundell's Galloway hills, it promised us that a waste solution was just round the corner. Hunterston A alone will produce 6,384m3 of intermediate-level waste. Where will that go? It will also produce 33,000m3 of low-level waste. Where will that go? The low-level waste depository at Drigg is almost full—there is no room there and there is no store anywhere else. It is estimated that the current decommissioning programme will produce enough material to fill 15 Drigg-sized depositories. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is not even considering that problem.
As my speech has been so heavily interrupted, I must turn quickly to the AP1000, which raises significant safety issues because it has only one containment vessel and minimises the scope for operator intervention. As regards security of supply, if we build 10 such reactors—not one of which has yet been built anywhere in the world—we will have only the word of our happy-go-lucky nuclear industry that every part of their intricate systems will work. If a problem occurs, we might overnight have to close down every single one for months. Where would that leave security of supply?
As for climate change, if one examines the full life cycle of a nuclear power station—including uranium mining, fuel enrichment, construction and decommissioning—one finds that nuclear power produces five times more CO2 than wind power and almost as much as gas.
Health and safety should have destroyed the nuclear industry decades ago but economics is now killing it, so let it rest in peace. Let us look to the renewable future. Let us see the Executive investing £500 million in marine renewables. Let Scotland lead the world.
I move amendment S2M-2691.3, to insert after the fourth "waste":
"notes that the industry proposal to base electricity supply on identical reactors of the unproven AP1000 design would undermine the security of electricity supply; notes that the amount set aside from nuclear generation revenues over the last 50 years to pay for decommissioning of existing nuclear power stations is only sufficient to fund the first two years of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency's 30-year programme and therefore that the multi-billion cost of decommissioning existing nuclear power stations will have to be paid for by future generations of tax payers and therefore considers that nuclear power is economically unsustainable; further notes that, over its whole life cycle, nuclear power is not carbon-neutral and agrees with the Chief Executive of the Energy Saving Trust that ‘to present nuclear power as one of the main ways of combating climate change is short-sighted'; believes that renewable energy and energy efficiency offer a truly secure and sustainable energy future".
On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I am pleased to support the Scottish Executive amendment, which states categorically that we will not support further development of nuclear power stations in Scotland. I was especially delighted to hear the deputy minister repeat that. The commitment not to support further development of nuclear power stations will also be contained in our Westminster manifesto, which is launched today.
I would have thought that ahead of the SNP's manifesto launch tomorrow, its members would debate some of its policies and the choices that it will put before the Scottish people because—as Wendy Alexander pointed out in the previous debate—we have heard very little from the SNP about its policies for the forthcoming election. The SNP has had a number of chances in the past few weeks to debate the issues; today it could have debated them in detail. We have heard from SNP members about Trident, and today the debate is about nuclear power. They might have been able to tell us how they will fund the £7 billion-worth of transport pledges that they have made.
I assure George Lyon that when we launch our manifesto tomorrow it will be full of promises to have no more nuclear power stations. Will George Lyon rule out entirely the Liberal Party's support for any new nuclear power stations or nuclear dumps in Scotland in the future?
As the amendment in the minister's name makes clear, right now we have ruled out any further development of nuclear power. As the minister made clear, Parliament will take the final decision on whether there will be any waste sites in Scotland. We are committed to ensuring that there is none.
Tomorrow, the SNP will launch many promises, but the question is this: how will it pay for them?
I have read carefully the amendment in Jim Wallace's name, and it refers to
"not supporting the further development … while waste management issues remain unresolved".
That means not yet, does it not?
It means that there will be no new nuclear power development in Scotland while this coalition Government of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats is in power, because there is no answer to the waste problem.
The SNP must answer the question about how it would pay for the promises that it has made. I believe that tomorrow it will use its opposition to Trident and nuclear power to explain its spurious proposals for filling the huge spending gap in its proposals.
Parliament will take the final decision on the sites to bury waste. We fully support the Executive's commitment to development of renewables. It is good to see that a BBC poll showed that the general public are fully behind us—73 per cent support wind power and only 17 per cent support nuclear power. That knocks on the head the myth that there is widespread opposition in Scotland to further sensitive development of wind power. That support will give comfort to my constituents in Campbeltown who are employed at Vestas-Celtic Wind Technology Ltd.
In conclusion, the Scottish Executive is taking the right approach by ruling out nuclear power development while there is no solution to the waste issue. It is right to pursue a target of 40 per cent renewables and it is right to pursue clean coal technology and gas technology with gas sequestration as the right energy mix for Scotland. It is not, however, right to say that the answer to the energy-gap question is nuclear power. There are other options, and we are pursuing the right mix, which is why we will support the Executive amendment at decision time.
Time is very tight. I will try to call four speakers.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss nuclear power again, not least because nuclear power generation has made an important contribution to the local economy of my constituency over the past five decades. The SNP's reasons for bringing the issue to the chamber at this time are twofold: to attack perpetually the constitutional settlement and to drive a wedge between the coalition partners, which the general election could do more successfully than any debate in Parliament.
The Labour policy is a balanced energy policy that keeps all options open. The SNP, on the other hand, rejects the need for a new nuclear power station in Scotland. We heard a lot of scaremongering from Richard Lochhead, but he consistently refuses to support the alternatives, such as wind farms. The actions of people such as Roseanna Cunningham and Fergus Ewing, and particularly of Christine Grahame in the Borders—
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Every time there is a wind farm planning application, Christine Grahame opposes it. The SNP cannot have it both ways.
The SNP's target is that 25 per cent of our energy will be generated by renewables by 2010, and 50 per cent by 2020. At the same time, the SNP wants Scotland to rule out nuclear power while countries such as Finland, Canada, France, Romania, Japan, Russia, China, the USA and many others throughout the world are either planning or proposing new reactors. Those countries will be able to replace carbon-emitting power stations with non-carbon-emitting nuclear power stations. However, in the UK, which currently uses nuclear power for 25 per cent of its needs—indeed, Scotland uses it for 32 per cent of its needs—if we rule out the nuclear option we will be in danger of using the emerging renewables technology simply to replace nuclear power stations that are coming to the end of their lives, rather than using them, as we would all wish them to be used, to reduce carbon emissions.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
I acknowledge that the general public have many fears that are based on problems with the old technologies to which Alex Johnstone referred and—in particular—because of the link to nuclear weapons. Indeed, Chapelcross is one of the older generation of nuclear power stations that had some of those problems. However, the nuclear waste problem exists now because of the current stations. The issue is not what might happen in the future; we have to deal with nuclear waste now. In doing that, we can deal with nuclear waste issues that may emerge if new nuclear power stations are built in Scotland or the UK.
We are now on the third generation of nuclear power stations and research is being done on the fourth generation. Chris Ballance is wrong to describe the AP1000 as unproven; it is one of the technologies that is being developed throughout the world. Third-generation power stations produce far less waste. The AP1000 would have five times the power-generating capacity of Chapelcross and, over its 60-year life span, would produce only 2,000m3 of low-level waste and 700m3 of intermediate-level waste. It would also use passive safety measures using gravity, natural circulation and compressed gas and would avoid many of the safety problems that are associated with pump failure and overheating. The new systems will be 60 times more efficient and will therefore require far less subsidy than current systems. The discussion that we are having is based on the past, not the future.
I will support the Executive amendment. Decision time is coming, because options to resolve the nuclear waste disposal issue will be suggested and, when the time comes, we will have to make decisions that are based on logical, sensible, scientific and factual discussion, rather than on opinion polls or scaremongering. When the time comes, we must have sensible discussions and debate.
This debate covers decommissioning of nuclear installations, the question of how waste storage is dealt with and the SNP's total opposition to the creation of new nuclear power stations. We have not heard a defence of the Government's renewable energy system, or a discussion of the problems that might arise in the decommissioning process.
I would like to dwell on a couple of those matters. In the far north of Scotland, the decommissioning process—a £2.7 billion exercise—has been under way at Dounreay for some time. The UK Government splashed out a whole lot of money on nuclear investment. Since then, energy markets have been liberalised—I will come back to that. The Government must not skimp on ultra-safe dismantling measures and waste storage in order to handle what has been produced. However, it has been shown at Dounreay that far more waste is created during decommissioning; indeed, there is not enough storage space at Dounreay for the low-level waste, and for the gloves and other trivia that are used for dismantling. That waste will have to be shipped to Drigg, which was referred to earlier.
The SNP's policy is to deal in Scotland with the nuclear waste that is created in Scotland. There should have been plans ahead of time to have enough monitorable above-ground storage, but storage is not in place. The costs of nuclear decommissioning are far greater than has so far been estimated. The SNP believes that the kind of programme that is required must be made clear to the public in order to show how expensive and dangerous decommissioning is. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is steadily tackling the Dounreay nuclear legacy, but if the nuclear decommissioning agency comes into play it could use a tender process to bring in Bechtel, AMEC or other companies, which may cut corners on the way in which the job is done.
The staff at Dounreay are dedicated, unionised public servants. This is a public problem, and the SNP believes that we should deal with the matter in the public domain. Nuclear waste is the unsolved public problem; we must therefore find a way of dealing with Scottish waste in Scotland: we must not export waste or import anybody else's.
I turn to the argument about nuclear energy as a possible way of dealing with the problem of climate change. Climate change is a lifebelt for the nuclear industry because that industry believes that it can argue that nuclear energy would reduce emissions. However, it has been argued that if we take the money for a new nuclear power station and spend it on energy efficiency, five to seven times the amount of carbon dioxide would be removed from the atmosphere than if we built a nuclear power station. If experts are saying that, the Government had better tell us whether it agrees. The arguments that stack up in the SNP motion show clearly that if we have a mature and balanced debate, there can be no place for nuclear power and that if the Government is going to take climate change seriously, it must ensure that energy efficiency is a large part of that.
The argument that climate change is a "lifebelt" for anybody is frankly absurd, as indeed is the motion. The nationalist motion
"rejects the need for a new nuclear power station in Scotland."
The concept of rejecting a need may have been all very well for a penitent medieval monk in a hermitage, who thought that it was a good idea to go without food, heat or any kind of creature comforts—on reflection, I might like to inflict that version of hair-shirt independence on Richard Lochhead—but it would be grossly irresponsible to reject the basic needs of the people of Scotland. We need secure supplies of electricity. We need electricity to cook our food, to provide heat and light and to power our fridges, televisions, computers and just about everything else. It would be the ultimate dereliction of responsibility if we were to fail to plan to provide for those basic needs for people in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. We must think in the long term.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I have only four minutes. There will be other opportunities to discuss the matter.
It takes up to 10 years to plan and construct a power station. Failure to plan ahead could lead inexorably to power cuts and blackouts, which have already happened in California, New York and Italy. The motion is a good example of the sort of blinkered vision that could take us into economic chaos and environmental disaster in the UK. Let us face it: there are three imperative responsibilities that responsible politicians should face. First, if we are serious about the global environment we must drive emissions of greenhouse gases down to the absolute minimum. Secondly, we must plan to provide our share of the UK's energy needs from sustainable, secure and affordable sources. Thirdly, Britain requires a secure permanent repository for its waste radioactive material. That last point is a big political problem, but it is not a big deal in engineering terms. There are safe repositories for radioactive waste in many countries. One is being built in Finland. We will have to build such a repository for Britain; at the very least it will have to accommodate a bulky legacy of material from old civil and military nuclear programmes, and I argue that it could in due course perfectly well accommodate material from new nuclear plant.
I agree with the Executive's position that it would be irresponsible to build new nuclear installations before we address the big issue of storing radioactive waste, but when that is addressed—as it certainly will be—there will be a compelling case for consideration of new nuclear generators on sites in Scotland. The time has come when we should consider the options for electricity in Scotland after 2010. The peak demand for electricity on cold winter nights in Scotland is about 6GW. At present, we have a safe margin of generating capacity that enables us to export power to other parts of the UK. The electricity supply industry employs 7,000 people in Scotland. It provides for all our domestic needs and exports 16,000GW hours. That is fine for now, but we will lose 2,340MW of capacity when Cockenzie and Hunterston B reach the end of their design lives in about five years, which will mean job losses and possible shortages of electricity.
We no longer produce deep-mined coal. We should be very worried about emissions of millions of tonnes of CO2 from Cockenzie and Longannet, and it would not be very clever to become even more dependent on imports of gas from the middle east or central Asia. The options for replacing decommissioned generating stations are becoming rather limited. I support the Executive's ambitious target of 40 per cent of our power coming from renewables, but we will have to take account of public opposition to wind turbines. Even if we achieve that target, that will leave 60 per cent of our electricity to come from base-load generators. We must begin planning new base-load power stations, in addition to our renewables programme, to replace the generators that will have to come out of commission quite soon. I hope that that will include a Torness B power station.
I want to deal with one or two issues that have arisen in the debate, from a scientific viewpoint.
Alex Johnstone would not allow me to intervene to tell him that it is good news that the modern generation of power stations is producing only a tenth of the waste of previous ones. If we consider that the half-life of caesium and strontium isotopes, which are at the heart of the waste that is produced, is 30 years, that reduces the period until such waste is safe by 150 years. That sounds quite encouraging until we realise that that period is a million years, and 150 years off a million years ain't a big deal, Alex.
The waste is unsafe in two ways. Proximity to the waste is the main problem—the half-life and decay after a million years deal with that—but escaping waste is the most immediate and continuing danger. The ways in which we store waste at the moment do not protect communities from escaping waste. Elaine Murray suggested that the SNP never supports wind farms. She has said that before in debate, and I have told her before that I supported the wind farm at Boyndie in my constituency. I ask her to acknowledge that the SNP supports wind farms where they are appropriately sited; where they are inappropriately sited, the SNP does not support them. I would be surprised if Elaine Murray took a different view.
We have been told that the numbers do not add up. Well, I say to quite a few people—including Elaine Murray—that on Monday I lodged 31 questions, out of a long list of possible questions I could have lodged, asking the Executive to correct number errors in its parliamentary answers. If anyone is on the record as being unable to make their sums add up, it is the ministers in the Executive.
To be positive, I point out that the key opportunity that arises from the situation in which we find ourselves is the significant amount of waste that we have produced in Scotland from our nuclear industries. We have a brilliant set of technicians working in the far north of Scotland to learn how to deal with that waste, so let us create industries that will support international efforts to deal with nuclear waste throughout the world. In future, that could be a revenue earner for Scotland, but there is also a moral issue, because there are no boundaries to the contamination that nuclear industries can cause. In the south-west of Scotland, we still have sheep that cannot be harvested for the food chain as a result of the Chernobyl incident. The time that has passed is a blink of an eye compared with the lifespan of radioactive heavy metal isotopes.
We also have opportunities to take new initiatives in renewables industries. We have lost the initiative that we had for many years in Scotland in hydroelectric power, but there are initiatives that we can take and should be taking to become world leaders in the development of wave and tidal power. We should invest in and support such initiatives now.
We must also consider low-level waste, which is based around deuterium and tritium isotopes of hydrogen, which are particularly dangerous because they can be bound with carbon and enter the human body.
There are many challenges in which we should invest. Today's debate has been useful, but I have to say that there has been much heat and very little light.
I urge members to support the SNP's motion.
I thank the SNP for lodging the topic for debate, because it will not go away until we have an energy strategy and an energy efficiency strategy for Scotland, have a clear route map for how we will achieve at least 40 per cent of our electricity production from renewable sources and have resolved the issue of nuclear waste storage. There is a lack of clarity between the minister's position, that of his colleagues in the Labour Party and that of the Liberal Democrats. Where is the clarity in the partnership agreement on when the waste storage issue will be resolved? Will it be resolved when CORWM reports on potential options or when a site is identified? The minister needs to clarify that.
The real myth is that nuclear power can somehow play a role in tackling climate change, which I find bizarre, given the fact that even the International Atomic Energy Authority does not believe that it has a role in tackling climate change.
Will Mark Ruskell give way?
I am sorry; I do not have time.
We must be clear that there is a timescale issue with regard to tackling climate change: we need to tackle it quickly. If the energy review reports in 2008 and we decide to go down the nuclear route, we will have five years during which the AP1000 reactors will have to be licensed—assuming that the Tories do not want to speed up that process by reducing some of the red tape surrounding it—three years to find sites and deal with planning issues and, potentially, another six years for construction. That means that it would be around 2020 before we could get a nuclear programme up and running.
Members should contrast that with what the Government's energy technology support unit says about renewable energy, which is that, by 2025, two thirds of the UK's electricity production could come from renewable sources. What is missing is a route map from the Executive or the Department of Trade and Industry for moving towards realising that potential and getting in place the full mix of renewable sources.
The other issue is cost, which very much relates to renewables. The private sector will not touch nuclear energy with a barge pole, which means that the state will have to support it. Ten AP1000 reactors would cost £50 billion. Where would that £50 billion come from but from the funding for renewables and energy efficiency?
It was interesting that Elaine Murray talked about the experience of Finland. The Green Party there was in a coalition Government but left it because of the decision to approve a new nuclear power station. That poses a serious question for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland: what will their position be when they face a similar quandary to the one that the Finnish Green Party faced? The reality is that CO2 emissions in Finland have gone up since the Finns built their new nuclear power station. That is because investment has been switched from energy efficiency and renewable energy into nuclear power and dealing with its legacy. As Rob Gibson pointed out, for every pound that we spend on energy efficiency, we get up to seven times the reduction in CO2 that we get for every pound that we spend on nuclear power. That is the choice that we face.
We need to start to phase out nuclear power in Scotland and phase in a diverse mix of reliable renewable power sources. We need wave and wind power, biomass and hydro power and we even need to consider combined heat and power. That will produce a base load and deliver the CO2 reductions that we need to make. The parties that favour nuclear power are the parties of real waste, creating a legacy of nuclear waste for future generations and the financial waste of blowing taxpayers' hard-earned money on a 1950s fantasy that will never be realised.
As the SNP motion states and Allan Wilson clearly outlined, the Scottish Parliament has control over whether nuclear waste storage facilities—or, indeed, new nuclear power stations—are sited in Scotland.
Scottish and UK Liberal Democrats oppose the development of new nuclear power stations. The Scottish Executive's position is not so unequivocal but is clear that further development of nuclear power stations cannot be supported while waste management issues remain unresolved. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management was set up to re-examine all the options. Its final report is expected to be published in July next year, after which the Scottish Parliament will decide how to proceed in Scotland.
The Tories want us to embrace nuclear power to save emissions and to stop the lights going out. They cite the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee's report "Meeting Scotland's Future Energy Needs", which says:
"The Committee heard from UKAEA about the possibility of nuclear fusion … rather than nuclear fission … being used to produce electricity in the future. Nuclear fusion technology … would be safer, cleaner with no waste produces and with no possibility of the technology having a military application."
Will Nora Radcliffe give way?
I ask Chris Ballance to let me continue the quotation.
"The major problem with nuclear fusion … is that … it is 30 years, at least, before a commercial fusion reactor would be available."
Therefore, the arguments that are usually deployed against renewable technologies apply to nuclear generation in spades. Nuclear fusion will take three times as long to commercialise as wave and tidal power will.
Climate change and the necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have been seized on by those who are pro-nuclear, but nuclear power is found not to be a carbon-free source of electricity when we factor in the significant emissions from uranium mining, transport, the construction of power stations, the construction of waste storage facilities and decommissioning.
Nuclear energy is also extremely expensive. We have not finished paying for the nuclear energy we have had. Decommissioning existing nuclear power stations will cost us an estimated £48 billion on top of the billions that have been poured into the industry. If we add the potential for nuclear energy as it stands today to cloak nuclear arms production and the industry's vulnerability to terrorist attack, it is clear that—let's face it—we should forget it.
Will Nora Radcliffe give way?
I am sorry, but I have four minutes left and four minutes' worth to say.
The massive sums of money that are needed to build new nuclear power stations would be far better spent on commercialising the many emerging renewable technologies that would meet our energy needs without creating damaging emissions, which we could export to developing countries and which would give us a profitable industry to boot. A fraction of that money, if not spent on new nuclear power, would pay for clean coal technology that could be exported to China, for example, for it to use to fuel the burgeoning demands of its growing economy without pouring carbon into the atmosphere.
There is no doubt that climate change is a serious and present threat and that concerted and immediate action is needed to deal with it, but building new nuclear power stations is not the nice, simple, big-bang answer—it might be a big bang, but it is not the answer—because there is no simple answer. The answer is the cumulative effect of doing many things differently by changing our profligate attitude to energy and taking forward on all fronts and with increased urgency and determination the measures that we have started to take.
I quote the Scottish Affairs Select Committee's report again. It says:
"the best way of ensuring that Scotland's energy supply is maintained is by conserving energy."
I ask members to support the amendment in Jim Wallace's name, which outlines the Executive's sensible commitments and priorities.
I will try hard not to be political in my speech, but I believe that people who argue against the nuclear industry should have the courage to do so in communities that the nuclear industry has benefited and not just in the Parliament, where it is easy to attract applause. It is much more difficult to do so in communities that the industry has benefited.
As a member of the Scottish Parliament, I have been one of the most long-standing advocates of the nuclear industry. I have been an advocate of it not because 72 per cent of people in an opinion poll said that they were in favour of it, although that is what drives SNP policy today. The SNP picks up a ragbag of issues in the hope of being on today's policy. As Dr Elaine Murray said, opinion polls are localised, and although nationally the SNP is against nuclear power, somebody somewhere will be for it. Local issues explain why Councillor Bob Higgins, the leader of the SNP group on Dumfries and Galloway Council, is one of the staunchest supporters of the nuclear industry. That is the reality of the SNP's position.
The debate highlights that the SNP has no real aspiration to govern, because the nuclear debate and the energy debate require leadership. I applaud Allan Wilson, John Home Robertson and others in the Labour Party, such as Brian Wilson, who have been willing to lead the debate in their party. We in Scotland have led the debate. It is important that people understand it, because the issues are serious.
The questions in the energy debate do not all have solutions with which everybody is happy. The Communities Committee recently had a lengthy discussion about another issue on which some people express opinions but do nothing—opencast mining. Such mining will provide clean coal, but it is not easy to achieve a balance on the issue. Similarly, it is not easy to satisfy all stakeholders in the nuclear industry. We require leadership and to argue for the industry, and Conservatives will continue to do that in the Scottish Parliament.
The one issue on which I disagree with John Home Robertson, as he knows, and with the minister, is double-tracking, for which I believe scope exists. As the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management continues its work, we should begin the process of commissioning new stations, because that will take a long time and many procedural issues must be overcome. We must start now.
It is clear that the existing licensed sites here in Scotland will provide the best opportunity for new nuclear development, but I will not promote a particular site. I am heartened because the leadership that has been shown in the Parliament is having an effect and ultimately we will have nuclear development in Scotland. I am heartened because I read in my local paper the comments of a leading Liberal Democrat politician, who said:
"Having seen various programmes and reports on global warming, I have come to the personal opinion that in the future there will be a place for nuclear power in our energy provision."
I am clear that when the moment comes, the Liberal Democrats in the Parliament will back nuclear power and that we will have it in Scotland.
I call Allan Wilson to close for the Executive. Try to do so in four minutes, Mr Wilson.
I will do my best, Presiding Officer.
I have dealt with the SNP's scaremongering about the role of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management in informing future policy on radioactive waste management and I will move on to energy policy more generally.
In their own way, Mark Ruskell, John Home Robertson and David Mundell referred to the critical issue that is under debate. Energy is an essential commodity for Scotland's society and economy. As John Home Robertson said, it heats our homes, lights our schools and hospitals and powers our factories and offices. We must address the need. Unlike the SNP motion, which runs away from addressing that need, serious politicians and serious political parties—I exclude the SNP from that—must address the issues.
It is clear that nuclear power is an important zero-carbon form of electricity generation that will make a continuing contribution to minimising carbon emissions from electricity generation for some years to come. However, nuclear power is just one available form of energy supply. We will find in the diversity of sources the balance to which David Mundell referred that will suit Scotland's needs.
That brings me quickly to climate change, to which many members referred. We are committed to tackling climate change and to finding ways to reduce energy consumption—I say to Nora Radcliffe that that is not in dispute. Moving towards low-carbon generation must be part of the solution.
Britain leads the way in global efforts to tackle climate change and in showing what action can be taken. Scotland is playing and will continue to play its part in that wider context. We will continue to work in close partnership with the UK Government to ensure that the Executive contributes fully to UK climate change targets.
Chris Ballance made a couple of interesting technical points. I will not go into the detail, but it is untrue to suggest that the AP1000 is untested. It is based on the existing AP600 model and is designed to retain most of the existing specifications. While optimising power output, it reduces generation and increases efficiency. I make it clear that I am not aware—perhaps the member is—of any proposal to build a nuclear power station in Scotland. As Nora Radcliffe and others said, powers to approve new nuclear power stations are a matter for the Scottish ministers. No proposals have been made to rely completely on electricity from nuclear power generation. As the amendment in Jim Wallace's name says, we believe in diversity of supply to maintain security of supply.
You have one minute.
As I have only one minute, I do not have enough time to deal with Dounreay issues or low-level waste, but I will be happy to respond to members later.
I will conclude with a point that Elaine Murray made and which Stewart Stevenson did not address. The SNP formerly demanded publicly in the Parliament that the Executive should have a target of generating 25 per cent more electricity from renewables. Not unreasonably, the wind power industry could presume that the decent people of Alyth or Angus, for example, should know that that was an SNP demand. However, all the SNP elected leaders in Alyth and Angus—MSPs, MPs and councillors—have omitted to tell the decent people of those areas that they believe in more wind power.
The SNP consistently talks green then turns yellow in Alyth and other parts of Scotland. To hide that deceit, SNP members choose again not to talk about energy policy, the indigenous coal industry or the increasing cost of importing gas, but to reheat old anti-nuclear scare stories, which have been consigned to history by Mr Lovelock—the father of the green movement—Professor King and other distinguished environmentalists and scientists.
I ask members to support the Executive amendment.
I will nail some of the disingenuous and dangerous positions that some members adopted on new nuclear facilities and the suggestion that the lights will go out. We know the Tories' position, but we find increasingly that most in Labour adopt that position and even the Liberals accepted today that we might yet have more nuclear power in the future. George Lyon accepted that that is his position.
Some people—either deliberately or because they are too lackadaisical to go beyond the shallow and superficial—are only too willing to accept the arguments of the new nuclear facilities lobby. I hope that David Mundell accepts that I visited the former nuclear plant at Chapelcross to talk to staff about the SNP's policy. When I was there, I was surprised to find that the plant only ever produced 190MW of electricity; it was intended to produce weapons-grade material for nuclear weapons. The position that has been adopted is a disgraceful one for any party in Scotland to take.
Scotland can produce 9,500MW of electricity on any day, but during times of peak demand in the winter—as John Home Robertson said—only 6,000MW are needed. Therefore, there is spare capacity of 3,500MW. Only 2,500MW will be lost when Hunterston B nuclear power station closes in 2011 and Cockenzie closes in 2010. John Home Robertson should do the sums. Even with the loss of Hunterston B and Cockenzie, we will have a spare generating capacity of 1,000MW.
Does that mean that the member is happy to lose the jobs in question and that he is not in favour of exporting electricity from Scotland?
I will give John Home Robertson at least some credit on this occasion. His argument is always consistent, but it is a pity that he is consistently wrong. The report that was produced for the Scottish Executive in 2001 by the Garrad Hassan outfit clearly showed that 60,000MW of capacity in renewable energy in Scotland can be achieved, 25,000MW of which would be from wind power. The SNP has led on that issue for some time. The spare capacity that exists is the reason why the lights have stayed on when the nuclear power stations at Torness and Hunterston have gone offline, which they have done more and more in the past few years. As they have gone down, the lights have not become dimmer and the kettles have not stopped boiling. The simple fact is that we do not have the gap that people, including those in the new nuclear brigade in Scotland, are talking about. Their arguments are utterly spurious and empty and do not stand up with any credibililty.
That does not stop the myths that come from new Labour politicians. Allan Wilson recently asked:
"does it make sense, at the very time when climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases have shot up the political agenda, to be planning the elimination of nuclear power?"
Of course, he conveniently forgot to mention that the very ethos of the Kyoto protocol, which deals with the reduction of greenhouse gases, is to pursue advanced and environmentally sound technologies. The idea of phasing out environmentally damaging methods of electricity production by increasing the use of other methods that are equally environmentally damaging cuts right across the ethos of the Kyoto protocol and represents neither good environmental nor sustainable practice. In short, the idea is plain daft and shows that those who support new nuclear production are not doing so for altruistic reasons. The minister can be sure that the SNP council leader—who is the local councillor—voted in favour of the wind farm at Alyth. The minister should not come here and peddle untruths about what is happening in other parts of Scotland.
According to the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which the Government established, even wastes from the existing power stations are conditioned and packaged. As Richard Lochhead rightly pointed out, there will be 470,000m3 of deadly intermediate-level and highly radioactive waste in the UK and millions of tonnes of concrete and soil materials will be contaminated by low-level waste although warnings have been issued for 30 years that we must have a nuclear repository that will deal with intermediate-level radioactive waste. There have been delays after delays and consultations after consultations simply because the Government knows well that the argument about nuclear power is being lost in this country and that it needs time to soften up the people to accept new nuclear production in the future.
In the circumstances, I am glad that an opinion poll that the BBC issued this week clearly showed that 83 per cent of Scots do not support new nuclear production in Scotland. Members should be absolutely sure that there will be the mother of all battles if the UK Government decides either to foist new nuclear power stations on Scotland or to give us new nuclear dumps to deal with all the UK's waste. The SNP will not allow that to happen in Scotland.
Members should support the motion.