Chernobyl
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-4057, in the name of Des McNulty, on the 20th anniversary of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that 26 April 2006 is the 20th anniversary of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl and that the cross-party International Development Group is holding a meeting on that date to observe the anniversary of the accident, learn lessons from the past and look to the future; reflects upon the terrible social and environmental legacy that this horrific accident left, and continues to leave, in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and beyond; pays respect to the many people whose lives were lost following the explosion; acknowledges with sadness the implications for all those who continue to suffer ill-health caused by radiation poisoning today and the severe difficulties still faced by the communities worst affected; further notes that pollution from the accident affected countries as far away as Scotland, where it continues to leave an environmental legacy; strongly commends Scottish charities and civic organisations for their outstanding work in supporting individuals and affected communities, and recognises the need to take national and international action to avoid any possibility of future environmental catastrophes such as the Chernobyl nuclear accident ever being repeated.
Twenty years ago today, on 26 April 1986, the world's worst nuclear power accident occurred at Chernobyl, 80 miles north of Kiev in the former Soviet Union. While one of the reactors was being tested, safety procedures were disregarded and, at 1.23 am, the chain reaction in the reactor ran out of control, creating explosions and a fireball that blew off the reactor's heavy steel and concrete lid.
The accident killed more than 30 people immediately. Many emergency services workers, as well as power plant workers and soldiers who went to help, suffered very high levels of radiation exposure. That has had severe consequences for them and for their families.
The World Health Organisation estimates that the deaths of 3,500 people are directly attributable to the accident, but many scientists and doctors regard that estimate as conservative and suggest that tens of thousands of people have already died and that more will die in future.
As a result of the high radiation levels in the surrounding area, 135,000 people were evacuated and the 30km exclusion zone around the plant will remain uninhabitable for decades. Most of the contaminated territory lies in neighbouring Belarus, where 70 per cent of the total fallout was deposited. The accident deprived Belarus of 22 per cent of its agricultural land and 21 per cent of its forests. The official Chernobyl committee in Minsk, which was responsible for dealing with the consequences of the disaster, estimates the total damage for Belarus at $235 billion. That is more than ten times the country's gross national product and about 60 times its annual national budget—a catastrophe indeed.
Radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster affected about 72 per cent of Ukraine. Today, 20 years on, 6.3 per cent of the country is still contaminated; 35,000km2 of forest were contaminated by the accident—that is 40 per cent of the country's forests. According to information from the Ukrainian Government, spending on alleviating the effects of the accident has been $6.5 billion since 1991. Currently, 5 to 7 per cent of the national budget is consumed by dealing with the consequences of the disaster. Ukrainian experts estimate that by 2015 the disaster will have cost the economy over $200 billion.
Across Europe, it is estimated that 6.7 million people were exposed to unsafe levels of radiation. Even here in Scotland—1,400 miles away—10 farms remain affected 20 years after the event. Although there is controversy over the number of deaths that are directly attributable to the disaster, it is clear that the disaster led directly to a dramatic rise in the number of cases of thyroid cancer, leukaemia and other birth defects—especially in Belarus, but elsewhere in Europe as well.
I am grateful to colleagues who have supported the motion for this members' business debate, and to those who will contribute to this evening's discussion. Today, the cross-party international development group of the Scottish Parliament heard from Anatoli Artemenko, a Ukrainian Chernobyl expert, and from Dr Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland. The IDG has also heard from Scottish-based charities—small charities in the main—that do much-needed work in the affected areas and have built strong links with young people in Ukraine and Belarus. Thousands of children have been brought across to Scotland for periods of what is, in effect, decontamination. The commitment that individuals have shown to working with those children has been one of the most inspiring things that I have come across in my time as an elected member.
What of the future? In 1997, the international community established the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, and the G7 countries, the European Union, Ukraine and others have pledged €720 billion in support of the fund. The fund is managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It finances works to deal with the long-term dangers posed by the Chernobyl accident—such as the works to encase the reactor in a 20,000 tonne steel shelter. The shelter will contain the existing unstable sarcophagus that was constructed early after the accident to confine radioactive material. It is hoped that the new, stable and environmentally safer structure will contain the remains of the reactor for at least 100 years. During that time, an even longer-lasting solution to the Chernobyl problem must be found.
It was brought to our attention at the IDG today that, had the Romans had nuclear power, we would still be dealing with the consequences today. In 2000 years' time, it is likely that future generations will be dealing directly with the consequences of Chernobyl.
Chernobyl reminds us of the risks that are associated with unlocking the atom. Those risks were highlighted first by Albert Einstein but have been reiterated in different ways by many scientists and politicians at different times. Nuclear energy has the potential to be a valuable tool, but everybody should be aware that it carries risks not just for the present generation, but for future generations. In taking on and using nuclear power, we must have full awareness of the potential risks and a proper strategy and mechanism for dealing with them.
Des McNulty is right to highlight the excellent and urgent relief work that has been undertaken in and around Chernobyl. Will he acknowledge that one of the most valuable developments to follow that catastrophe was the establishment of the World Association of Nuclear Operators, which ensures that every commercial nuclear reactor on the planet—there are 450—is subject to peer review, which should ensure a safety culture that makes such a catastrophe absolutely impossible in the future?
It is vital to acknowledge that we cannot uninvent nuclear power and energy. Nuclear power plants exist and we must have robust methods of dealing with the consequences of that.
If countries decide to proceed with nuclear power—our country is considering the issues—it is clear that scientists, politicians and everyone else who is involved in making decisions must examine fully all the consequences, all the risks, all the potential advantages and all the potential disadvantages and convince the public that that has been done adequately.
We are not at the stage of deciding whether to have nuclear power. However, we must recognise that we must find effective ways of dealing with the consequences of the nuclear power that we have already used. That is not beyond the capacity of our scientists, engineers or political system. In the future, nuclear power might find its place alongside other forms of power generation. I am not anti nuclear power in a simplistic sense. I recognise that we cannot go backwards, but we must learn from what happened in Chernobyl, ensure that nothing like that could happen here and recognise that we all have obligations to the people affected by that dreadful incident. In the next 20 years, we must ensure that neither the lessons nor the victims of Chernobyl are forgotten.
I congratulate Des McNulty on securing this sombre but necessary debate, 20 years after Chernobyl. The account of that fateful day and of the unfolding of events is chilling. There was a two-day delay in making the accident public and it was seven days before radioactivity stopped leaking out. Twenty years later, even parts of Scotland are still affected by the radioactive fallout.
The tragedy impinged on all the unfortunate people in Belarus, hundreds of thousands of whom had to leave their homes. Hundreds of thousands died as a consequence of radioactive fallout. The effects also made their way to the north, so most countries of northern and western Europe were touched. As Des McNulty said, in the south of Scotland—my area—10 farms are still affected by the radioactive fallout, 20 years on. The sheep from those farms cannot be sold into the food chain because they have high levels of radioactivity. If good has come from ill, the good is that marker for us, particularly as some people consider using nuclear energy.
I will not develop my speech into a debate about energy. I do not oppose nuclear energy in principle, if it is safe, but there is the rub. The catastrophe at Chernobyl taught us that nuclear energy is not safe. It continues to be unsafe and the waste that is produced will be unsafe for hundreds of generations. That is a serious issue for the Parliament, which has limited planning powers over moving towards new nuclear power stations. We must consider our responsibilities, not only to our children and grandchildren, but to the many people beyond them.
Des McNulty referred to health impacts, about which there has been controversy. I asked a parliamentary question about the health impact in Scotland of the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl incident. The Minister for Health and Community Care replied only last month that the only traceable effect of the Chernobyl incident would be
"an increase in the incidence of some forms of cancer such as thyroid cancer in children."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 22 March 2006; S2W-24295.]
My understanding from substantial and useful briefings is that such cancers are the first things to occur—they result within days of the fallout—but other substantial cancers also result, such as leukaemia, which Des McNulty mentioned. I asked whether there had been any specific investigation
"into the health impact on the population of areas affected by the Chernobyl incident",
to which the minister replied:
"No specific investigation into the health impact … has … been made."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 22 March 2006; S2W-24295.]
It is appalling that, 20 years after the incident, the health impacts in Scotland are not being considered. I am referring not only to cancers, bad as they are, but to genetic deformities that are now built into the system. As we know, some animals have genetic deformities as a direct result of the fallout.
I thank Des McNulty for lodging the motion and securing what I described as a sombre debate. I heard what he said about nuclear power and hope that the Parliament will not see an erosion of our important obligation not to have more nuclear power stations in Scotland while nuclear energy is unsafe and we do not know how to contain the waste that is produced.
I warmly congratulate Des McNulty on lodging an extremely important motion. Marking the 20th anniversary of the terrible nuclear accident at Chernobyl and remembering all those who lost their lives, loved ones, homes and communities is vital.
I am holding in my hand a BBC news report, which states:
"Ten farms in Scotland are still under restrictions because of radioactive contamination from the Chernobyl disaster".
It states:
"The Food Standards Agency said it may be several years before the farms in Stirlingshire and East Ayrshire could be given the all-clear to sell stock. About 3,500 sheep are currently being monitored but farmers' leaders have called for a new risk assessment."
The matter is therefore directly relevant to Scotland. Considering it is all the more important in the light of the claim that in Scotland, some 37 per cent of electricity is generated by nuclear power. It is further alleged that some 55 per cent of the energy that is consumed comes from nuclear energy. Those figures may be approximate, exact or not exact, but it is absolutely clear that the nuclear industry has been and remains a major player in Scotland with regard to the generation of heat and warmth in what would otherwise be cold houses. With that in mind, it is right to examine the implications of the Chernobyl tragedy.
As we know, one of the four nuclear reactors at Chernobyl, which is 70 miles north of Kiev, exploded at 1.23 local time on Saturday 26 April 1986. It is a cruel irony that it did so during a practice test of the safety systems. The technical measures that were taken to extinguish the fire were initially unsuccessful, and the fire and radioactive emissions were not under control until 6 May. By then, terrible damage had been done to the local community and the environment. We should express unqualified admiration and the deepest respect for the firefighters who bravely fought the fires, many of whom, as Des McNulty said, lost their lives.
On 27 April—36 hours after the accident—the 45,000 inhabitants of Prypyat, which is 4km away, were evacuated in buses. The town remains uninhabited. Within 10 days, 130,000 people from 76 settlements in the area were evacuated. The explosion released a deadly cloud of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. It is estimated that the destructive potential of 100 atom bombs was unleashed.
The number of deaths and cancers caused by the accident remains a matter of serious dispute. In 2005, the Chernobyl forum published a report written by specialists from seven United Nations organisations, including the World Health Organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Bank, as well as from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. The report concluded that the disaster will claim roughly 4,000 lives. It states that by mid-2005 just over 50 persons will have died as a direct consequence of nuclear exposure. However, many independent experts argue that the actual number is much greater. Greenpeace estimates that there will be 270,000 cases of cancer following Chernobyl and that 93,000 of those will probably be fatal.
The First Minister has made a principled stand by saying that he cannot make decisions on the long-term future of the nuclear industry until he knows the position with regard to the successful storage of nuclear waste. If a decision is finally made to retain and modernise nuclear power stations, it is absolutely essential that we pay heed to the terms of Des McNulty's motion, which presents us not only with a tragedy affecting all of Europe, but also with a cautionary tale to the effect that, if we abandon the highest standards, we do so to the peril of Scotland, the human race and the planet.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Des McNulty's motion and add my congratulations to him and to the cross-party international development group on organising today's meeting, as well as the moving display in the garden lobby this week.
I would like particularly to draw attention to the part of the motion that
"notes that pollution from the accident affected countries as far away as Scotland, where it continues to leave an environmental legacy".
At today's meeting, there was some discussion, which Christine Grahame mentioned, about the fear of what Chernobyl might have brought to the west coast of Scotland, where 20 years ago people continued to drink rain water collected on the morning of the disaster. I remember that morning and I empathise with people who are fearful. That morning it was raining; I took my two young children to nursery school in Dalry in Ayrshire and my younger child played in the puddles. Only when I got home and listened to the news did I discover what had happened, because it was not reported before we went out. Not only had my children been out in the rain, playing in the puddles, but on that and subsequent mornings they were fed locally produced milk. We need to deal with a fear factor and lack of confidence in Scotland, so we can imagine the extent to which people in the area where the accident occurred have those feelings. The World Health Organisation's report on the disaster discusses the lack of confidence that those people feel. I can well understand that and empathise with them.
As has been said, there has been a rise in the numbers of all types of cancer in Britain. Although it is impossible to prove a causal link with the Chernobyl disaster, who knows which other conditions may be a product of nuclear pollution? I would love the legacy of the suffering of so many unfortunate people in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia to be that the dangers are acknowledged and that both nuclear power and nuclear weapons are outlawed and discontinued. Like most people, I am not frightened by the prospect of terrorists blowing up a wind farm, but the situation would be quite different if a nuclear power plant were involved. Until both the technology and the nature of human beings and international affairs have been left to mature for the next few thousand years, let us hope that Chernobyl has taught us and continues to teach us humility and the desire to leave nuclear alone.
I will finish by quoting what for me is an unusual source—last week's edition of New Scientist. It states that any investment in new nuclear power could damage the chances of making other climate-friendly technology work, since finances are not unlimited. It sets out the real costs of electricity from different sources and concludes that there are better economic options that are no less climate friendly.
From both a moral and a pragmatic point of view, the nuclear option should be rejected. However, for many of us—I am sure for all members present—the compelling arguments are the stories of individuals from Chernobyl. I thank them for bringing those stories to us today.
I thank Des McNulty for securing a timely debate on the Chernobyl tragedy, of which we all have personal recollections. As a young teenager, I remember the grainy television images of the exploded reactor core, but as I passed into adulthood more worrying images came to mind, especially images of the victims of the accident, who continue to suffer.
We will never know the true impact of the Chernobyl disaster, partly because of the cover-up that occurred during the Soviet era. However, it is important that we try to understand the impact of the radiation across Europe. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton mentioned the recent report of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation. The report's estimates are very low. The study considered only Belarus, Ukraine and Russia and ignored the fact that half the fallout from Chernobyl affected other countries. A senior scientist from the WHO recently described the report as a "political communication tool". It is important that we understand that the disaster not only affected the countries close to the reactor but continues to affect Europe. I am glad that Des McNulty's motion acknowledges the disaster's wider impact, which was reflected this week when a delegation from Ireland came to the Scottish Parliament to present a petition expressing concern about the extension of the nuclear programme in Scotland and the existing impact of radiation on Ireland.
Other attempts have been made to consider the impact of the radiation from the Chernobyl disaster. The study, "The Other Report on Chernobyl"—the TORCH report—which was commissioned by a Green member of the European Parliament, Rebecca Harms, considered the impact of the lower doses of radiation across Europe and estimated that between 30,000 and 60,000 deaths from cancer could occur across Europe as a result of Chernobyl. Greenpeace estimates that there will be 250,000 cancer cases as a result of Chernobyl. The reality is that we will never know how many cancers will be caused by the disaster, but it is important that we continue to try to understand the accident, to ensure that there will never be another Chernobyl. However, in 2003 the European Commission proposed to build a reactor of the same model as the one that exploded at Chernobyl, under the terms of the Euratom treaty.
We must also consider the legacy of the disaster. Most of the radiation that was released is still contained within the crumbling sarcophagus at Chernobyl. It is worrying that Bechtel, which many members will know as the corporation that privatised Bolivia's water supply—an action that led to a revolution—is heading up the consortium to build the protective cover above the sarcophagus.
If we are to ensure that an accident such as the Chernobyl disaster never happens again, we should reject nuclear power. We should reject new nuclear power projects in Scotland and throughout the world. Nuclear power is neither needed nor wanted. In an age of global terrorism, it would be folly to build more nuclear power stations.
I, too, thank Des McNulty for securing an important and, as Christine Grahame said, sombre debate. Sombre and painful as the issue is, it is also important. We must continue to discuss it with our hearts on our sleeves and we must make clear the line that we take on the subject.
Members talked about the catalogue of horror and suffering around Chernobyl at the time of the disaster, which continues now and will continue into the future until God knows when. I, too, remember the day of the disaster. I had a one-year-old child at the time and I was terrified to take her out. I remember thinking pathetically for a moment that if I put down the plastic hood over her buggy I might protect her from danger. There was much fear and little information and no one knew what to do. If we felt like that in Glasgow, how did people feel in the area around Chernobyl? The image of the burning building at Chernobyl is etched in my mind, as is the image of the charred remains of the twin towers. Such images are beacons of horror and fear that warn us of the potential dangers in the world.
It is hard to imagine what the situation must have been like for the people who lived in the vast area that was affected by the accident. Many would have had no idea that they were about to be consumed by a silent and invisible danger. As Mark Ruskell said, the numbers of dead, dying, suffering and displaced people will never be known; indeed, those numbers will continue to grow.
Many organisations are doing terrific work on this matter—I must mention Murray Tyrrell in that respect. Those folk put in long hours doing very painful work and keep it real by reminding us that we are talking about people, not statistics.
However, members have highlighted the statistics. The picture of destruction is already massive and grim, but we need to get used to the fact that it will grow. I have no doubt that by next year's 21st anniversary of the accident more harrowing information about the dangers will have emerged.
Of course, an incident at a nuclear power plant is like no other incident. The silent and invisible danger from even the smallest of leaks can have serious long-term consequences. Surely if Chernobyl has taught us anything, it is that we should step back from nuclear power; although things might have moved on and lessons might have been learned, that is not enough. I have with me a 13-page calendar of international military and nuclear plant accidents, many of which have happened in the 20 years after Chernobyl. If members were to give me a date, I could give them the details of an accident that took place on it. I hope that Mr McNulty does not mind, but I took the liberty of looking up his birthday. On that day in 1992, there was a fire in an electrogenerator at the St Alban nuclear power plant in France. On Jack McConnell's birthday—30 June—in 1983, there was a total loss of coolant at Embalse power station in Argentina. John Home Robertson has left the chamber, but on his birthday—5 December—in 1965, a plane carrying nuclear bombs crashed off the coast of Japan.
However, the calendar does not include all such accidents that have occurred. For example, a meltdown at Santa Susana in California was hidden for 45 years. That is what we are up against; we cannot trust this monster. Today, in remembering those in Chernobyl, Hiroshima and any other part of the world where people do not realise that they have been affected by these brutal substances, we should step back from nuclear power, nuclear submarines and nuclear bombs.
This is a day not only to remember everyone affected by such incidents but to think about what we can do for the future of our children, our planet and everything that we hold dear. If we continue down the road to nuclear power, we might have to think the unthinkable again. After all, they never thought that it could happen the first time. As the 13-page calendar of destruction clearly shows, these incidents still happen and are still kept secret.
I am glad that Des McNulty has given us the chance to discuss a massive nuclear accident that brought the world to its senses about the destructive power of the atom.
In my area, a lot of work has been carried out on decommissioning the nuclear station at Dounreay. Although the process seeks to make safe and remove nuclear material, almost every month there have been reports of small radiation leaks, occasionally affecting one or two people. Given that 450 such plants are still being used to produce nuclear power, the potential for accidents to happen remains considerable. Our world has still not made up its mind to stop the use of this process once and for all, and we remember Chernobyl not just because of the accident there but because people are still prepared to put so many parts of the world in similar danger.
Plenty of evidence shows that the operation of nuclear power stations is reasonably safe. However, no one has properly worked out the real costs of setting up, running and decommissioning plants and safely storing the results of the process. The fact that the problem is so great is something that is hidden from the population in an attempt to suggest that, somehow or other, nuclear power can be a short-term solution to sorting out the problems of energy gaps. That debate has to be conducted in the most serious fashion.
Over the years, I have met many of the groups who have come to the Highlands to provide respite for children affected by the Chernobyl disaster. I consider that a small part of the job that we could do in a place that was touched only lightly by the disaster, but touched directly nonetheless. During that weekend, when the rain fell, my family was walking on the beach at Gairloch. They thought that that was better than being in the house that they were visiting, which had had wood preservative treatment and smelled pretty awful. They did not realise what they were experiencing on the beach in the rain in Gairloch. That echoes the stories that many other people tell of the effects on them of Chernobyl.
Our Governments were not equipped to deal easily with the problem. The minister in the Scottish Office, the late John Mackay MP, suggested that the effect on some of us would be like the effect of one chest X-ray. The level of knowledge that existed in Governments and the advice that was given to people at the time were totally inadequate. I wonder whether, despite all the calculations that are done in this day and age, we are any better prepared for an accident of that size. I suggest that we try to draw the people and Government of Ukraine into a wider fellowship in the European Community, to tackle the problem and to set an example to the world. The experience of Chernobyl and of trying to deal with the mess is something that we can put towards a positive end, so that the rest of the world can learn from that awful experience and not allow it to happen again.
I congratulate Des McNulty on securing the debate, which I welcome. Like other members, I feel that it is important to reflect on the events of April 1986 in a dignified manner, without recourse to political point scoring, and I certainly have no intention of indulging in such activity.
The day 26 April 1986 will long be remembered in history, and members have given their personal reflections on it. For me, it was a day when I fully appreciated that environmental catastrophe is no respecter of man-made borders or boundaries. It was a day on which many people in this country awoke oblivious to the terrible tragedy that had occurred in the Ukraine, which continues to affect many people worldwide 20 years on. That morning, in a single instant, more than 30 people lost their lives and more than 135,000 lost their homes. Even today, many more continue to suffer ill health from the after-effects of radiation poisoning. I join Des McNulty, as I am sure the whole Parliament will, in paying our respects to those who have suffered over the years, either directly or indirectly, and in recognising the efforts made by many ordinary Scots who have done much to help the people of Belarus.
Following the incident at Chernobyl, among the key lessons learned was the importance of comprehensive monitoring, to detect and assess radiation incidents and levels of radioactivity in food and the environment, and of good contingency planning. Mark Ruskell referred indirectly to the fact that it was not immediately apparent to the rest of the world that the accident in the former USSR had resulted in a release of radioactivity. Winds transported radioactive material across Europe and it was eventually detected over Scotland on 2 May 1986, six days later.
That is why early warning systems are so important and why in 1988 the Government set up its radioactive incident monitoring network, known as RIMNET, to ensure that any plume from an accident abroad could not arrive in the United Kingdom undetected. RIMNET now provides the basis for the UK response to the mutual international arrangements for early notification of nuclear accidents, referred to by Des McNulty and other members, which are operated by the European Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The biggest challenges following any radiological accident are early detection and monitoring and co-ordinating the dissemination of information to the appropriate authorities. It has been mentioned that, as radioactivity is not readily visible, we rely on the systems developed post-Chernobyl to keep us informed and protected. RIMNET is an integral part of our emergency response to any nuclear incident.
Contingency plans are in place at national and local level and there is detailed guidance material to assist those who deal with incidents that involve radioactivity. The Scottish ministers continue to develop national policies and structures to support local responders and to lead on meeting the challenges that we face in the 21st century in planning for and responding to emergencies in Scotland. We are participating today in such an international exercise—INEX 3.
Following the discovery of the Chernobyl incident, there was extensive monitoring to determine the environmental impact in Scotland. The results of that monitoring, the actions taken and the dose consequences for the population of Scotland were set out in two statistical bulletins, which were published by the Scottish Office in April 1988 and August 1990.
As has been mentioned, we continue to monitor for radioactivity. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Food Standards Agency Scotland have an on-going monitoring programme to detect radioactivity in food and in the environment. The results of the programme are published annually in "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment", copies of which are placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre.
This is an important matter for ministers. Our ministerial group on civil contingencies keeps under review the Executive's policy for managing the consequences of major terrorist incidents or other disruptive incidents.
Chernobyl has left the world with a significant environmental legacy. Even today, here in Scotland, a programme of monitoring of environmental materials and foodstuffs for radioactive traces continues.
In the civil contingency planning, is consideration given to the different models of nuclear reactors that may be proposed in any new-build programme in the UK? For example, is the AP 1000 more vulnerable to terrorist attack than other models?
As the member knows, there is no programme of new nuclear build in the UK. The contingency measures to which I refer relate to our existing nuclear capability and extend internationally through international co-operation to consider all forms of nuclear energy and all forms of potential threat to the environment or to human safety. The monitoring is extensive and covers a range of potential activities and threats.
It is right that in this anniversary year we should reflect on the past but, as Des McNulty said, we should also look forward. We should acknowledge what has been learned both here in the UK and around the world. It is important that we acknowledge that we are moving forward both in how we operate our nuclear power stations and in how we plan in the event of emergencies.
Although nuclear safety is a matter that is reserved to the UK Government, the Executive plays a key role in ensuring that robust emergency plans are in place to deal with a civil nuclear incident in Scotland. The multi-agency emergency plans cover all Scotland's nuclear sites and are tested and reviewed regularly.
The UK has an excellent nuclear safety record. There is vigorous monitoring and regular three-year inspections by HM nuclear installations inspectorate to ascertain the integrity of the reactors. I believe that other countries in the world have set up similar arrangements following the accident at Chernobyl.
I believe that nuclear power is now a safe, efficient source of electricity generation. It is key to Scotland's energy mix, generating large volumes of electricity—36 per cent of that generated in Scotland—and of course it has even greater usage. Nuclear power also has a very low carbon footprint. The Executive recognises that nuclear power, regardless of technological advances, does produce radioactive waste. That is why we must manage it safely and why we will not support the construction of new nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved.
Today, parts of Scotland still suffer from Chernobyl's environmental legacy. However, we must look forward to tomorrow, and the real threat to the environment and human life is not another incident like Chernobyl or Long Island, but the effects of climate change. For far too many years, generations have used the earth's atmosphere as a waste dump for CO2 and other dangerous, poisonous greenhouse gases, with potentially catastrophic effects on the world climate. That is why the world continues to use and need nuclear power and why we must continue to be vigilant in monitoring the impact of that on the world.
Meeting closed at 17:56.