It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I know that you have an interest in energy policy. I sought this debate because although nuclear power is not often debated in the House, it is important, particularly in the wider context of Britain’s energy and environmental policies. All countries need energy, and all advanced countries need secure, dependable and economical energy supplies. As electricity is the most versatile and adaptable form of energy, this debate will largely be about electricity generation.
Due to a combination of short-sightedness and wishful thinking, this country faces a looming energy gap between future demand and supply, because we have been decommissioning our nuclear power stations without replacing them. Many stations have already been decommissioned, and the rest will largely disappear in the next 10 years. Coal has also declined in importance: many coal-burning stations are increasingly obsolete and will fall victim to the tightening regulatory system, particularly the EU large combustion plant directive, which will take them out of service. So far, the difference has largely been made up by burning more gas. Incidentally, the so-called dash for gas was largely the reason why the Government were able to claim that they had complied with the Kyoto commitment on carbon dioxide stabilisation. That happened anyway, because gas produces less carbon dioxide per unit than does coal, and was nothing to do with what the Government had done elsewhere.
The massive switch to gas burn cannot continue for ever, and is becoming expensive. There were significant price rises last year, which have not been fully reversed, and which created a lot of grief both domestically and industrially. Also, gas reserves around our shores are declining—it is not just North sea oil that is running out—and we are having to import more and more gas. Indeed, we will soon be overwhelmingly dependent on imported gas from countries that, by and large, are unstable, unfriendly, or both. Many of those gas-exporting countries clearly use their energy exports as a foreign policy tool. Russia is a good example of that. Europe, as a whole, is very dependent on Russian gas, but those supplies are interruptable, and this country is at the end of the pipeline.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point about gas, but does he acknowledge that the new liquefied natural gas terminal at Pembrokeshire, in Wales, is extremely important? Does he, like me, support the project being put forward by Cantaxx to take on LNG in Anglesey and deliver it through a pipeline to Preesall in Lancashire? Those projects are part of the energy mix, and I hope that they both prove successful.
I do know of those projects, particularly the one into south Wales, but the gas is derived from the middle east. It comes from a friendly country there, Qatar, but the middle east is not known for its political security. Also, the gas comes by sea, so, although those imports and that system are very welcome, they do not give the security of supply that I seek for the overall future of British energy sources.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that when it comes to security of gas supply, England and Scotland are completely different, because Scotland has sufficient gas to last until at least 2020?
The hon. Gentleman may be proposing that Scotland is somehow not part of the United Kingdom, but I look at the UK as an energy unit, and I think that Scotland would be ill-advised to shut off the nuclear option and rely entirely on gas, if that is what he is suggesting. However, I shall discuss alternative supplies later.
First, I am setting the scene for the future of the UK’s energy sources, and I am afraid that the Government have done nothing about the problem, if they saw it coming. We have had a succession of anti-nuclear Secretaries of State, who have ignored the problem of replacing nuclear power stations, while signing up to ever more demanding CO2 reduction targets. We are now committed to a CO2 reduction of 80 per cent. by 2050. That is well beyond the term of office of anyone here, which might be why those promises are being made now, but it is irresponsible to set targets and to will the end without willing the means. Apparently, the Government are relying on a vast expansion in renewable energy.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Conservative Front-Bench Members have not been consistent on this matter? He is right to criticise us for not being further down the line than we are, but does he accept that we have at least grasped the nettle, and have taken the issue on by going forward with nuclear?
I am not exempting any party entirely from my strictures. I was once a Minister in the Department of Energy, and I had responsibility for the nuclear industry. I tried my best to keep the nuclear flame alight, if I may use that metaphor, but the mood at the time was very much against it, as there had been a number of accidents and nuclear power was clearly uneconomical when compared with fossil fuel. However, Labour has been in charge for the past 12 years, and its Secretaries of State have taken an almost explicit anti-nuclear stance. That is what I am criticising.
I do not want to get into a partisan argument on this matter, and I accept that we have dragged our feet with new nuclear build, but my constituency is now getting a second, new nuclear power station for which plans were first laid in the mid-80s. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the anti-nuclear climate, but one reason why that power station did not go ahead earlier was that before 1996 the Government had nowhere to put the waste, and did not make a decision. Does he accept that that long-term problem has caused the industry to contract in many ways?
I agree that Governments of all complexions have not solved the problem of deep-storing or disposing of nuclear waste, but I do not think that that is the sole reason for the drift and negligence of recent years.
My point is slightly different. The Government are relying on another source of energy that is based largely on make-believe—a vast expansion in renewables. We are now committed to deriving 15 per cent. of all our energy requirements—not just electricity—from renewable sources by 2020, but we currently derive only about 2 per cent., and we are nowhere near getting to 15 per cent. within that time scale. That commitment is legally binding and will be in treaty law. We know that EU law is superior to national law, but I do not know who will go to prison when these commitments are not fulfilled—it will probably be another lot of Ministers in the future. Today’s Government are signing up to a specific, legally binding commitment that is not attainable.
Some renewable technologies make sense, such as hydro and, possibly, tidal power, but the rest are usually small-scale and expensive. The Government are relying strongly on wind power. The Secretary of State has said that those who oppose having wind turbines where they live are antisocial—like people who do not wear a seat belt. Those who have to live next to such noisy, expensive and unreliable machines are being made to feel socially inferior. That is not a clever way in which to proceed. Wind turbines are also expensive and increase electricity prices for everyone else. They create fuel poverty and make industry pay more for its power costs. At the same time as we are industrialising the landscape, we are de-industrialising the rest of the economy. That is not a clever policy and it is certainly not one on which we can rely for many future years.
I want this debate to be about solutions, not just problems, blame and complaints. The solution both for energy security and the reduction of CO2 emissions is to replace those nuclear stations, advance further and expand civil nuclear power in this country. We used to be a world leader in nuclear. We were the first country successfully to harness atoms for peace and to turn nuclear fission into a technology for the benefit of mankind. We led the world. The story is not altogether a happy one, and I am not starry-eyed about the nuclear industry. Mistakes were made and certain expectations were not fulfilled. However, by and large, it was a British success story. It is true that we were too slow to switch to water-cooled reactors—the French did that successfully before us, and all credit to them. We also never hit on a standard design of reactor to replicate and therefore we did not benefit from the successive production of a single reactor type. Despite that, our recently built reactors have largely performed well and safely.
The percentage of electricity supplied by nuclear climbed steadily and reached a peak of 27 per cent. in a fateful year—1997. I do not want to read too much into that. One could make all sorts of party political points, but it is a fact that during the past 12 years, there has been a steady decline in the percentage of electricity derived from nuclear stations. The figure is now down to around 15 per cent. At the same time, Britain has become a net importer of energy. The Government have now finally woken up, and their policy of drift and neglect is no longer sustainable.
I remember when the right hon. Gentleman was Energy Minister. Was it post-1987 when he had responsibility for the curve going the way that he is complaining about?
I have already made the point that I was an Energy Minister about 15 years ago. However, during my time in the Department, the contribution from nuclear was still rising. I had something to do with Sizewell. I visited Sizewell, which was successfully commissioned and is now a good generator of power into the grid. I am not ashamed of the role that I played. I contrast that with the succession of White Papers that we have had from the Government, which have clearly sidelined nuclear and gunned for the illusion of renewables taking up the slack and replacing the nuclear contribution. On top of that, the Government hope that renewables will meet long-term commitments on the reduction of CO2 .
On wind turbines, whether one is for or against nuclear, is the right hon. Gentleman aware—as, indeed, my constituents are—that people have actually made a fairly objective judgment that such a variable source will not necessarily be able to provide base load in the way that nuclear unquestionably can? Has he done a price comparator on the costs of, for example, wind versus nuclear? The nuclear industry has given me the impression that it could operate without subsidy in terms of the commissioning operation, decommissioning and safety factors. Does he have a view on that point, which he might have been coming to?
I was going to come to that point, but I will give the hon. Gentleman the price comparator now, which comes from an official source. The consultation document on the Severn tidal power scheme was published by the Department in January. On page 18 of that document there is a comparator of the costs, which gives the pounds per megawatt hour for a number of generating sources. Tidal power is somewhere between £104 to £317, which is very expensive at this stage. Broadly speaking, the next most expensive is power from biomass. Wind-derived power is a little more economical as the figure varies between roughly £70 to £80 per megawatt hour. Much cheaper than that, at £53, is energy from combined-cycle gas turbines and the cheapest source is nuclear at £38 per megawatt hour. On that basis, nuclear is far and away the cheapest technology listed by the Government.
The inescapable point is that we are in a weak position now because of a policy of neglect. One of the decisions made by the Government was, indeed, to sell off Westinghouse—our last remaining consortium capable of designing and building a nuclear reactor—to Toshiba. We now hear that the Government are selling off the commercial arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. Again, that is for all the wrong reasons and is to plug another gap—this time in the national finances. We are not in a position to take a lead anymore, even if we wanted to.
The Government apparently want eight new reactors in this country. They will now all be built by foreign consortiums—probably Electricité de France and Westinghouse. We are in a long queue now because the rest of the world also wants nuclear power. The population of the world is rising rapidly and will increase to at least 9 billion before the end of the century. Energy demand in developing countries is rising even faster, and the electricity component of that is rising fastest of all. The only hope of meeting that demand without having an enormous increase in CO2 emissions is nuclear power. Worldwide, about 40 nuclear stations are under construction and over 100 more are in the planning phase. We could have led this revolution and done so much for our manufacturing base and engineering skills. Instead of that, we are now an also-ran. We are clowns, spectators, supplicants. It is a very sad story.
To give credit to the Minister, I think that he is personally aware of that. He knows that there have been policy mistakes and that we must do something about it. The Government have revised their cost estimates—I have already given them—which are highly favourable to nuclear power at the moment. In addition, nuclear power is secure. There is plenty of uranium left in the earth’s crust and we have also stock-piled a lot of it. There is a great deal of uranium and plutonium at Sellafield, which can be used in future reactors, if they are adapted or built to take it. Fast reactors can make better use of uranium, and thorium is another element in the earth’s crust that can be used for nuclear fuel. Thorium is even more abundant than uranium. We are not going to run out of nuclear fuel; it is stable and secure.
In operation, nuclear power is virtually CO2 free. Of course, the reactors have to be built, and that absorbs a lot of energy, but exactly the same thing is true for every other power station. In operation, nuclear power is a highly effective, low-carbon source of power.
None of that makes nuclear power easy. As I said, I have no illusions about the problems. In the past, certain expectations were not met. It is a demanding technology, project management of the sites is complex, and the industry has not always been good at explaining itself. We have to be open with people and engage them in debate about the costs and problems, as well as the benefits, of nuclear energy.
There are hard choices to be made about energy, but often people do not want to face up to them. All forms of energy generation have an effect on the environment—that is inescapable. I agree with the point that has already been made that we have been slow to find a deep storage site for nuclear waste, but that vulnerability is a technical problem that can be solved.
Meanwhile, public attitudes have changed in favour of nuclear energy—again, no thanks to the Government. I wish that the last Prime Minister had used just a fraction of his political authority to lead the debate on energy. In 2004, I asked him about it at Prime Minister’s questions. I criticised wind power and said:
“At the same time, nuclear power, which does make a positive contribution, will be allowed to wither away without replacement.”
In reply, Prime Minister Blair stated:
“We made it clear in the White Paper that we have not shut the door on nuclear power, but until the issues of cost and public concern about safety can be met there is simply not the consent to go ahead with it.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2004; Vol. 424, c. 1267-8.]
That was not leadership; it was totally supine. He did nothing to explain or meet people’s concerns about safety. That was a missed opportunity.
Is there not another consequence of dithering, delay and pushing decisions out into the long grass? For example, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), who is the Member for Anglesey, has always supported continuous generation of nuclear energy on the Wylfa site. Decisions now to extend the life of that power station will come too late. There will be a gap: as I understand it, it will not be possible to put in new nuclear power generation on the site until 2018, simply because the Labour Government have ducked the issues. They did not get to grips with them early enough.
My hon. Friend gives a good illustration of what I am saying. It is now very late in the day to get into gear and do something about nuclear power to close the looming energy gap.
My main point is that there is a contrast between the rigid, legal, binding commitments on CO2 reduction, and the vague, uncommitted way in which the Government speak about energy production. We have seen that in the succession of White Papers that I mentioned. In 2003, the most the Government could say was:
“This White Paper does not contain proposals for building new nuclear power stations. However, we do not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets.”
That is all that they could say about nuclear power when the stations were all being decommissioned and the energy gap was becoming more and more apparent. Even in 2006, the energy review stated:
“A new generation of nuclear power stations could make a contribution to reducing carbon emissions and reducing our reliance on imported energy.”
But, again, almost nothing was done. There was no leadership, commitment, energy or determination.
The right hon. Gentleman is making a case that somehow the Government, by moving forward, were not doing enough, but during that same period in 2006, the new leader of the Conservative party was not in favour of nuclear power. He was courting the green lobby and said that nuclear power should be the last resort. At the time, the Government were putting through the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill and, indeed, a Planning Bill to help make nuclear power part of the rich mix. The Conservative leader was not doing that.
I shall mention planning before I finish, but my attitude to nuclear power and the strictures and comments that I make are applicable to all political parties. My party will come into office either this year or next year—I believe by implication that the hon. Gentleman recognises that—and we will inherit these problems. I hope and have confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) will do something about the problem and not simply produce a further succession of White Papers that ignore the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman is making a partisan speech. He has just been challenged on the fact that the current leader of his party, at the very time when this Government were saying that we need to move to building more nuclear power stations, was blind, complacent and ill-informed about nuclear power. He rejected it and said that it should be the last possible option. Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that much of his criticism should go not just to his party in the past—even when he was Energy Minister—which failed miserably on this issue but to its current leader?
I shall not repeat what I said earlier. I am making these points about nuclear power to people of all parties and all persuasions, and I am totally certain of my views on it. The Minister is part of the Executive. He is in office, it is his responsibility and it is his Department and Government who have failed. It is intriguing that they are now more and more interested in our views and what we will do.
I have confidence that my party will take forward these policies, and I hope that we will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells that he is not anti-nuclear, that he sees the importance of what I am saying and that we will do something about it. It will be difficult and urgent, precisely because of the failures of policy that are only too clear from the succession of White Papers, all of which are on the record.
I believe that the private sector must finance, build and operate the reactors, but the framework is inescapably the responsibility of the Government, who regulate, approve and tax the industry. They are responsible for the planning system and for setting the environmental policies to which I have already referred. They are inextricably part of the nuclear programme, and that is where they have failed.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will be suitably humble about past mistakes and candid about the constraints under which he now operates. I believe that he wants eight new reactors built in this country. Will they be built in time to close the energy gap to which even the Government have referred? What supply bottlenecks has he identified, and where are the skills shortages, which we know exist? Specifically, the nuclear installations inspectorate is short of inspectors and skilled personnel to carry out generic design assessment. The shortage has been investigated by the Government, and they have had a report on it. What are they doing about it? Only they can deal with that urgent matter.
Finally, what part is this country playing in the design of the next generation of nuclear reactors? Another mistake that the Government made was to withdraw from active membership of the Generation IV International Forum. That was certainly a mistake because new reactor designs can make better use of existing fuel. They can burn plutonium—indeed, even from warheads. They can operate reactors at higher temperatures and thereby produce hydrogen as well as electricity, and they can be more proliferation-resistant. This country must be part of developing that dynamic technology.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us not simply about the past but about the future. Will we be part of the nuclear industry as it evolves, or will we yet again be relegated to the role of spectators and sub-contractors?
rose—
Before calling the next hon. Member, may I point out that I am required to call the Front-Bench spokesmen from midday? I urge Members to make short speeches, so that all Members can take part in the debate.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr. Illsley. I shall start on a personal note. My father spent his whole working life in the electricity industry, with one company. He was very committed to his work; we were not allowed to have gas in the house; and I remember that, once, we had a family day out to Hunterston nuclear power station.
Despite all that, I think that nuclear energy has many disadvantages, not least its costs. The UK Government estimate the cost of a new plant to be £3 billion, and Finland, as well as facing many delays with its new developments, talks about the cost being £4.3 billion. Furthermore, nuclear clean-up could cost anything between £73 billion and £90 billion.
Reliability is often mentioned, but, in 2006-07, Hunterston’s reactor 3 was off for 353 days and its reactor 4 was off for 244 days. On reliability throughout the UK, in 2004, there were unplanned outages at Heysham 1 and Hartlepool; in 2005-06, there were prolonged unplanned outages at Hartlepool and Heysham 1; and, in 2006-07, there were losses due to boiler issues at Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B. It is often said that wind power is not reliable for electricity production, but, from a Scottish perspective, I can confirm that wind is pretty consistent, and it is used widely in Norway, Canada and Iceland, where they have a mix of renewable sources for electricity production. Hydroelectricity is very flexible and can be switched on and off easily.
On the environment, Greenpeace said:
“Nuclear Power can only deliver a 4 per cent. cut in emissions after 2025... too little too late at too high a price.”
I shall mention renewables later, but, even if we use coal and gas, we can improve on carbon emissions and we could have clean coal technology. Indeed, we could have had carbon capture at Peterhead, but the UK Government blocked it.
Each country should deal with its own radioactive waste, and Scotland is committed to keeping its waste in Scotland. We should not send it to England, and nor should English waste come to Scotland. There is a lack of skilled engineers to fill many of the jobs that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) mentioned. The nuclear industry has been run down, and this country is not going to get many jobs if it has no skilled engineers.
Nuclear power generated 26 per cent. of Scotland’s electricity in 2007, but, in reality, we produce more electricity than we require. We export 20 per cent. to England and Northern Ireland, and Scottish consumption from non-nuclear sources in 2007 was 87.8 per cent. It could have been 92.5 per cent. Scotland is not in a weak position, as the right hon. Gentleman said. That argument applies to England: England may be in a weak position; Scotland is not.
The hon. Gentleman makes a case against nuclear power, so why is it his party’s policy to extend the lives of Torness and Hunterston power stations? The issue is important not only because of the electricity generated, but, if he is opposed to nuclear power owing to the waste that it produces, because his policy actually supports the production of more waste. I am intrigued by the conundrum that the Scottish National party has placed before the Scottish people.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his valid point. However, it raises two separate points: first, the extension of existing nuclear power stations is a decision for British Energy or whoever; and, secondly, new or replacement nuclear power stations should be decided on by Governments. The question is, therefore, should we build nuclear power stations to export electricity from Scotland? There is much talk of, and some argument for, generating electricity near the point of use, so, if the energy is right here, is it not better to use a local nuclear power station? For example, Battersea used to have a power station, and I am sure that it would make a very attractive site. If I can be assured that it is safe, I do not see why Battersea should not have a power station. Indeed, it would be an added tourist attraction for London.
Clearly, Scotland has considerable reserves of oil and gas. There is at least as much left in the ground as has been extracted and, as I mentioned earlier, Scotland will be self-sufficient in gas until at least 2020. Sadly, however, we have not had the opportunity to build up an oil fund, as Norway, Alaska and Alberta have, to invest more in renewables.
The Scottish Government’s target is for 31 per cent. of electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2011, and that is well ahead of the EU target of 12 per cent. by 2010 and even further ahead of the UK target of 10 per cent. by 2010. Indeed, the Scottish target is 50 per cent. by 2050. Scotland is leading the way on renewables, as it is in so many areas, and the UK is lagging behind. In fact, if we add our installed renewable projects to our consented renewable projects, we have 5.5 GW, which is 35 per cent. of our needs, so it looks as if we will be ahead of the target in 2011. In comparison, nuclear capacity in Scotland generates 2.1 GW.
It is clear that new nuclear power stations are neither necessary nor wanted in Scotland. Scotland can have a secure, low-carbon, non-nuclear energy future by combining a growing renewables sector with the exploitation of a range of technologies, including marine energy.
I well understand the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy of complete opposition to nuclear power, but does it mean that he wants the British Energy facility in my constituency—the UK’s nuclear industry headquarters—to close down, Doosan Babcock to stop production for the nuclear industry, Rolls-Royce to leave the industry and the university base at Strathclyde, Aberdeen and Herriot-Watt to close down its nuclear physics and engineering capability? Those could be the consequences of his policy, so I should welcome his views.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his intervention. I have already tried to make it clear that we do not suggest stopping what is already happening; we are talking about not having any new nuclear power stations. On the point about what a university does, public finances are limited, and, if £1 or £1,000 is spent in a university on nuclear work and research, that is a choice not to make that money available for renewables research. We have a choice, which is either/or, and I would rather see the money and the academic skills going into renewables research.
We can combine marine energy, microgeneration, cleaner energy from fossil fuels and improved energy efficiency. Scotland is the premier location for renewables in Europe, with 20 per cent. of Europe’s wind energy potential and 25 per cent. of Europe’s tidal power potential. The Scottish Government have introduced a £10 million Saltire Prize, the world’s biggest innovation award for marine renewables, and we have had 94 applications from 23 countries.
The renewables industry creates jobs. The Danish wind industry employs 15,000 individuals—slightly more than the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Some of those jobs could have been in Scotland, but our development has been held back because we are in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Wells mentioned top-end jobs, but are they going to be in France, Germany, Japan or here? The Scottish Government certainly intend to use their limited resources through planning controls to block nuclear power stations, so can the Minister assure us that he will not impose the will of the UK Government on the people and Parliament of Scotland?
We do not intend to close nuclear stations during their expected lifetimes, but, when they come to the end of their lives, they will be shut. The International Atomic Energy Agency says that worldwide nuclear output will fall from 15 per cent. to 13 per cent. by 2030. We must accept that nuclear is the fuel of the past and that wind, wave and tidal power are the fuels of future.
I represent a halfway house between the last two speakers, because I am pro-nuclear and pro-renewables. I see no contradiction in that stance if we are to meet our two targets of a low-carbon economy and a secure supply.
The next generation of new nuclear stations is starting a little too slowly for my liking, but there are good reasons for that. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on rightly saying in his opening remarks that we need to debate this matter openly and honestly; in the past the pro-nuclear lobby has had a tendency not to do so. The nuclear industry, in many ways, speaks in jargon that the public do not understand and we need to change that as well. When we talk about fast breeders and various other issues, the public do not engage and do not understand the benefits that new nuclear can bring to industry and the economy.
Nuclear energy in my part of the world provides an awful lot of highly skilled and well-paid jobs with transferable skills. I want that to continue, which is why I have been campaigning since becoming a Member of Parliament in 2001 for new nuclear to be on the agenda as part of a rich portfolio of energy sources. Under Conservative Governments—I mention this because the right hon. Member for Wells referred to it—in Wylfa, in my constituency of Ynys Môn, land was set aside in the early to mid-1980s for the development of a second nuclear power station. That was put off for various reasons, in my opinion.
First, in respect of public opinion, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, there were fears and perceptions of high risks in the nuclear industry. If we look at it rationally and consider other sources of energy, nuclear is a safe industry. In respect of fatalities, the number of workers killed in the nuclear industry is far smaller than in other industries, including hydro, coal and gas. The public’s perception about nuclear being dangerous is now being put to one side when people have an open, honest debate about it.
Secondly, successive Governments have not handled the waste issue well. I support the deep burial chambers, such as the ones going ahead in Finland, although those are late. We could have done that a lot sooner and gone ahead and had safe disposal of nuclear waste.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the excellent examples of decommissioning of a nuclear site is in Trawsfynydd in mid-Wales, where we are successfully decommissioning and creating a safe site within a national park?
Disposal of waste is a subject for another debate, because of time restraints, but it can be done at different levels. If people consider it rationally, most of the volume of nuclear waste is low level and can be dealt with alongside what comes out of the military, and with medical and health waste, which needs to be dealt with safely, as does intermediate waste. As the hon. Lady says, intermediate waste is stored safely at Trawsfynydd, which is a fantastic feat of engineering and which is, again, leading to high-skilled jobs in that area.
I want to talk about low-carbon generation for the future, with a low-carbon nuclear industry, with its transferable skills, at the centre of that. We will not meet our targets through renewables alone. In my constituency—I could speak on a number of issues in this regard—we have wind farms, which have been accepted by the local community, and we have plans for liquified natural gas and for marine turbines. Alongside nuclear, the Isle of Anglesey—Ynys Môn—which I represent, can be an energy island and can work with Government at various levels, for the future, to provide the security and the supply of clean energy that we need, with a skilled work force.
The nuclear academy is up and running. We are planning for the future. Many young people in my area who are taking apprenticeships in the nuclear industries will have the opportunity to get the high skills that are needed to keep people in the Ynys Môn area. In the 1980s and ’90s there was a mass exodus of young people from that area because of the contraction of much of the manufacturing and many high-paid jobs. The lynchpin of the nuclear industry has kept many people there and many families and generations depend on it. But that should go further.
I congratulate the Government on considering a balanced portfolio, because development and research in renewables, alongside new nuclear technology, can take place in this country and can put us on a good footing for the future. We need to get this right and we need to do it properly. We also need to dismiss some of the myths that go along with nuclear.
I believe that Wylfa B will happen. It will meet the criteria in the Government’s strategic site assessment, because it has the infrastructure and the skills base and it has potential for the future. That is important. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason), who speaks on behalf of the Scottish National party, says that it wants to extend certain schemes, he is admitting that nuclear power is good for this country in terms of energy security. But he will not say that because he knows that it is politically damaging to close power stations when they have an extended safe generation period. It is the same with Plaid Cymru in my area: the leader of Plaid Cymru, who is my Assembly Member, says that he is against nuclear in principle but supports it because of jobs. That is not a sustainable position. I have been honest with the electorate and now Plaid Cymru is jumping on the nuclear bandwagon and saying that it is in favour of nuclear power, although its leadership is not so sure because it might lose a few votes.
Nuclear is too important an issue for us to play party political point scoring. We need nuclear for the future security of the United Kingdom. We need to meet the targets. Climate change carries more risks than a nuclear explosion, which many people fear. Many of the top scientists and environmentalists are acknowledging that. People who are ideologically against nuclear power are now coming out in favour of it. Even the leader of the Conservative party, who was not too keen on it when he first became a Member of Parliament, is now suggesting—I am sure that his Front Bench spokesman will confirm it—that we need nuclear as part of the energy mix.
Yes, successive Governments have been too slow in moving forward, but we are at an important juncture and we are now moving in the right direction to get the skills and the security of supply necessary to meet the needs of the future, not just for this country, but on a global scale. Nuclear power should be part of that.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on securing this debate. He is right; we do not have enough of these debates in Parliament on a subject that is important for this country and its people’s needs.
I shall just get some of the innocuous stuff out of the way. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) gave his party’s usual line of not understanding the facts, having done no investigation, and does not understand anything to do with the industry at all. In general, his party is run by dogma and has nothing to do with the needs of the people of Scotland. Having got that out of the way, let us talk about the subject we are here to talk about: nuclear energy.
The right hon. Gentleman was good, although he slightly reinvented history. The Government have done well, not only in turning round my party from holding completely the opposite view—from not supporting nuclear to supporting it—but in taking the argument out to the people and letting them make the decision. We have listened and we have come to the conclusion that a balanced energy policy is required in this country.
I have a vested interest. As chairman of the all-party group on nuclear energy, I am obviously pro-nuclear, but I am also pro-coal, pro-gas and pro-renewables. There is a place for everyone. We should not put all our eggs in one basket. It is important that we serve the needs of the people of the United Kingdom. Energy is a reserved matter. We deal with the energy of the country. It is a bit disingenuous to say that people can have all the gas, oil, electricity, renewables and whatever that they like. At the end of the day, the people of this country have stood and fallen together. We have fought side by side in wars, we fight side by side in industry and we compete against a world that would be quite happy to have half the resources and people that we have. That is important, because it is where our future lies.
The new build will cost this Government next to nothing. The companies will supply the money: that is part of the deal. If they want to build a new power station, they will supply the money—that also includes the decommissioning. We must also consider security of supply. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Russia and the middle east, and there is a British Gas project in Nigeria to liquefy gas. We must look to gas to meet our needs into the middle of the next decade. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change and said that the gap can be filled. I hope that he is right.
Questions were asked about gas storage, which will be important to cover the decommissioning of our old nuclear power stations. We have problems with coal, because a European Union directive requires power stations such as Cockenzie and Longannet to be closed by 2015, unless they can meet emissions requirements, which is doubtful as they are old. So we have an even bigger problem. If those coal-fired powered stations close down, and if our nuclear power stations are decommissioned and closed, we must consider where we are going. There will be a gap, and gas and renewables will have to fill it, but during the cold spell in the winter renewables provided 0.01 per cent. of our energy needs in Scotland. That is a long way from the 50 per cent. of renewable electricity that the hon. Member for Glasgow, East was talking about. We must have a base load that will run industry and keep the lights on.
Where do we go next? Education has been mentioned, and I was at an all-party group meeting this morning when we talked about that very subject. British companies are lining up to work with universities—some are already doing so—to provide apprenticeships and university degrees for the nuclear industry. They know that there is a shortage in the work force, and they want to fill it as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman said that for those young men and women the world will be their oyster, and it certainly will because the amount of work in the rest of the world will mean great prospects of highly paid jobs anywhere in the world. However, we also have a place there, because our education system is second to none, and with the right drive and support from the Government, we will get there.
The safety of nuclear power stations in this country is also second to none. In all the major disasters, barring Chernobyl—we all know what happened there and the number of lives lost—no one was killed or poisoned by radiation. Although the power station at Three Mile Island was lost, the safety precautions worked. The safety record in nuclear power stations is great compared with the number of lives lost in the coal industry, which must amount to hundreds of thousands throughout the world. Tens of thousands are killed in China alone almost every year. Many people die on a regular basis in the coal industry, so the nuclear industry does well.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister will have to consider waste management. We know that there will be a report in the autumn and we hope that it will tell us exactly what we must do. Those of us who were lucky enough to go to Sweden last year and see its experimental project in Oskarshamn could not fail to be impressed by what is being done with the waste material. I do not agree with the adage that Scottish waste must stay in Scotland and Welsh waste must stay in Wales. It is British waste, and the United Kingdom Government must deal with it. That is the deal, that is how it is at the moment, that is how Parliament has set its store, and we must go along with it.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would come back to planning. I do not know whether he did, but if he did I missed it. The Government have bitten the bullet and introduced the Planning Act 2008 to ensure that what happens in Scotland will not happen elsewhere. If an area wants a new power station requiring billions of pounds of investment to provide jobs, if a company wants to supply the money to build that power station to provide that work, and if the Government want it to supply electricity to meet people’s needs, that should not be stopped by an obscure planning rule, which is what happens in Scotland. We want to ensure that that does not happen in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people do not want nuclear power, they should not have nuclear power?
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that, because his party’s investigations showed that 52 per cent. of the Scottish population wants nuclear energy, and only about 24 per cent. does not want it. The Scottish people would rather keep the lights on than use political dogma to turn them off, as the hon. Gentleman’s party would like to do. I really thank him for that intervention, because I had forgotten about that information.
This has been an excellent debate, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman once again for introducing it. The most important thing is that the British people have the lights on, and that there are jobs and investment in this country.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on securing this debate. It is good to see a Conservative Member ferociously and unashamedly in favour of nuclear power. It has been a little difficult to track the Conservative party’s attitude over the past couple of years, particularly during the passage of the Energy Act 2008. It has been unclear whether it was pro or anti-nuclear, and sometimes it seemed to be both at once, so it is a little rich of him to criticise the Government for inconsistency.
The right hon. Gentleman raised some important points. First, on timing, he referred to what is sometimes perceived as the energy gap and the likely tightening of energy supply as various power stations come off line over the next 10 or 15 years. Obviously, there are various ways of trying to cope with that energy gap, and my favourites and those of the Liberal Democrat party are energy efficiency, fossil fuel technologies if they can be provided with carbon abatement—on which development is promising, although without much help from the Government—and an increasing role for renewables. However, I have not seen any evidence that nuclear power can play much of a part in filling that energy gap, because there is not much evidence that any new generation nuclear power stations will come on line before 2020 at the earliest. Today is the deadline for the nomination of new nuclear sites, and perhaps the Minister will confirm that the timetable is still running to schedule.
Last week, I had an Anglesey day when representatives from the community of Anglesey came to the House. The chairman of the county council is a Liberal Democrat, who is in favour of nuclear power because he can see its benefit in the local community. He is also in favour of extending the life of existing power stations. Is the Liberal Democrats’ official policy to extend the life of nuclear power stations to help to bridge the gap that the hon. Gentleman is talking about?
No, the consistent policy of my party’s Front-Bench spokesmen and our party conferences over the years has been to phase out nuclear power as soon as possible. We are a democratic party, and we have different opinions. We welcome a diversity of opinions, but they have never managed to persuade the majority to be pro-nuclear.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned process, and some interesting issues arise. I am sure that he does not welcome it, but we are in an EU-determined process called justification, which the Minister might like to comment on. Some legal opinion has it that when the justifying authority—the Secretary of State—has decided that nuclear is justified, it becomes difficult to reopen issues of safety and the rationale for nuclear power in later years. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s opinion on whether the justification decision is irrevocable once taken, and why it should be done in that way. The EU does not determine who should be the justification authority, so it does not have to be the Secretary of State. There could have been a public inquiry, or he could have nominated the Environmental Audit Committee or the Committee on Climate Change or perhaps even the Sustainable Development Commission, which is the body established by Government to advise them on sustainable development.
[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]
The Secretary of State has already made his pro-nuclear position clear, so it is fairly clear what the justification decision will be even before all the public consultation, but the Sustainable Development Commission has considered the issue as well. It wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) in 2006, saying:
“Our final position weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power to find that there is no justification for bringing forward plans for a new nuclear programme at this time and that any such proposal would be inconsistent with the Government’s own Sustainable Development Strategy.”
The commission raises issues of long-term waste, cost, inflexibility, the undermining of energy efficiency, and international security. I agree with all those points.
Let us consider some of the sustainability issues involved in the debate. It is now often suggested that nuclear is part of the answer to reducing carbon emissions, yet the Sustainable Development Commission calculates that 10 GW of new nuclear generating capacity, replacing 10 old nuclear power stations, would contribute precisely 4 per cent. of savings in carbon emissions after 2024, which is hardly a quick or sufficient contribution to reducing carbon emissions.
The Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills has said in a report that many of the engineers working in the industry are approaching retirement and not enough young people are being trained. As other countries become more interested in buying nuclear skills, we may find ourselves with a skills shortage in this country.
I believe that I heard the hon. Gentleman say in reply to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) that he would like to see Wylfa shut as soon as possible. In his calculations, how would he compensate for the 18,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a day that are saved by the operation of the Wylfa power station?
The general position is that we need transitional technology over the coming decades to replace the contribution of nuclear and other industries, because it is true that renewables alone will not fill that gap. However, the obvious candidate is carbon capture and storage. That technology, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) pointed out, was being progressed in projects such as that at Peterhead, which have been truncated by the Government’s rather measly and limited carbon capture competition. We could have put much more effort and initiative into becoming a world leader in carbon capture; instead, we are being overtaken left, right and centre on that technology. That is the technology that I see as the important transitional one over the coming decades.
Then there is the question of whether UK plc will really benefit from what is proposed. In a recent report, Sir John Houghton, the former director general of the Met Office and former co-chair of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, highlighted the fact that the only working example of a new generation nuclear power station, in Finland, is already experiencing quite a lot of problems. He wrote:
“The delays and cost over-runs at Finland’s new Olkiluoto 3 reactor (the first nuclear reactor to be built in Europe since 1991) cast doubt on the ability of nuclear to play a large role in the timeframes necessary to effectively deal with climate change”.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I am sorry, but I will not give way again, because the time is limited.
A report in The Times on 17 March revealed that
“Nearly one third of the work involved in the construction of nuclear reactors in Britain will be shut off to UK companies”.
That is according to the French group EDF, which is expected to build most of them. Will the Minister comment on whether nuclear jobs will benefit France rather more than the United Kingdom?
Then there is the issue of waste. We are still paying £1.4 billion a year in decommissioning and clean-up costs for the last generation of nuclear waste. We still do not know where that will be stored, when it will be stored and exactly how it will be disposed of. That is leaving a toxic legacy of high-level nuclear waste for generations way into the distant future. The Nuclear Industry Association has confirmed to me before now that it still thinks that that high-level waste will be dangerous 1,000 years from now, which means—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I really do not have time; I am sorry.
Clearly, we need to find a way of disposing of waste that has already been created, but that is no justification for repeating the mistake, not least because the sites, even with low-level contamination, can take 100 years to be cleaned up and decommissioned fully. Most of them are coastal, so a sea level rise and an increased risk of flooding is clearly also a danger. There are so many dangers that it would be foolish to go down this road again when we have not solved the problems of the last generation of waste at all.
Energy security is often mentioned. The idea is that somehow nuclear is a more reliable form of energy than something such as gas, and the spectre of Russian gas negotiations is often raised. In fact, a large proportion of our gas comes from that well known and unstable country, Norway. Very little of it comes from Russia. As for uranium, about 44 per cent. comes from very stable countries—Canada and Australia. After that, 16 per cent. comes from Kazakhstan and then the list includes Russia again, but also Niger, Namibia, Uzbekistan and other well-known stable countries. That suggests that the international supply of uranium is not quite as secure as we might think. Certainly, if there are new generations of nuclear power stations worldwide, there will presumably be a price hike in uranium as well, which might threaten once again the economics of nuclear power.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will give way briefly, as long as the Chair is indulgent of me.
We get our uranium from Australia and Canada, so running fear stories is not wise.
It is not really a fear story, is it? If there is increasing demand, with world supply dependent on countries such as Kazakhstan, Russia and Niger, there will be a rise in the price, which is the last point that I made. That clearly threatens the long-term economic viability. Then there is the long-term economic threat relating to the cost of waste disposal and how any future liabilities that we have not worked out will be disposed of. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East referred to the potentially multi-billion pound bill for undisclosed nuclear liabilities. During the passage of the Energy Act 2008, many of us tried to tighten up its provisions to ensure that there was no possibility of the taxpayer ending up footing the bill in decades to come, when presumably many of the companies now involved in developing the so-called funded decommissioning programmes will be long gone. They might well have collapsed and there will be no one to sue in the event of costs rising. Inevitably, the taxpayer will have to pick up the ultimate liability; it is clear that the ultimate liability for a nuclear programme still rests with the taxpayer.
However, the real capping argument against nuclear power at the moment is that we have an urgent need to develop genuinely renewable clean energy sources and the concentration of the Government on nuclear will crowd out the development of renewables. I was, frankly, horrified by the right hon. Gentleman’s attack on wind power. I do not have time to refute it, except to say that it certainly can be refuted. The argument is that nuclear can crowd out renewables in terms of both capacity and investment. The signals coming from Government as to where investment from energy companies should go are mixed. They have given a clear green light to nuclear and they are giving very mixed signals on renewables. They have got it exactly the wrong way round. Renewable energy is clean, green, reliable and safe. Nuclear will leave us with a toxic hangover from the 20th century well into the 22nd and it should be phased out completely as soon as possible.
You have joined us for the end of an excellent debate, Mr. Gale. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned the word “mix” and I think that a mix is the key to our energy policy. On both sides of the Chamber, we have recognised that we face a prospective energy crunch, to which the solution has to be one of diversity. There is broad, albeit not necessarily universal, agreement on both sides of the Chamber that we have been slow to come to the position in which we can send clear signals to the industry that we will have a stable framework.
First, however, let me congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on giving us the opportunity to have the debate and on his contribution, which, as ever, was serious and analytical. He always demonstrates genuine personal concern for the future of our nation, bringing that to all our counsels. He has done so again today.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who is shadow Secretary of State for Wales, in her place. As the presence of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) also indicates, nuclear policy is a great issue for the Principality.
It is clear from the contributions that have been made that we face a parlous energy security situation in the years ahead, and three factors contribute to that. First, there is the predictable decline in North sea oil and gas output. Some estimate that we will be 80 per cent. dependent on gas imports by the end of the decade, which could have been foreseen many years ago in the past decade. Secondly, we are likely to have to decommission nine of our most polluting coal-fired power stations by 2015. Finally, six of our 10 nuclear power stations are likely to reach the end of their life, unless it is extended, by 2018. Over the years ahead, therefore, we face a significant capacity problem in generating our future energy supplies.
In 1912, Sir Winston Churchill said that security in oil depends on diversity and diversity alone, which extends to our discussion of energy today, because we need a diverse energy supply. Unless one has an objection in principle to nuclear on the grounds of safety, and my party does not, it is clear that the technology makes a low-carbon contribution to diversity of supply. Providing that it is economically viable and does not present a charge on the taxpayer, therefore, it will be one of our diverse sources of energy going forward.
There is agreement that we need to be clear about such issues, because we are contemplating major investments. Providing that Government subsidy is not involved in construction, operation, decommissioning or the storage of waste, no regulatory obstacles should be put in place.
During the passage of the Energy Bill, the Conservative party asked for more reassurances on the long-term liability to the taxpayer and, in particular, on what was meant by a fair share of long-term waste disposal costs. Is the hon. Gentleman now satisfied or dissatisfied with the Government’s position on that?
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that question, because it is crucial. The history is that nuclear power has left the taxpayer with liabilities. Some years ago, I was a special adviser in the Department of Trade and Industry and I well recall the sale of British Energy. That sale was partly designed to take liabilities off the public balance sheet, but I was there when officials came to tell the Secretary of State that it was not possible and that those liabilities had to remain in the public sector. The arrangements going forward therefore need to be absolutely rigorous so that there is no chance the taxpayer will face an unfunded liability.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying in theory, but I am not clear what it means in practice. He has just acknowledged that there is a capacity problem and that nuclear could be part of the solution. How would he get the guarantees that he mentions? The programme needs years to develop, and there could be an incoming Conservative Government in that period. When would he say, “Yes, we are pro-nuclear and we are going ahead with this,” and what assurances must the industry give him?
Each application needs to come before the Secretary of State for approval, and it is essential that the guarantees in place—whether on decommissioning liabilities or operating costs—provide Ministers with sufficient satisfaction that a charge will not be laid on the taxpayer. The fiscal risk must be taken care of, because it has been a problem in the past and it must not be one in the future. I therefore look to the Minister for an update on whether he is satisfied that such guarantees are in place in the proposals that have come before him for discussion so far.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to answer the question from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn? I was looking at the lifetime plan for Wylfa, and the milestones over the decommissioning period go right up to 2125, when none of us will be around. It is therefore impossible to give a strictly honest and accurate answer to his question at present.
I am grateful for that intervention, which takes us to an important part of the debate. We need to concentrate now on ensuring that we have rigorous arrangements in place.
Yesterday, we had the announcement of the prospective sale of UKAEA Ltd, which raises similar issues. I have no problem in principle with a private company operating the contracts, but UKAEA Ltd will have the long-term contract for decommissioning nuclear power stations. How can we be satisfied that a delegation from a private company will not come to the Minister some years down the line, when the contract is with that company and work has proceeded, to demand more money than was provided for in the contract to finish the job? We need satisfaction on such issues.
It is the Government’s responsibility to remove excessive regulatory risk. There is enough risk involved in making major multibillion pound investments—not least the cost of capital and the anticipation of future energy prices and the cost of carbon. Public policy should not amplify those risks, but most people in the industry would say that the 10-year delay that we have seen and the inconsistency of energy policy—indeed, the lack of a credible policy—have amplified them. That is not the way forward if we want to take up our traditional role in the energy sector as a world leader in nuclear technology.
On planning issues, it is important that the Conservative party supports the type approvals used by the nuclear installations inspectorate, because they allow safety standards, which are obviously crucial, to be applied consistently. On planning applications, it is important that there be genuine scrutiny, but not a review of national energy policy lasting for years on end for each application. The Government’s role in ensuring that we have a long-term safe storage capability is also important.
We have suffered the consequences of policy ambiguity and indecision on this issue, and there is no better example of that than the Isle of Anglesey. Anglesey Aluminium Metals Ltd is contemplating 500 job cuts—those are important jobs—because any prospective decision on a second Wylfa nuclear power station will come too late to avoid interrupting the energy supplies necessary for investment and production to carry on.
The hon. Gentleman mentions my constituency. Does he not accept that the decision to decommission Wylfa was made in 2000, so it is not as if there is any irrationality now? The Wylfa B plan was put in place in 1987, and had it been carried out in the relevant time scale, even with the ad hoc planning that we have seen, it would have come on stream many years ago. It is therefore incorrect to put the blame on people now.
There is no advantage in casting around blame. All I would say is that if decisions on the replacement had been taken sooner, we would have avoided the hiatus, which has caused the loss of jobs.
Skills have been mentioned, and there have been severe consequences for some of our most skilled professions because of the delay and vacillation over energy policy. British Energy has estimated that only 6 per cent. of the nuclear industry’s 100,000 employees are under 24 and that 40 per cent. of its employees will retire in the next 10 years. Dr. Tim Stone, one of the Government’s advisers, makes much the same point about the nuclear installations inspectorate, which is a crucial body. He says that there are staffing shortages related to the age profile of the expert and highly experienced inspectors being skewed towards retirement age.
I want to leave time for the Minister to reply. I do not want to sow division for the sake of it, because it is important that we do not present potential investors with a view that creates difference where there is none. Instead, we should present the possibility of a stable public policy regime. However, we need to ask whether the Minister, who is in a position to judge, can be satisfied that the fiscal risk of nuclear is adequately taken care of; whether some of the outstanding questions about public confidence and safety are being dealt with properly at Sellafield, where some of the NII safety specifications relating to legacy ponds and silos still have not been met—public confidence is very important; and, as I mentioned earlier with respect to yesterday’s statement on UKAEA Ltd, whether there are sufficient guarantees that the sale would not lead to a charge on taxpayers’ funds.
This has been a constructive debate. It is important that we set out clearly the policy regime that would be in place for potential investors, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
It is a pleasure to see you take the Chair, Mr. Gale. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has managed to secure a debate on an enormously important issue. Sadly, I found his contribution partisan and unfair. It is a shame that in a debate on energy, which should have been dealt with more seriously, I feel that I need to respond briefly in a similarly partisan way with reference to his complaint about our lack of purpose since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Since that time there has been public concern about nuclear— something that he had to deal with when he was the Energy Minister from 1992 to 1994. He talks about the period of decline after 1987—well, he was part of that period of decline, so taking the mote out of one’s own eye is part of what he needs to accept. He needs to accept that when he was in office his Government failed to take the steps that were needed.
On a point of information, the decline in nuclear electricity production was after 1997, and, in answer to the point about me, I never took an anti-nuclear stance, and certainly no White Paper or energy document emanated from the Department of Energy when I was there that was anything like as negative or indecisive as the series that was produced until recently. However, I did concede that there had been a change of attitude recently.
I accept that during the right hon. Gentleman’s period in government he was never anti-nuclear; indeed, his party was then strongly and resolutely pro-nuclear. It just did nothing about it after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island—or very little. Nuclear power stations often take 12, 13 or 14 years to prepare. We will shorten that period with the new planning timetable. However, given the time scale, there was no preparation, when we came into government, for serious further development of nuclear power, and the Conservative Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, and he, as a Minister in that Government, need to accept some responsibility for that.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about leadership. I remind him that Tony Blair and the current Prime Minister led a party that was anti-nuclear, by and large, and have turned it into one that is by and large pro-nuclear with a policy set out in a White Paper—an energy policy that is clearly looking to build new nuclear power stations and that has revitalised the industry in a very short period. That is decisive leadership.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) complains of vacillation and delay. Let us see what is meant by those words. When we put forward our White Paper, at a pretty decisive moment for nuclear, where was the Conservative party? Its members were with their new—their current—leader, and their current leader was, as has already been said, in his green phase, when he decided that the Conservative party would no longer be the pro-nuclear party it once was. He turned a nuclear party into not an anti-nuclear, but perhaps a non-nuclear party; it was the great big Tory nuclear wobble.
I am disappointed that the Minister has turned the debate in the direction he has, but he will recognise that in 12 years of government, in which there have been 10 Energy Ministers—in which sequence he has, I think, taken the role twice—the decisions that needed to be taken rested with the Government, not the Opposition. If he wants to look backwards he should reflect on the record of the Government over the past 12 years.
I can also reflect on the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend complain about leadership, yet unlike their current leader, the Government have provided leadership on the issue. We have moved to a clear strategy. The country and the world face huge challenges in the face of climate change and energy security issues. We have set up a new Department whose key objectives are to create a sustainable energy policy, to deal with climate change—a policy that is secure, to deal with the problems facing this country in the long term and the decline of North Sea oil and gas, and affordable, to ensure that the people of this country get security and sustainability in a way they can afford; and to do that now, in the face of the problems associated with the credit crunch.
We need to decarbonise our electricity supplies and ensure that we have nuclear alongside renewables in a low-carbon economy. Combating climate change must be our top priority. We need to change our energy mix, so that we are less reliant on heavily polluting fossil fuels. We need secure affordable energy and we must ensure that we diversify the roots from which we get our gas and other supplies. By the way, contrary to the comments made earlier by the right hon. Member for Wells when he raised concerns about Russia, we get about 2 per cent. of our gas from Russia and the recent dispute between Ukraine and Russia did not have a major impact on our gas supplies.
We recognise as a party that nuclear is secure, affordable and low-carbon, and that without it achieving the climate change targets we have set ourselves would become difficult and costly. The cost of generating electricity would rise and we would be increasingly reliant on renewables, and although those are important technologies they cannot always provide the base load of electricity that is needed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, we need not only a nuclear base load but renewables, because they are low-carbon and can supply electricity on a large scale; but they have a problem in relation to intermittency. Therefore we also need the flexibility in energy supply that involves coal, with carbon capture and storage in due course, we hope, and gas.
As to talk of energy gaps, we believe that any gap that might in theory exist will quickly be supplied by the energy companies. That might be through gas or, we hope, coal with carbon capture and storage, but we believe that it will be supplied, because there is a lot of money to be made by energy companies in preventing such a gap. Anyone looking at their energy bill will know that there is a lot of money to be made.
There are massive opportunities for the UK in creating new nuclear build in this country. There will, I believe, be new nuclear power stations pepper-potting the globe in years to come. If the UK can build up—as we want it to—a supply chain, there is potential for massive benefit for the economy of this country. That is why we have worked so hard with the industry in recent months to build up the supply chain and get interest in it, and to ensure that we have the capacity not only for new build but to benefit the country in the long term.
Westinghouse and Areva have announced initiatives to work with the UK supply chain. The Nuclear Industry Association is working closely with industry to highlight what companies need to do to get involved, and our nuclear White Paper has set out clearly the basis and the policy framework. We hope we are in the process of creating the right conditions to enable the UK to be a target for investment in the future.