| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Haworth: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on initiating this important debate. I extend my congratulations to the two maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, and my noble friend Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan, who made one of the most robust and interesting maiden speeches that I have heard in my short time in this House.
In preparing for this debate, I was struck by a phrase which crops up on the first page of the report of the Environmental and Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament on Climate Change. The phrase was:
The original source of that phrase was the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The report continues by saying:
"Stabilisation of the climate at tolerable levels of change requires at least a 60 per cent reduction in 1990 CO2 emission levels by 2050".
I am glad that the Government, in principle, seek to be "on the path"—I think the phrase is—to achieving that.
The Minister may recall confirming what I put to him on a previous occasion when discussing similar issues—namely, that on a "business as usual" basis, without a dramatic change of policy, by 2020 there will have been no decrease in the percentage of our electricity being generated from fossil fuels. That is even if we manage to achieve the ambitious target of 20 per cent of our electricity supply coming from renewables by that date.
At present, roughly 20 per cent of our electricity comes from nuclear power on a UK basis. Interestingly, it is almost twice that figure in Scotland, though the report to the Scottish Parliament barely mentions nuclear power. However, by 2023 all bar one of Britain's nuclear power stations are set to close. Over the same time frame, the currently very modest level of renewable energy is targeted to rise, to take its place—not to deplete fossil fuel use. So unless there is a change of policy, almost 80 per cent of our electricity generation is set to remain coming from carbon sources.
As I said in my maiden speech in your Lordships' House, I strongly believe that a decision is overdue to reassert the importance of nuclear power in our overall energy mix. In France, some 80 per cent of electricity is produced from nuclear, and an additional 10 per cent or so comes from other carbon-free sources, mostly hydro-power. The French seem rightly proud of this; every French household is provided with this information by Electricité de France on every electricity bill.
Decisions will have to be taken soon—in the lifetime of this Parliament—on new generating capacity. For two decades or more there have been very few major new investments in capacity, and old plants cannot have their lives prolonged indefinitely. The time lag to bring new capacity on stream, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned, is likely to be several years, with delays being imposed by the rigours of the planning consent processes. So the initiation of the development of fresh capacity becomes an increasingly urgent problem, as many commentators are rightly emphasising.
Of course there are issues which have to be addressed, the long-term treatment and disposal of nuclear waste being not the least. The findings of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, when it reports, will probably be controversial. I am assuming that the committee will recommend burying the waste in carefully engineered sites in areas of geological stability. But wherever that might be, it is unlikely to be greeted by brass bands locally. By the way, may I ask if anyone in Government is taking up Bob Hawke's idea of the middle of the Australian desert becoming an international nuclear waste disposal facility? It sounds a very interesting idea. I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, might still be in his place, or might have referred to that in his maiden speech, as he has just returned from Australia; but perhaps that would have been too controversial.
27 Oct 2005 : Column 1357
One should not treat this subject too light-heartedly because, sooner or later, a decision about disposal there will have to be. That would still be true even if the nuclear programme were not restarted, because of the increasing amount of high-level waste being generated from the plants which are operating now, or are being decommissioned. However, the development of a fresh generation of nuclear plants does not change the nature of the problem. Nuclear waste is here to stay and must be dealt with. The volume of it is not really the issue. While thinking of international solutions, perhaps there is an opportunity for closer co-operation within the European Union on these matters. France and Finland face the issue, as well as us.
Cost is an issue too. Unlike in the very early days, no one now pretends that nuclear power is "free". However, as the recent research conducted for the Engineering Employers' Federation appears to have shown, nuclear power will be competitive if gas and carbon prices are high. Who would now want to bet on the future security of supply of cheap fossil fuels? Those days are surely over. Energy efficiency is important—that is not denied. It has been estimated that up to half the 60 per cent CO2 reduction target could be achieved cost-effectively by improving energy efficiency. It could be, perhaps, but whether it will be is much more doubtful. Some energy-saving measures actually serve to stimulate domestic consumption. Some of the more outlandish claims made for carbon reductions from energy efficiency are unlikely to prove as effective as their proponents—me included—want.
Surely the biggest issue which should impinge on the mind of the Government in conducting their welcome review of energy policy ought to be the question of greenhouse gasses and climate change. What the Government could do is set a zero or near-zero carbon obligation on energy providers and, consistent with being satisfied that there is security of supply, let the market determine the exact balance between the competing no-carbon sources. At the end of the review, the Government must take a clear lead on this issue, to create—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, at the Anglo-Norwegian Conference—
which will encourage the absolutely necessary investment in future green energy sources.
2.50 pm
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am not surprised that my noble friend Lady O'Cathain chose this subject. In her successful professional life, she has always been someone who has demanded action and results, so I can understand her impatience—indeed, I share it.
Let us go back to basics for a moment. First, on present trends, there will be a world shortage of energy. We do not know when the lights will go out—they may even flicker for a while this winter—but my guess is that, without a huge change in government policy, the lights will go out for a serious period of time within the next decade. Secondly, the way we are using
27 Oct 2005 : Column 1358
energy today is polluting the world, and is likely to screw up our climate, if not in our lifetime, certainly in the lifetime of our grandchildren.
There are two solutions. First, we must recognise that, in the long term, hydrocarbons, particularly oil, are too precious to be used for the generation of electricity. In an age of terrorism, an age that is likely to last decades rather than years, the supply of hydrocarbons is too uncertain, and the prices are likely to be too high for safety or comfort. Secondly, we must take urgent steps to supply more energy from non-polluting renewables. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wakeham when he indicated that it is unlikely that demand for energy will fall. Governments would be unwise, for example, to seek to persuade those people now enjoying cheap air travel to be taxed out of their aeroplane seats.
We have to face the fact that the only non-polluting source that can hope to fill the gap is nuclear power. Hydro-power is ideal in every way, but it has been fully exploited, and the scope for much expansion there is limited. Tidal power, referred to by my noble friend Lord Liverpool, is a lovely idea but is at an embryonic stage, and I think he will admit that. Wind power, in my opinion, should be virtually a non-starter in our thinking. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, mentioned the staggering figure—the Government's own figure, in their response to a Parliamentary Question of March this year—of a £30 billion subsidy for wind power between now and 2020. With its hugely high cost, inevitably low and intermittent output and often unacceptable visible intrusion into most of our windy and most beautiful landscapes, it should never have been given the priority and favour this Government have given it. Frankly, Mr Prescott's wind power is pure political tokenism.
For this Government, whom I have always supported in so many areas of policy, I am afraid political tokenism seems increasingly to be the first refuge in the face of awkward pressures from extreme lobby groups. We had a spectacular example of that this week when we in this House overwhelmingly rejected the Government's Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
Unfortunately, we have in front of us today no specific proposal that we can either accept or reject. All we can do is debate, and thus seek to influence both the Government and the wider public. Sir Crispin Tickell, who probably started to study climate as early as anyone—about 25 years ago, I think, when he had a sabbatical from the Foreign Office at Harvard—said, in a recent address to the OECD:
"To take Britain alone, there is little prospect of the Government meeting its energy targets between now and the middle of the century without ... recourse to nuclear power".
There are three basic considerations for nuclear power—first, safe reactors; secondly, safe disposal of the waste; and thirdly, economic performance, having taken into account the full costs including eventual decommissioning. I am satisfied on those three. There is another crucial message we have got to get over, however—that the time has come to recognise that nuclear power is itself a renewable. I say this because,
27 Oct 2005 : Column 1359
with the advance of reprocessing technology, and the fact that the supply of uranium for nuclear power is in practice inexhaustible for the foreseeable future, it is probably in a better state than the forecasts for oil supplies were a century ago. Nuclear should be seen as a renewable.
Why is it so hard to persuade the Government and the anti-nuclear lobbies, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, to accept the need for more nuclear power? I believe it lies deep in the psyche of those whose inclinations were, more than a generation ago, to support the CND movement, because as socialists in those days they fundamentally and uncritically supported the cause of Russia against the wicked American capitalists, whom they saw as threatening the great Soviet experiment. History has proved how wrong they were. These atavistic attitudes are hard to remove. After all, it is only 10 years ago that the Labour Party finally removed Clause IV from its constitution. Today new Labour is a very different animal, and I salute it.
I wish I could say the same about the Liberal Democrats. As we have heard once again today, most of their present leadership are opponents of nuclear power. Nuclear power is the Clause IV of the Liberal Democrats, and I suppose it is because they have no prospect of political office that they cannot face up to the need to scrap it.
If we accept that nuclear is an economical non-polluting renewable, then let us embark as soon as possible on a massive programme of nuclear build. There is no time to lose. After all, nine of our 12 nuclear power stations are due to be decommissioned within the next 10 years. The Prime Minister has given indications that he would like to press ahead with nuclear power, but he has opponents inside the Cabinet. It is said that one of the most uncompromising is Mrs Beckett. Quite frankly, if she is an obstacle, the obstacle should be removed.
I have one bit of friendly advice for the Prime Minister. Many years ago I was sent to America to carry the bags of the late Ernest Marples when he was studying American technology. One of the people we went to see was Robert McNamara, the Defence Secretary, who made an interesting comment along the lines of: "Our American political system has a big advantage over yours in Britain. In Britain, your Prime Minister is always seeking re-election. In the United States, once the President has won a first term, he knows he can have only a second term. He therefore uses up his political power".
Fortunately for the Prime Minister, he is now in the position of an American president who has won a second term. He has said he will go in three or four years' time, so let him ignore the extreme lobbies and do what is right for the country.
Where is the money to come from? Not, I think, from the taxpayer, or even through joint public-private financial initiatives. I believe it is the big oil companies who should expand themselves into true energy companies, and use their massive financial
27 Oct 2005 : Column 1360
resources to build nuclear. For this they need certain assurances from the Government. They need to know they will not have to suffer the delays and costs of overlong public inquiries, such as the one that delayed Sizewell B, near where I live. Incidentally, Sizewell B has considerable local support, and produces electricity equivalent to the supply from 600 wind turbines, although that supply is intermittent.
I yield to no-one in my respect for the British planning system. It was one of the two great achievements of the post-war Attlee government, the other of course being the National Health Service. When it comes to trying to construct something like a nuclear power station, however, we should perhaps look at how the French have managed it. This debate has focused on one of the most important problems and challenges that this country, and the world, faces. I hope the Government can rise to that challenge.
2.59 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |