|
Nuclear Power
A debate on motion
S2M-2691, in the name of Richard Lochhead,
on nuclear power.
The Deputy
Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2691, in the name of
Richard Lochhead, on nuclear power.
Richard
Lochhead (North East Scotland) (SNP):
The debate is important. It is about protecting the future of our people in
Scotland and our environment and it is about securing a safe and affordable
source of energy to meet our future needs. Most of all, the debate is about
creating a non-nuclear Scotland. The SNP was interested to note that, in the
manifesto that was launched yesterday, Labour refused to rule out a new
nuclear power station for Scotland. The Labour Party's obsession with
everything nuclear continues, whether it is considering weapons of mass
destruction on the Clyde or more nuclear power stations, which will create
mountains of nuclear waste. As a result, all the signs are that Scotland has
been lined up to become the United Kingdom's nuclear dustbin. Allan Wilson
and his Labour colleagues might raise the spectre of new nuclear power
stations for Scotland, but it is for the Scottish Parliament to oppose such
plans, which is why we are having this debate.
The Deputy Minister
for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
We will now get back to reality. We must get away from ridiculous and
childish scaremongering and look at the development of a safe, reliable and
balanced energy policy. The Executive position on nuclear power is set out
absolutely unambiguously in our programme for government. Although we are
not averse to yet another debate on nuclear power, we have made it clear in
the various consultations that have taken place that, as long as we do not
have a solution to the issue of the safe disposal of nuclear waste, we
should not build new nuclear power stations. I am not sure how I could make
that position any clearer.
Mr Mark Ruskell (Mid
Scotland and Fife) (Green):
When will the minister consider the issue of waste storage to be resolved?
Will it be when a disposal method has been identified or when a site has
been put in place?
Allan Wilson:
The issue will be, of course, a work in progress and I will address it in
due course.
I am sure that the member is familiar with the consultation that is taking
place on the matter. I am also sure that he will be making his contribution
to the consultation in due course.
The Scottish Executive is working with other UK Administrations to identify
the long-term radioactive waste management options. We are working in
partnership through the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which is
entirely independent, to consider how we might best dispose of our nuclear
legacy.
Richard Lochhead:
Will the minister take
an intervention?
Allan Wilson:
If the member does not mind, I would like to make some progress. I have only
five minutes.
The Executive places a great deal of importance on the committee's
independence and on the need to engage with the public and stakeholders in
Scotland. The CORWM process is the right way of building confidence, trust
and respect in the decisions that need to be taken on the way forward in the
UK.
CORWM represents a fresh start: its establishment marks a new approach to
tackling the long-term management of radioactive waste, which takes into
account the consequences of the 1997 Nirex planning inquiry failure. The
so-called Nirex list, which Richard Lochhead did not mention by name but
which he quoted extensively, is an historic document. It does not in any way
form part of the Executive's policy on radioactive waste management.
The criteria for radioactive waste management options are being assessed by
CORWM in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. On 4 April, CORWM
announced its shortlist of four options for the long-term management of
higher-activity waste. The options are deep disposal, phased deep disposal,
shallow burial of short-live waste and interim storage. CORWM has begun the
next phase of public engagement and consultation on the four options and on
the methodology that it will use to assess them. I encourage all members and
people around the country who have an interest in the management of
radioactive waste to get involved in the consultation.
After CORWM has reported, ministers from the UK Government and the devolved
Administrations will decide whether to accept its recommendations, which
will be the subject of stakeholder consultation and wide engagement with the
public. It is at that stage that siting will become an issue. The criteria
for such decisions are yet to be determined and I say to Mr Lochhead that
his list of sites in Scotland is entirely spurious.
Under its terms of reference, CORWM will have to consider issues such as
compensation, volunteering and veto. Consent for a waste facility is a
separate issue. We have said consistently in the Parliament that any
proposals for such facilities in Scotland would be subject to environmental
and planning regulations, responsibility for which is devolved to Scottish
ministers and the Scottish Parliament. All such decisions will be taken by
members following due process.
CORWM is due to present its final recommendations to ministers in July of
next year. I stress that it is not looking at sites, contrary to what Mr
Lochhead's scaremongering indicated. The identification of sites will be
undertaken separately, once ministers are confident that they have a
publicly acceptable management solution. Public consultation is an essential
part of the process. CORWM's recommendations will inform Executive policy on
the future management of radioactive waste in Scotland.
The people of Scotland, including MSPs, have a genuine opportunity to
participate in the decision-making process. Given that we have a waste
legacy, we need everyone's commitment to face up to the responsibility of
dealing with that environmental challenge. We need the nationalists to grow
up, join the rest of the adults in the communities concerned and get
involved in the process.
I move amendment S2M-2691.2, to leave out from "that the Committee" to end
and insert:
"the work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management; welcomes the
Scottish Executive's study into present and future energy supply and demand
in Scotland; endorses the Executive's position of not supporting the further
development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain
unresolved; supports the Executive's continuing commitment to the
development of renewable energy in Scotland, including wind, wave, tidal,
solar, hydrogen, biofuels and biomass power, as a key element of a balanced
energy supply portfolio; supports the Executive's commitment to achieving
40% renewable electricity generation by 2020, and welcomes the ongoing
review of the Scottish Climate Change Programme and the priority being given
to strengthening the contribution of energy efficiency and renewables to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions."
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: I call Allan
Wilson to close for the Executive. Try to do so in four minutes, Mr Wilson.
Allan Wilson:
I will do my best, Presiding Officer.
I have dealt with the SNP's scaremongering about the role of the Committee
on Radioactive Waste Management in informing future policy on radioactive
waste management and I will move on to energy policy more generally.
In their own way, Mark Ruskell, John Home Robertson and David Mundell
referred to the critical issue that is under debate. Energy is an essential
commodity for Scotland's society and economy. As John Home Robertson said,
it heats our homes, lights our schools and hospitals and powers our
factories and offices. We must address the need. Unlike the SNP motion,
which runs away from
addressing that need, serious politicians and serious political parties—I
exclude the SNP from that — must address the issues.
It is clear that nuclear power is an important zero-carbon form of
electricity generation that will make a continuing contribution to
minimising carbon emissions from electricity generation for some years to
come. However, nuclear power is just one available form of energy supply. We
will find in the diversity of sources the balance to which David Mundell
referred that will suit Scotland's needs.
That brings me quickly to climate change, to which many members referred. We
are committed to tackling climate change and to finding ways to reduce
energy consumption — I say to Nora Radcliffe that that is not in dispute.
Moving towards low-carbon generation must be part of the solution.
Britain leads the way in global efforts to tackle climate change and in
showing what action can be taken. Scotland is playing and will continue to
play its part in that wider context. We will continue to work in close
partnership with the UK Government to ensure that the Executive contributes
fully to UK climate change targets.
Chris Ballance made a couple of interesting technical points. I will not go
into the detail, but it is untrue to suggest that the AP1000 is untested. It
is based on the existing AP600 model and is designed to retain most of the
existing specifications. While optimising power output, it reduces
generation and increases efficiency. I make it clear that I am not aware —
perhaps the member is — of any proposal to build a nuclear power station in
Scotland. As Nora Radcliffe and others said, powers to approve new nuclear
power stations are a matter for the Scottish ministers. No proposals have
been made to rely completely on electricity from nuclear power generation.
As the amendment in Jim Wallace's name says, we believe in diversity of
supply to maintain security of supply.
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: You have one
minute.
Allan Wilson:
As I have only one minute, I do not have enough time to deal with Dounreay
issues or low-level waste, but I will be happy to respond to members later.
I will conclude with a point that Elaine Murray made and which Stewart
Stevenson did not address.
The SNP formerly demanded publicly in the Parliament that the Executive
should have a target of generating 25 per cent more electricity from
renewables. Not unreasonably, the wind power industry could presume that the
decent people of Alyth or Angus, for example, should know that that was an
SNP demand. However, all the SNP elected leaders in Alyth and Angus — MSPs,
MPs and councillors — have omitted to tell the decent people of those areas
that they believe in more wind power.
The SNP consistently talks green then turns yellow in Alyth and other parts
of Scotland. To hide that deceit, SNP members choose again not to talk about
energy policy, the indigenous coal industry or the increasing cost of
importing gas, but to reheat old anti-nuclear scare stories, which have been
consigned to history by Mr Lovelock — the father of the green movement —
Professor King and other distinguished environmentalists and scientists.
I ask members to support the Executive amendment.
The Presiding Officer:
The result of the division is: For 65, Against 43, Abstentions 3.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Parliament notes the work of the Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management; welcomes the Scottish Executive's study into present and future
energy supply and demand in Scotland; endorses the Executive's position of
not supporting the further development of nuclear power stations while waste
management issues remain unresolved; supports the Executive's continuing
commitment to the development of renewable energy in Scotland, including
wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydrogen, biofuels and biomass power, as a key
element of a balanced energy supply portfolio; supports the Executive's
commitment to achieving 40% renewable electricity generation by 2020, and
welcomes the ongoing review of the Scottish Climate Change Programme and the
priority being given to strengthening the contribution of energy efficiency
and renewables to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."
To view the entire debate -
Please
Click Here
|
