National Policy Statements (Energy)

Debate between Albert Owen and Martin Horwood

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

I accept that a percentage of them are—we have debated this at length in relation to the Energy Bill—but the hon. Gentleman must accept that a huge bill is still falling on taxpayers in this country as a result of the last generation of nuclear power stations. Why would we want to risk repeating that mistake?

I acknowledge that nuclear power is a relatively low-carbon energy source, but it is not renewable. Uranium is very far from being a renewable resource, and may prove to be very expensive if more of the world chooses to follow us down this dangerous path, although few would do so if even the insurance costs of nuclear power were accurately reflected in its price. One estimate suggests that French nuclear power might be four times as expensive if the French taxpayer were not the insurer of last resort.

I also acknowledge—I agree with the Minister on this point—that fulfilling our future energy needs is a challenge. The overarching national policy statement sets out the need for urgency, with one quarter of the UK’s generating capacity due to close by 2018, but the nuclear NPS states on page 235 that applicants only have to provide a plan that is

“credible for deployment by 2025”.

It even states that

“a detailed project plan…will not normally be needed.”

The worldwide experience is that not a single nuclear power station has ever been built on time, on budget or without public subsidy. It is very doubtful what contribution nuclear will make to closing the energy gap.

[Albert Owen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Horwood]

I will give way, for the last time.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman has made his party’s position on new nuclear very clear, but where does it stand on extending the life of existing nuclear plants so that low-carbon generation can be extended to bridge the gap that he talks about?

[Martin Horwood]

There is already an issue relating to existing nuclear, as the floor price for carbon will give it an undeserved subsidy for no actual change in behaviour.

Planning for the energy gap pales into insignificance beside the time scales that have to be imagined for waste disposal and site safety. It is those long-term dangers that should concern us most. Politicians are often criticised for a lack of long-term foresight, but certainly not this Government. The historian in me is delighted to report that we are making policy today for the mid-22nd century and beyond. On the very long-term scale there is the moral question of whether material that is likely to be dangerously radioactive for millennia should ever be intentionally created, however safely we plan to store it. We can know as little about societies 1,000 years from now as the Anglo-Saxons could have known about us. To talk of long-term storage, accessibility and monitoring arrangements over such time scales is utterly meaningless. We are leaving a toxic legacy to future generations about which we can know absolutely nothing.

The NPS does not appear to pay any attention at all to those issues, but it does have something to say on rather shorter historical time scales. In relation to those, Ministers are acting not so much like Anglo-Saxons making policy for today, but like Gladstone or Disraeli trying to determine our current waste disposal policy. The NPS states, on page 239:

“Geological disposal of higher activity waste from new nuclear power stations is currently expected to be available for new build waste from around 2130”

That is on the assumption that spent fuel rods kept on site will have cooled sufficiently for disposal in geological disposal facilities. Every decade of activity will add another decade to the end disposal date.

Hon. Members are today being asked to make nuclear waste disposal policy well into the mid-22nd century. Of course, policy making on such a time scale is not remotely practical, and the NPS admits as much. On page 239 it says:

“it is possible that there could be waste on site for longer than the assessment has been able to look ahead. Predictions of potential climate change impacts become less certain the further into the future the assessments are for, and it is not practicable to consider beyond 2100 at this stage.”

That is an interesting contrast with the Weightman report, which explicitly evaluates risk only in so far as that is reasonably practical and does not even address the major cost of evacuation and dislocation that has emerged at Fukushima.

Why are we being asked to approve a policy with risks that will be significant into the mid-22nd century when the NPS itself admits that those are not practicable to foresee, and the Government’s own safety adviser has not even tried to address them? The NPS talks of additional safeguards to cover these risks, saying that applicants need to

“identify the potential effects of the credible maximum scenario in the most recent projections of marine and coastal flooding”

and demonstrate that they could take “further measures” if necessary. I suspect that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the No Need for Nuclear campaign, and all their lawyers, will no doubt take full advantage of those words, with scope for years of argument and debate. If I were an investor in new nuclear, I would not be holding my breath for a return on investment before 2025.

The jury is still out on the long-term effects of Fukushima, but it is already clear that even without a major Chernobyl-style meltdown 50,000 people have still been displaced, and there is a bill running to tens of billions of pounds—and, as always, the taxpayer is being asked to foot the bill.

The real lesson, if I can paraphrase this in parliamentary language, is: stuff happens, and when it does, nuclear power is the worst possible energy source to have lying in its path. At this of all times, we should reassess our national commitment to nuclear. I know that the radioactive tendencies in the Tory and Labour parties make the passing of this policy statement inevitable, but we must challenge every licence and its capacity to withstand the worst-case scenario of climate change, and we must challenge every hidden and indirect subsidy that will make nuclear power possible.

Rail Investment

Debate between Albert Owen and Martin Horwood

Thursday 17th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood]

That is absolutely correct. The Select Committee report also mentions the importance of investment in rolling stock. It is important for the Government to take their time to get that right. There have been delays under both Governments, so that is common ground. Rolling stock is a significant contributor to the general level of expense in our railways. If it takes time to consider how to deliver more competitive prices for rolling stock, it might be a delay worth considering.

Smart ticketing was raised in the report. It is important that we have better integration of ticketing. The current system is confusing and often unfair. Claire Cook, my fantastic PA in my constituency office, regularly books me a first-class ticket on a Gloucestershire to London train for £21.50. That horrifies many of my constituents who pay several times more for a standard ticket on the same train on the same route. They do not seem reassured when I tell them that because they have, in effect, paid for my ticket too, they are really saving money. That really does not seem to go down well. The risk is that there is an unnecessary perception of high cost, because people do not realise that cheaper fares are available. The ticketing system must be addressed. We should move towards a system that is a bit more like Oyster cards in London. When someone uses an Oyster card, they can be pretty sure that they are getting the cheapest fare available for that route. The application of such a system would be a good thing for the whole country. Obviously, though, that is a technical and organisational challenge.

Finally, everyone regrets increases in fares. Even when we accept that fares have to increase, there is a need to examine the sharp practices by train-operating companies, such as shifting the time boundary between peak and off-peak, so that there are suddenly more peak fares than before, even though, technically, the price has not been raised. That is a stealthy way of raising prices for customers. The use of averages was a point very well made. The Government must be on the ball about fare increases and make sure that train-operating companies are not taking advantage of customers.

In short, we should attack the fundamental causes of the high costs—the lack of capacity, the supply and demand problems and the cost base of the railways. The Office of Rail Regulation has said that Network Rail is up to 40% less efficient than its European counterparts, which means that we have some fundamental problems. With the inflated cost of rolling stock and so on, there is clearly potential for the Government to address the fundamental costs of our railways. If they do that effectively and protect investment, we will have a transport system that any Government could be proud to say is better value for money, better for the environment and better for the travelling public.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mr Gwynne, I remind Members that Mrs Ellman, as Chair of the Select Committee, will be making a few comments at the end.