Mike Weatherley
Main Page: Mike Weatherley (Conservative - Hove)National Policy Statements (Energy)
Mike Weatherley Excerpts
Charles Hendry
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, given the number of Members who wish to speak in this debate, it is fair to take only one intervention from each Member.
Mike Weatherley
We have been talking about waste disposal, particularly in the nuclear industry. The statement refers to underground storage, which is unproven but technically feasible. Does the Minister agree that it is pointless going ahead with a nuclear programme unless we have somewhere to dispose of the waste?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the Minister rises to his feet, this would be a good point for me to inform the House that this debate is due to end at 9 o’clock, there have to be wind-ups at the end and 18 Members in the Chamber have already indicated that they wish to take part. There is going to be a time limit and, at the moment, it is getting shorter and shorter. So those who wish to speak might want to hold back on their interventions.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
There are many items in the national policy statements that are to be commended. Were it not for a trip that I made a number of years ago, it is unlikely that I would be addressing the House about my concerns over nuclear power. It is important that emotions do not blur the facts that form the substance of this debate, but it was incredibly difficult to suppress the strength of feeling that overwhelms one when visiting the small, now deserted town of Prypiat, which is now in Ukraine.
I intend to highlight why I believe that the quest for new sources of nuclear power, as a means of producing energy, should be halted. Although I am sure carbon emissions have a place in this debate, my concern about nuclear is focused elsewhere. It can be divided into three main categories: first, the financial viability, without Government subsidy, of any new nuclear facility; secondly, how new nuclear waste can realistically be disposed of; and thirdly, but most importantly, human and animal safety.
I am acutely aware of the need for new ways to generate power. If nuclear generation really was the only option, I would of course support new nuclear power plants. We cannot allow the lights to go out. However, nuclear power will not keep the lights on. I believe that cleaner fossil fuel plants, which are relatively fast to build, renewables, and state-of-the-art decentralised power stations are better alternatives.
Mike Weatherley
In the interests of the debate, I have to continue. I am ever so sorry.
I find it very worrying that the Government are providing significant subsidies, met by the taxpayer. Subsidies are a useful tool for kick-starting new investment. They occur in a number of ways for a wide variety of sectors, but nuclear power should not be part of that.
Disaster insurance is another factor that must be considered, as we heard earlier. Vast liabilities fall to the taxpayer. European law caps insurance liability to £1.6 billion for the industry, and payouts after that fall to Governments. Estimates are still being formed for the recent disaster in Japan, but it is thought that it will cost in the region of £60 billion. Shortfalls like that could cripple our economy.
The second category is that of waste products, which I mentioned in my question to the Minister. Unfortunately, how we will have clean, effective and safe waste management for future nuclear radioactive waste remains unanswered. Underground storage has been suggested, and I thank the Minister for his earlier reply, but at the moment that is only technically achievable and is not a proven reality. Future waste costs are unknown and rely on technology that is yet to be proven to work. That risk from an inevitable by-product is unacceptable.
The final category is safety. The Chernobyl disaster, 25 yeas ago in 1986, brought home to the rest of the world the fact that nuclear power is phenomenally dangerous, and not just in the immediate vicinity of the disaster but across a wide, Europe-sized area. It is well-documented that radioactive caesium was detected in a number of upland areas in the UK. An Environment Agency report from last month states that in 2009 restrictions were still in place for 343 farms or part farms, affecting 190,000 sheep. Twenty five years on, there is still a considerable legacy for the UK from a nuclear disaster some 1,200 miles away. Indeed, freshwater fish in Cumbria still show signs of contamination. Worryingly, the maximum radiation dose that any member of the public would receive from eating those fish was assessed to be up to 10% of their annual limit.
No monetary cost can be put on the devastation should the highly unlikely but possible eventuality of a nuclear accident occur. The national policy statement says that
“the risk of radiological health detriment posed by nuclear power stations (both during normal operation and as a result of an unplanned release) is very small.”
Let us note that it does not say “zero”. A nuclear disaster may be a remote possibility, as we were told in 1985.
Mike Weatherley
No, I have only got another minute. [[Hon. Members: “You would get an extra minute.”] I know, but it is fairer to other people if I keep going.
If a nuclear disaster did happen, the consequences would be immense. The question I ask today is whether it is really worth the risk. We must balance slightly cheaper electricity against an unknown cost that would dwarf any expenditure contingency plans. I say that it is not worth it and we should not take the risk. I urge the Government to reconsider their nuclear programme.