National Policy Statements (Energy)
Debate between Mike Weatherley and Steve Baker
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.
Rights and Protection of Victims
Debate between Mike Weatherley and Steve Baker(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for giving a very moving speech.
I address the Chamber as chairman of the all-party group on retail and business crime, and, by virtue of that, as someone concerned about victims of crime, both at home and abroad. Although there are some parts of our criminal justice system that can clearly be improved on, I understand from the organisation Victim Support—we heard this point earlier, too—that we generally enjoy a better standard of treatment for victims of crime than is the case across Europe. It does not take a huge stretch of the imagination to realise that victims of crime are at their most vulnerable when they are abroad. Perhaps they do not speak the language, and they would probably have little idea of where to go, what to do, or even what processes are in place to assist them in the event of crime. Moreover, many unscrupulous criminals specifically target foreign nationals—tourists in particular—for those very reasons.
In this instance, I feel that EU support would benefit the British abroad, so I call on the Government to support the draft directive in question, which deals with a minimum standard of treatment for victims of crime across Europe. Indeed, it has been carefully argued by the charity Victim Support that the directive would benefit the British at home also. I would not usually back EU interference—the EU meddles in so much that it should not meddle in, plus it is a ridiculous, wasteful organisation and unnecessarily bureaucratic—but in this instance it has actually come up with something that should be addressed for the common European good. With regard to offenders’ release dates, the directive would certainly increase the rights of victims in the UK. At present, a victim has the right to know only when an offender has been released from custody in the case of sexual or violent crime where an offender has been sentenced to more than 12 months in custody. The directive would extend that right to all victims.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend. I very much applaud and welcome his and the Government’s intent, but does he realise that we could achieve the same end without opting in to this EU directive? We could negotiate a separate arrangement with opt-outs, which would not be available under an EU directive.
Mike Weatherley
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I am afraid that he is sadly mistaken, for various reasons that I shall come to. I agree that the EU quite often meddles unnecessarily, but occasionally some standardisation across Europe is welcome, and this is one of those situations.
I mentioned that our system of victim support is better than those of other countries around Europe, but this position is by no means assured. After all, it has been eroded in several key areas. One is the example of funding for Victim Support—a charity that provides an invaluable service to victims of crime. Its funding has been cut, which is a great shame. Also, over a number of years, we have seen certain crimes such as shoplifting downgraded. Indeed, the Sentencing Commission does not formally recognise the vulnerability of shop workers as particular victims of crime, despite last year being a record period for crimes committed in shops, ranging from shoplifting to murders in the process of robbery. The Government could also do more to support the private sector in schemes such as Facewatch, piloted in London by the Metropolitan police and now spreading across the UK.
Victims of crime currently have the right to receive a basic level of service for each criminal justice agency under the code of practice for victims of crime. Everything that victims are entitled to under the code is pretty basic and the sort of thing that one would assume victims would receive automatically. The Government, however, have already removed the duty on local criminal justice boards to report their compliance with the victims code, which means no one is monitoring compliance with the code or holding agencies to account when they fail to comply with it. There is a danger that the Government will seek to downgrade the code or abolish it altogether. That would mean that a victim of crime would have no statutory right to a decent level of service from the criminal justice system. Abolishing or downgrading the code would be a serious retrograde step that would turn the clock back on victims’ rights.