Energy Policy
The next item is a debate on motion S2M-3870, in the name of Alex Johnstone, on future energy policy.
During many debates on the subject of renewable energy, the environment and sustainability, the subject of nuclear energy and its future in Scotland has been ancillary. It has always been my view, and that of others in the chamber, that there would be a time when it was appropriate to initiate a debate specifically on the nuclear issue. The opportunity that we have today is important for this Parliament, and I hope that it is the start of a vigorous and constructive debate that will ultimately lead to important decisions being made for Scotland's future energy needs.
It appears that it is not only I who believe that the time has come for the debate. In the past week, we have seen stories in the Sunday Herald trying to undermine the credibility of the cross-party group on the civil nuclear industry, and today the BBC website is carrying a story about a leaked report that attempts to rubbish efforts by Government agencies to find solutions to the nuclear waste problem. I worry that that is an indication of how our opponents intend to conduct the debate in future and of what we can expect of them. In this chamber and wherever necessary, we intend to be above board and to meet the arguments fairly.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not.
Why not?
The member has already said that he will not take an intervention.
I have a point of information to make.
Shiona Baird can press her button and try to catch the Presiding Officer's eye.
It has to be said that energy issues are, in themselves, not devolved. However, another revelation that we have had in the past week is that the Scottish Executive has a veto when it comes to decisions on siting future nuclear power stations in Scotland, so the issue is highly relevant to this chamber.
It is also relevant for the secure and affordable supply of electricity for Scotland in the future. Energy efficiency has its place, but we must remember that the provision of electric trains and trams may push up future demands for electricity, so we must consider where that electricity will come from.
Richard Lochhead's amendment points out that Scotland is an energy-rich nation, and I cannot dispute that, so why should we worry? We should worry because we are highly dependent on gas supplies. Even though Scotland is a major producer of gas, it will always come to us at market price—unless, of course, the Scottish National Party nationalises it, as it intends. The "I'm all right, Jack" idea that we in Scotland can burn coal, oil or gas and not worry about our international obligations in relation to CO2 emissions is an attitude that we cannot accept.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Not at the moment.
Of course, carbon sequestration is possible, but it will come at a price, and when fuel poverty is one of the declared priorities of the Parliament, we must always consider the price of power as it is generated. We are always told that nuclear energy is expensive, but if we compare it with energy produced by the traditional generators, who in the past were able to throw their pollution into the air, we realise that the true cost of traditional methods of power generation has never been assessed properly. With the imposition of a carbon tax, there may be a much more level marketplace.
Wind turbines have often been the subject of discussion in the Parliament, but they are not a cheap way of generating electricity either. The system of renewables obligation certificates has served to encourage such development and to offset the price to some extent, but we must always remember that the true cost is the cost that we will ultimately pay, and the true cost of wind energy is extremely high.
Will Alex Johnstone give way?
Not at the moment.
Environmentally based sources of energy have a huge role to play in the future, but they can only ever be part of the mix. They are largely unpredictable, certainly inappropriate to demand and always impossible to control. Accordingly, they must be backed up by other generators to maintain constant supply to the grid.
In Scotland, the Executive has failed to outline an energy strategy that sets out total requirements for future energy production and consumption. Instead, it has focused on a narrow proportion of that production—the proportion of electricity that is generated by renewable energy sources. Currently, most of Scotland's power comes from five big plants, of which two are coal fired, one is gas and two are nuclear. The coal-fired plants have life expectancies of less than 20 years, the gas plant will perhaps last 30 years and the two nuclear plants are licensed until 2011 and 2023.
The First Minister has said that the Scottish Executive will not make any decisions on the future of nuclear power in Scotland until the issue of radioactive waste management has been resolved properly. That, of course, reflects the delicate policy mix of the Liberal Democrats' opposition to nuclear power and Labour's unwillingness to rule it out. The Executive position is highly ambiguous, as the First Minister would not set out when he would consider the waste question to be adequately resolved, whether it is when the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management reports or when the new waste facility is built and operating. We must also recognise that the issue of nuclear waste storage and disposal is essentially an historical one, built up over 60 years. A new generation of nuclear power stations will add only marginally to the total waste burden, and could certainly be accommodated within the solution to an historical backlog.
Finally, I remind the Executive of some prophetic words, which ministers would do well to heed in the future:
"Two nagging questions remain. In terms of security of supply, does it make sense—even with a substantial contribution from renewables—to become so dependent on imported gas? And does it make sense, at the very time when climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases have shot up the political agenda, to be planning the elimination of nuclear power?"
I believe that the moment has come for that important debate to be held.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with interest the UK Energy Review; believes that provision of a secure and affordable supply of electricity is essential to Scotland's future prosperity, and therefore believes that all options, including the construction of new nuclear power stations to replace existing nuclear capacity, should be considered for inclusion in Scotland's future energy mix.
The Executive amendment reflects our commitment to our policy objectives on increasing the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources, tackling climate change and fuel poverty, and ensuring security of supply for Scottish consumers. Current and future security of energy supply for Scotland is dependent on supporting a diverse fuel mix—of which nuclear is undoubtedly an important part—and on constant dialogue with United Kingdom Government colleagues and, crucially, the regulators and the companies themselves.
We recognise that we must find solutions to our future energy needs that improve the efficiency with which we use energy while reducing the environmental impact of energy generation.
Will the minister indicate when the study into Scotland's energy needs, which was promised before the end of last year, will be published?
This afternoon.
We have set targets for 40 per cent of our energy supply to come from renewables by 2020. That is a fourfold increase on the current level of renewables generation.
We have invested £3 million in the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney and we recently announced our intention to amend the renewables obligation to award increased renewables obligation certificates to wave and tidal output. The success of using ROCs to incentivise the growth of renewables capacity has been seen in the sizeable growth achieved in renewable generation development.
The minister referred to 2020. What does he estimate the gigawatt output requirement will be in 2020? Up until now we have been given percentages, but percentages of what?
The energy study that we have implemented and which has just been referred to maps energy supply and demand in relation to not only electricity generation but transport and domestic use. It shows demand between 1990 to 2002. The next stage of the study will map future demand and will investigate where energy can be sourced from.
The biomass and marine energy sectors in Scotland are thriving and present us with the potential for an additional 1.5GW of installed capacity and to create jobs, and the opportunity to establish Scotland as a global renewables powerhouse in the process.
We are developing our own energy efficiency strategy to complement the United Kingdom strategy. Last year we allocated £20 million to help bring about public sector energy efficiencies.
On climate change, which I think everyone will agree is the most important issue that faces the world, we will publish a revised Scottish climate change programme to complement the forthcoming UK programme and to provide a framework for the development of Scottish climate change targets.
Finally, as a crucial part of the considered and informed debate that we hope to have on energy policy, we will, as I said, publish later today the first two volumes of the Scottish energy study. Those were commissioned in 2004 to provide a factual overview of energy supply and demand trends in Scotland between 1990 and 2002.
The Scottish Executive is represented on Pilot, the joint industry-Government group that is tasked with creating a climate in which the UK continental shelf can retain its position as a pre-eminent active centre of oil and gas exploration, development and production and in which the UK contracting and supplies industry remain at the leading edge of competitiveness. The UK and the UK continental shelf still represent a favourable market for oil and gas operators to invest in.
We recognise the contribution that the development of cleaner coal technologies can make to the energy mix. Scottish Enterprise commissioned and, last September, published a piece of work on carbon capture and storage to complement the Department of Trade and Industry's own carbon abatement technologies strategy, which was launched in June of last year. DTI commitments to invest in cleaner coal technologies research and development projects amount to £13 million.
The Executive's amendment recognises that to meet Scotland's future energy needs, we must have a reasoned discussion about the realities of energy supply and consumption. That is why we are working closely with the UK Government on the UK energy review and why we foresaw the need for a comprehensive piece of research on energy trends in Scotland. To meet Scotland's long-term energy needs, we must recognise the role that conventional fuel sources play in the energy mix. My only argument with the Tory motion is that it focuses consideration on one source of supply to the exclusion of others. The energy review is about more than nuclear power, although we recognise the role that nuclear power plays in generating electricity for Scotland.
We will await the findings of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management report in July and we will engage with the UK energy review. I encourage everybody else to do likewise.
I move amendment S2M-3870.4, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"supports the Scottish Executive's continuing commitment to the development of a wide range of renewable energy technologies in Scotland as a key element of a balanced energy supply mix; supports the Executive's target that 40% of electricity generated in Scotland by 2020 should come from renewable sources; looks forward to publication of the revised Scottish Climate Change Programme and the consideration given to the contribution of energy efficiency and renewables to reduce carbon dioxide emissions; endorses the Executive's commitment to tackling fuel poverty; acknowledges the Executive's commitment to not support further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved; welcomes the forthcoming release of the first two volumes of the Scottish Energy Study; recognises the importance of the UK energy review, and supports the Executive's engagement with the UK Government, Ofgem and the energy industry to ensure that the future energy supply needs of Scotland are met."
I start by observing that two days after the BBC broadcast a powerful drama documentary that portrayed the awful events in Chernobyl almost 20 years ago, only the Tories could come to the Scottish Parliament and call for more nuclear power. The reality is that Scotland is an energy-rich country. We can meet our energy needs for the future and meet our environmental obligations with our existing resources. Indeed, we can make a disproportionate contribution to cutting emissions globally. We do not need nuclear. There is plenty of evidence that Scotland does not want nuclear—there is no public support for nuclear in Scotland—and we certainly do not need nuclear power.
The reality is that the UK energy review is a nuclear review by the UK Government in London, which wants to foist a new generation of nuclear power stations on the UK. That raises the prospect of new nuclear power stations being built in Scotland with the backing of Labour ministers in this Executive.
The idea that the UK energy review will consider—and put first—Scotland's interests, Scotland's priorities and its unique energy profile is absurd. Of course it will not do that. Scotland will not have a voice in the UK energy debate unless this Parliament ensures that Scotland makes a unique contribution to that debate and takes forward our own arguments here in Scotland.
The Scottish Government's argument on nuclear—which is that it will await the outcome of the review into the management of radioactive waste, which will be produced in July—has been blown apart by the leak this morning from CORWM that it will not produce a solution to the problem of dealing with the UK's radioactive waste.
It is not a leak; I will explain the situation later in the debate.
I am happy to correct the phrase and to say that the reporting of CORWM's proposed recommendations indicates that there will be no solution to the problem of dealing with the waste. Therefore, the fence on which ministers in Scotland have been sitting has been blown apart. Will they stop dithering, rule out nuclear once and for all and concentrate their energy elsewhere?
The member refers to a leak, which he then concedes is not a leak. Will he also concede that CORWM was set up to consider not detailed safety cases but management options and to explore the type of solution that could be found for the future management of waste?
The fact is that the minister says that his policy is based on waiting for the outcome of that report to see what can be done with waste before taking a decision on nuclear. We now know that there will be no solution to the problem of dealing with nuclear waste, so the minister must take a decision now. He must stop dithering and concentrate on realising the massive potential of Scotland's alternative energies. That is the key to our future in Scotland. Scotland is one of the most energy-rich nations per head of population in the world. We have 62.4 per cent of the European Union's proven oil reserves, 12.5 per cent of the EU's gas reserves, 69 per cent of the UK's coal reserves, 25 per cent of the wind resource in Europe, 10 per cent of the wave resource in Europe and 25 per cent of the tidal resource in Europe.
We must scotch the myths that are being perpetuated in the UK media and by the UK Government. Scotland is not a gas importer; we are a gas exporter. Our energy policy should not be based on being a gas importer, because we consume only an eighth of the gas that we produce in Scotland. We should use that for the benefit of Scotland's energy future. We must develop clean technologies and examine how we will extend the life of Longannet using clean technologies that are being developed here in Scotland. The likes of Longannet must have a future role in meeting Scotland's energy needs.
The minister should devote his attention to developing those clean technologies. One example is the carbon capture and storage technologies that are being developed in Peterhead—a world first. A hydrogen power station will be built there, which will give carbon-free electricity to the people of Scotland.
We have a 10-to-15-year window to get our approach right. We need an energy plan for Scotland that considers where we will produce our energy, how we will produce it and to what extent we will produce it. Only this Parliament can deliver that. The UK energy review will not deliver for Scotland. We need energy powers here in Scotland to decide our own energy future. Otherwise, we are in real danger of having an energy-rich Scotland in which the lights are out.
I move amendment S2M-3870.2, to leave out from "with interest" to end and insert:
"that Scotland is an energy rich nation; rejects calls for investment in new nuclear power stations in favour of accelerating the development of our renewables potential and emerging clean technologies; notes that, contrary to the impression given by many commentators, Scotland is a gas exporter and consumes only one-eighth of gas produced, and believes that the Parliament requires the political powers to determine our own energy future and ensure that our energy resources benefit the people of Scotland."
I speak in support of Allan Wilson's amendment, but I will comment first on Alex Johnstone's motion.
Let us consider the construction of new nuclear power stations and let us nail that as an option once and for all. Nuclear electricity generation is expensive. It is also dangerously susceptible to both accidents and terrorism. It is not carbon free and it depends on an imported material—uranium. It does not guarantee uninterrupted base-load. Perhaps we should probe more deeply why people are hellbent on pushing the nuclear option in the face of all the arguments against it.
We should be sensitive to the effect of our energy choices on our global relationships. I would rather offer developed sustainable energy technology to the rest of the world than use nuclear power myself while denying it to others, whatever justification I may think I have for so doing.
I am sorry to say that in this debate, as in others, new nuclear has been a dangerous distraction when we should, as the Executive amendment says, concentrate on developing
"a wide range of renewable energy technologies",
tackling the waste of increasingly expensive energy,
"tackling fuel poverty"
and sorting out priorities for future investment.
Scotland has the resources, the marine expertise, the marine energy expertise and the manufacturing capability to develop a world-leading industry that would bring new jobs and profits. The Carbon Trust published a report yesterday that said:
"Marine energy could provide up to 20 per cent of the UK's current electricity needs and become cost-competitive with conventional and other renewable types of energy generation in the long term—given the right level of investment now."
The minister mentioned other potential options, such as biomass. Our farmers, who face a changing situation in their economic lives, would like us to develop that more.
Energy efficiency could reduce demand by 30 per cent. It makes sense to tackle fuel poverty by insulating houses and not just by giving people more money to burn as energy prices rise.
Microrenewables offer huge potential to reduce household bills and demand for centrally generated electricity.
All the options that the member has mentioned are important and viable, but does she suggest that they are capable in themselves of supplying 100 per cent of our electricity demand 100 per cent of the time?
I am confident that if we spent the money that we would invest in developing new nuclear power stations on developing clean coal technology, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency and all the other measures such as microrenewables and biomass instead, we could meet our energy demands sustainably for ever.
The ministerial foreword to the Department of Trade and Industry's energy review document says:
"Decisions to be made over the next few years by government and the private sector will have a big influence on our energy future for decades to come."
As an aside, I point out that the private sector will not touch nuclear with a bargepole. We should make the right decisions, ignore the nuclear cul-de-sac and use our resources to get on with the sensible and sustainable energy options that are available to us.
I am a loyal Labour member and I am particularly loyal to the Labour minister who is present, so I am prepared to support his amendment, because it endorses the UK energy review and acknowledges the need to meet Scotland's future energy needs. That is what the debate is all about: security of energy supplies for households and businesses; reducing emissions of carbon dioxide; and employment for people in an important Scottish industry.
The big, inescapable issue is that 2,342MW of generating capacity from Cockenzie and Hunterston B is close to the end of its design life and another 2,304MW at Longannet is not far behind. If we want secure electricity supplies in future, and if we want to keep Scotland's share of the British electricity generation industry, we must start the long process of planning for new base-load generators. Before we can do that, we need decisions about the generators that we want.
Unlike Nora Radcliffe, I honestly believe that we need a balanced mix of energy for the future. I strongly support the Executive's policy of maximising the potential for renewables. I supported the Robin rigg wind farm when I was a member of the Robin Rigg Offshore Wind Farm (Navigation and Fishing) (Scotland) Bill Committee and I support appropriate wind farms in my constituency, even when they are unpopular. I doubt whether the Executive's target of generating 40 per cent of energy from renewables is achievable, but by all means we should try. The target is important and I wish to be positive about it.
As I come from a former coalfield constituency, I am keen on clean coal technology, too. However, I am acutely aware of justified public opposition to inappropriate opencast mining and we should be concerned about excessive dependency on imported coal.
I am also enthusiastic about energy efficiency and insulation—I agree with Nora Radcliffe about that.
All that is very fine, but it will not make up for the loss of 4,646MW when the power stations that I mentioned have to be decommissioned in just a few years' time. Even if we reach the ambitious target of 40 per cent of energy from renewables, we will still need to supply the remaining 60 per cent from base-load generating stations. If we fail to take sensible decisions about new base-load stations soon, we will create an electricity shortage that could mean market-driven increases in electricity prices and would mean a risk of power cuts and the loss to Scotland of many electricity supply jobs.
What are the options? Clean coal technology has some potential, but supplies of imported gas and oil are increasingly expensive and insecure, and hydrocarbons cause emissions of greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. That must stop.
What about nuclear? The Executive amendment is right to refer to the big issue of permanent safe storage for nuclear waste. Nirex told the cross-party group on the nuclear industry last week that it will be expensive but perfectly feasible to construct a permanent national repository for the inherited legacy of nuclear waste. The cost of making that store big enough to take the waste from a new generation of nuclear power stations would be marginal.
In those circumstances, the UK Government is right to address its inherited responsibility for existing nuclear waste. In that context, it is right and proper that the review of options to meet our future needs for electricity without carbon dioxide emissions includes the nuclear option. When the decision is taken on permanent storage of nuclear waste on the basis of the best scientific evidence—as it must be—the condition on storage in the Executive's policy on nuclear power will be fulfilled. If the UK Government opted for new nuclear stations to meet our future needs, it would be perverse for the Scottish Executive to sacrifice Scottish interests by refusing to allow any new stations to be built in Scotland.
You must close.
People who live around Torness, Hunterston or Chapelcross would welcome new reactors, so why would our Executive spite the minister's and my constituents by insisting that Scotland should import all its nuclear electricity up the wires from England?
You must close.
That cannot be allowed to happen. I support the Executive amendment and the Conservative motion.
We have a timing difficulty. I will call Alex Neil, to be followed by Phil Gallie. The remaining members will have only three minutes each, so please tailor your speeches now.
It is a great pity that we do not yet have the document that is to be published this afternoon on Scotland's future energy supply and demand requirements as currently forecast, because the starting point for the debate on energy must be at what point Scotland will face a gap between its energy supply and its energy demand. We are debating how—if and when we reach that position—we should close the gap between demand and supply. Until we quantify the gap, we cannot answer questions about how and when to close it. I hope that, when we have the next energy debate, we are much more factually informed and have the forecasts for supply and demand.
I acknowledge that people such as John Home Robertson honestly believe in the nuclear option, but I totally disagree with him. He was right to say that we cannot rely on imported coal and several members have said that we cannot rely on imported gas. However, if we take the nuclear option, we will end up relying on imported uranium. The fact is that the worldwide supply of uranium is estimated to last only 40 years. On previous estimates, Scotland will not face an energy gap until about 2025. Indeed, the extension to the life of Torness that has been announced means that Scotland probably will not face an energy gap until beyond 2025. From now until 2025 is 20 years and 20 years is half of 40 years, so by the time Scotland faces an energy gap—
Will the member give way?
I would usually be delighted to take an intervention, but I have only three minutes.
By the end of the timeframe that John Home Robertson is talking about for the development of new nuclear facilities, there will be only a 20-year worldwide supply of uranium left. That fact, combined with the threat of a terrorist attack on nuclear installations, the cost of nuclear power and the fact that we do not yet have a sensible answer to the waste problem, makes the nuclear option unviable on at least four or five counts.
That brings me to my final point. In three months' time, the outcome of the UK energy review will be announced. The chief scientific adviser to Tony Blair has already let the cat out of the bag. In Downing Street, the decision has already been taken in principle to go for the nuclear option. The key to the difference between Downing Street's decision and Scotland's decision is that Scotland does not need or want nuclear power, so there is no reason why we should have it forced on us.
To my mind, the debate on energy is all-important. Energy is a key issue for the Scottish Parliament and the national Government at Westminster to address. I identify with every word of John Home Robertson's speech and will be able to curtail my own a little by not repeating much of what he said.
There are three main issues. The first is climate change, the second relates to a European initiative that I applaud—the Lisbon agenda—and security of energy supply, and the third is the genuine problem of nuclear waste, which must be tackled.
There is no doubt that, in future, we will have to use a range of means of generation to combat climate change. At the moment, we use known technology, but to meet the Government's targets we are considering the use of technology that—except in the case of wind—is still developing. That is not good enough if we are to meet the requirements of the Lisbon agenda and ensure that we have security of energy supply. We must confront the issue globally. With great respect to the nationalists, Scotland cannot consider only its own energy requirements. If nothing else, we are part of Great Britain—that is a geographical fact. We cannot be isolated on energy.
The present wind technology means that back-up from conventional power sources must always be available if we are to have security of supply. That is a fact of life. When I crossed the Forth bridge into Fife last Tuesday, I noticed that all four units at Longannet power station were showing signs that they were on or had been on in the immediate past. I thought about how Kincardine power station, which could be seen over to the left of the bridge, was no more. In fact, Fife used to have five power stations. In my days in the power industry, there were stations at Townhill, Methil and Kelty. Those small, high-polluting stations have gone because they were not felt to be adequate to meet future needs.
Whichever way we consider the problem, we must acknowledge that nuclear power offers a safe option. Richard Lochhead mentioned Chernobyl, but that has been the world's only major nuclear disaster. It happened in Russia and another accident could happen in another land at any given time. The fact that the UK had nuclear expertise meant that we were able to help the Russians to tackle a global problem. Richard Lochhead should take that on board. We cannot isolate ourselves on nuclear power.
When we consider future nuclear generation, we must look back on the success of our industry in Scotland. Our nuclear power stations at Chapelcross, Hunterston and Torness have consistently and safely ensured security of supply. The local communities have no fear of those facilities and would welcome their expansion, if that were to be a factor.
What is most important is that we take a long-term view of our energy sources. We talk about fuel poverty and its effects on the elderly. Given that we recognise that we will need heat and light into the future, we should not deprive future generations by opting for technologies that have not yet been fully developed. Nora Radcliffe said that it is necessary to ensure that homes are properly insulated. We have known and have been doing something about that for years. Although that is part of the solution, it is not the whole solution.
It is extremely difficult to have a mature debate when Conservative members provide such misinformation. The CORWM report is a draft report that is on that body's website; it has not been leaked. If we are to take a correct stance on nuclear power, although we must listen to all sides, we must listen very carefully when experts make statements.
Phil Gallie mentioned what happened at Chernobyl. Although that event took place 20 years ago, there are still nine farms in Scotland that are under restrictions as a result of it. That is how devastatingly dangerous nuclear power is. I find it quite offensive for Alex Johnstone to say, with a smirk on his face, that nuclear power is clean. It is not.
One of the most important points to bear in mind is that electricity makes up only a small proportion of our final energy consumption. Figures that the DTI released last year show that 18 per cent—less than a fifth—of our final energy use is in the form of electricity. That means that even in Scotland, nuclear power accounts for less than 7 per cent of final energy use. It is widely accepted that we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, so it is clear that nuclear power could never deliver anything like those savings, even if it were carbon free.
Will the member give way?
No, I do not have time.
Nuclear power is not carbon free, it is not cheap, it is not safe and it is not sustainable. Any objective assessment of nuclear power will come to those conclusions. It is hopelessly naive to suppose that we will ever be able to tackle energy policy simply by talking about electricity. We need to talk about the energy that is used in transport, the energy that is used in industry and the energy that is used in the home.
Other members have spoken about the amount of energy efficiency that is available to be captured. The Conservative party—the party for business—will be interested to learn that the Scottish Executive estimates that Scottish businesses waste £1.3 billion every year through energy inefficiency. Does any member think that that is acceptable and that businesses can afford to throw away so much money?
Energy policy is about much more than providing a supply of electricity. We need to be innovative and imaginative, not lazy and complacent. New nuclear power stations would be a distraction and an admission of failure—an admission that we could not be bothered to think things through properly. We need to apply our minds and find the right solution because the rewards for us all will be enormous.
My first point is that at least the Tories are honest—at least they commit themselves by stating clearly that they are in favour of nuclear power and new nuclear power stations. We know that although Labour is pretending that it is not in favour of nuclear power, its members will all end up on John Home Robertson's side when it comes to the vote, because that is what Westminster will tell them to do.
The surprising aspect of the Tories' advocacy of nuclear power and new nuclear power stations is not their use of the political argument but their use of the economic argument. The liabilities of Britain's two nuclear generators, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd and British Energy, are £7 billion more than the assets that they have set aside to pay for them. In a free market economy, those two companies would have been bankrupt by now. In fact, British Energy should have declared itself bankrupt in 2002 when it was threatening to go into liquidation because it did not have the money to go on. The only reason why it did not go bankrupt was that the Government stepped in and offered the company £650 million as a bridging grant. The fact that the money was given as a grant and not a loan shows that the Government did not expect to get it back.
The Government has taken responsibility for all nuclear waste processing at a cost of between £150 million and £200 million. Again, taxpayers' money is being used to subsidise private companies. If we were talking about a shipyard, car plant or electronics company, the Tories would be up in arms at the idea of using taxpayers' money to subsidise companies that pay dividends to their shareholders—for example, British Energy paid out £48 million in the same year as it said that it was going bankrupt. How on earth can the Tories defend public subsidy being given to that sort of company?
The argument is clear: the production of nuclear energy is not a profitable venture. Have the Tories changed their philosophy so much that they want to sink more and more public money into doomed companies that cannot make a profit? In fact, before we build even one new nuclear power station, we have to deal with the even higher cost of disposing of the 60 million tonnes of plutonium that no one knows what to do with. It will be very expensive to deal with that.
I have a question for the Tories. Why are they in favour of public subsidy being given to BNFL and British Energy when nuclear power is so expensive to produce and when they are not in favour of giving public subsidy to other industries? My position on the issue is clear: I am in favour of public subsidy. Margaret Thatcher would be shocked to hear of the deviation that the Scottish Tories have taken in a free market economy. I ask the Tories to answer the point in their summing up.
It is difficult to make a coherent contribution on this complex subject in just three minutes, so I will make only a couple of points. First, I cannot share the enthusiasm of colleagues that we should rush headlong into a nuclear future. Secondly, I despair at the lack of political support among Tory members for putting energy efficiency at the top of our agenda. Thirdly, we need to have a balanced energy policy that looks at some of the new and exciting opportunities, on which, as Allan Wilson outlined, the Executive is leading the way.
Energy policy has to be about more than renewables. I have heard a lot of talk about security of supply this morning. It is important that we do not get fixated on electricity alone. Some exciting things are happening at the moment, even on the issue of the security of electricity supply. For example, Denmark is looking at 50 per cent of its electricity production being supplied through decentralised energy networks. One of the important debates that Scotland needs to have is on energy supply and electricity networks, but we have not even started that public debate; we are way behind on the issue.
The real problem that we must face up to is our fixation with big power stations—regardless of whether they are nuclear or coal fired. I accept that big power stations have a part to play in the debate, but our fixation on them means that we are constantly being diverted from looking at the range of solutions that are out there.
Will the member give way?
No, I cannot give way in a three-minute speech.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution looked at a range of energy scenarios in a recent report on the subject. I suggest that colleagues take a long, hard look at the report, whose recommendations provide options for a nuclear-free future.
Many difficult questions have to be resolved. The UK Government's performance and innovation unit has suggested that the cost-effective potential for energy efficiency is 30 per cent of our final energy demand. That should be the starting point for our debates on energy.
We are wasting our precious and expensive energy resources and that is the wrong approach to take. We need to put energy efficiency at the top of the agenda and we must do that with some urgency. Energy efficiency is good for both businesses and householders; it is a key part of the solution to fuel poverty in Scotland.
Climate change demands that we start with energy efficiency and our CO2 demands. Energy efficiency should be what drives our housing and other building procurement and design and our future industrial and wider economic performance. We have to buy ourselves time and not fall for the simple, easy, quick fix that the Conservatives have offered us today in their motion.
Solar panels are being used in Edinburgh to create hydrogen through water electrolysis. Other exciting work is being done in Shetland. A lot of that new work will give us solutions for the future. We have to look at a balanced range of mechanisms to deal with supply and demand. That has to be where we go in future.
Allan Wilson outlined the excellent work that the Executive is doing. We have to continue that work and not be diverted from it. That has to be our top priority today. Let us reject the Tory motion and vote for the Executive amendment.
In such a debate, it is hard not to be emotive or to polarise the arguments. I know that because last summer I met children from Chernobyl when they visited my constituency for the one week in the year that they spend in an unpolluted environment.
Of course, there are practical arguments against nuclear. Briefly, one such argument is that no private investor in isolation has built a nuclear power station anywhere in the world since what happened at Three Mile island and Chernobyl. When President Bush's Energy Policy Act was passed by Congress in August 2005, he said that it would reverse the fact that no new power stations had been built in the US since the 1970s. However, the act included several massive incentives to encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants. The incentives included production tax credits, loan guarantees and risk protection for the companies that decided to pursue the first new reactors.
Nuclear power plants are not economically viable as investment opportunities unless there is massive Government intervention, as there is in Finland. Furthermore, our experience in this country tells us that, once they are built, they are uninsurable. The low unit price of nuclear generation has to be offset against the financial cost of managing construction, the cost of decommissioning and the cost of waste management for many generations to come.
However, the debate is not a straightforward one. Even though I oppose new nuclear across the UK and especially in Scotland, I know that, as other members said, we cannot afford to be wholly reliant on gas to meet our energy needs. As Brian Wilson, the former Minister of State for Energy, outlined very well at the weekend, research shows that, without diversification in generation, the UK will become reliant on gas for 70 per cent of its energy needs, 90 per cent of which would be imported. That is a concern.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, I do not have time.
Any observer of the recent disputes between Russia and the Ukraine and, most recently, between Russia and Finland will be very sensitive to the insecurity that such heavy reliance on importation can cause.
These are big strategic decisions for the UK and we must get them right. However, Executive ministers must be applauded—Ross Finnie, Jim Wallace and Nicol Stephen in particular—for taking Scotland forward faster and further than their ministerial colleagues south of the border have done. We have ambitious targets in Scotland and we are matching them with considerable investment and with research and industrial support under the green jobs strategy. However, we can and we must go further.
On Saturday, I will chair the first Borders energy summit. I put the summit together with great support from Scottish Borders Council, Heriot-Watt University, the Borders construction industry forum, the Southern Upland Partnership and others. For the first time, policy makers, practitioners and researchers will come together to discuss how we in the Borders can have a fully integrated energy strategy for the area involving Government, business and the community. On Sunday, the Southern Upland Partnership has arranged a series of exciting workshops and seminars, which members of the public can attend and in which they can discuss energy needs and the barriers to a more radical approach being taken.
In common with other members, I find that energy is one of the themes running through my constituency casework. I refer to the damp homes that constituents have to endure before their houses are repaired, controversial wind farm applications and the lack of central heating and proper insulation in many older people's homes. Too many of my constituents are fuel poor. They live in housing stock that is desperately in need of insulation. Too many people, particularly those on low incomes and the elderly, suffer in the winter months because of poor heating and fuel bills that eat into low fixed incomes.
However, close to home, the Borders has pioneers who are making changes. They include the Berwickshire Housing Association with its hydrogen cell scheme in social housing and the Buccleuch Estates with its biomass energy investment. Although that is all very exciting, we have the potential to go further and to become self-sufficient in energy. Indeed, in the public sector and social housing, we should consider generating our own electricity that could be bought back and used locally. We should use the regulatory regime more innovatively. I am pleased that the director of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets Scotland will be at the Borders energy summit on Saturday to give us his advice.
In effect, the Borders could be off-grid. We could reduce our reliance on others and mainstream the benefits of clean and sustainable energy, whether that is from biomass, ground source heating, wind or micro hydro. If areas such as the Borders take a more radical approach, there will be benefits for all.
In their motion, the Tories avoided the hard questions. For example, they avoided the question of what the cost was of developing nuclear power in the past. They do not tell us how much the taxpayer paid to do that, nor do they measure that cost against the cost of developing renewables. In the main, the funding for renewables seems to be coming from the private purse, albeit with some Government subsidy.
The fact that a huge amount was spent on developing the nuclear industry in the past distorts the debate. The Tories will not admit that its position is completely untenable. As Michael Meacher—who, of course, they will say is biased—said last weekend, building new nuclear power stations is
"financially insane, unless there is absolutely no alternative".
There is an alternative. The problem that the Tories have is that they consider the British context, in which large centres of population can be served by large units. In Scotland, we have a much more dispersed population. We need to consider the process of serving that population and accessing the wider market for what we can produce from clean sources. The Tory argument is skewed away from the reality of meeting the needs of Scottish constituents.
Several Labour and Liberal Democrat members talked about off-grid potential and decentralising the power that people have over energy production. I challenge those members to support the findings of inquiries of the Environment and Rural Development Committee and the Enterprise and Culture Committee into the potential for that. The silence from those members is deafening. We await their response with interest.
Labour has put some Scottish Executive money into ROCs and wave and tidal energy development in Orkney. I am happy about that, but the amount of money is minuscule, compared with the huge sums that were spent on developing the nuclear industry. Until we have power over energy policy in Scotland, we are not going to get the Government backing that is required to put the renewables sector on a much firmer footing.
Nora Radcliffe mentioned energy efficiency. How much carbon would be saved by investing £X million in energy efficiency, rather than in a new nuclear power station? Energy experts estimate that seven times as much carbon would be saved, reducing the requirement for the power to be produced. The Tories do not have one argument that stacks up financially.
Energy security in Scotland is about our ability to organise our tremendous resources. Offshore wind is much more predictable than the Tories admit. Companies such as Talisman, which is prepared to invest something in the region of £1 billion in the Moray firth Beatrice scheme, do not throw their money around lightly. They see offshore energy as part of an energy mix. That mix has to include biomass, which we can develop here, and other energy sources.
The issue of access through the grid to a market for that energy affects any kind of production. At present, there is no guarantee that the smaller companies that we want to encourage can access the grid without having to pay a ransom to get their supply in.
You must close now.
By privatising the grid and making it a free market organisation, the Government is causing us in Scotland to have this stupid debate, which does not address the reality and the potential—
I have to stop you.
I agree that the energy study that will be published this afternoon will shed light on the matter. I hope that as a consequence we will have more light and less heat in future.
We cannot divorce Scotland from the rest of the UK. We have a single energy market here in Scotland. We acknowledge that nuclear power plays an important role in that single market in generating electricity for Scotland. We await the findings of CORWM in July. We will engage with the UK energy review, rather than speculate wildly on its outcome and possible implications for Scotland.
The energy review will assess progress against four goals: to put the UK on a path to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by about 2050, with real progress made by 2020; to maintain the reliability of energy supplies; to promote competitive markets in the UK and beyond; and to ensure that every home is heated adequately and affordably.
Is the Scottish Government going to make a submission to the UK energy review?
Yes and part of that submission will refer to the energy study that we have commissioned.
There has been a lot of discussion about waste, which is important. We have said that we will not sanction the construction of new nuclear power stations until the issue of waste is resolved. We have a legacy of carbon waste. To date, no safe disposal route for carbon waste has been found. Our industrial society has historically dumped that waste into the earth's atmosphere in the shape of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That is why many experts from Kyoto to Montreal, such as Professor King and James Lovelock, say that the biggest danger to future generations is climate change and greenhouse gases.
Sarah Boyack is absolutely right to say that there is now a broad scientific consensus that the climate is changing as a result of burning fossil fuels. The 22nd report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which was published in 2000, recognised that and said that the proven ways of generating electricity on a large scale without producing carbon dioxide are nuclear fission, large-scale inland water power and tidal barrages.
Is the minister saying that the whole life cycle of nuclear power does not create any CO2 emissions and that it is clean?
I am not arguing the case for or against in that context. I am saying that the reason why Professor King and James Lovelock, who are environmentalists like Shiona Baird, support the nuclear option is that it combats the effects of climate change.
Shiona Baird's prospective allies in the SNP claimed that the CORWM report was a leak. It is of course nothing of the sort. The Greens have to examine their prospective relationship with the nationalists, the alliance between the Greens and the yellows—the environmentalists on one hand and the environmental cowards on the other. From what Richard Lochhead said, it sounds like the SNP wants to burn more gas and therefore increase CO2 emissions. If the oil companies shout "Jump", Alex Salmond shouts, "How high?" Richard Lochhead and Alex Salmond want to hoover up every last fish in the North sea and ignore all the scientific advice. I put it to Shiona Baird that the relationship or love affair—or flirtation, as Patrick Harvie put it—is nothing less than attempted rape by the nationalists.
Nora Radcliffe made an important point on the Carbon Trust's report on marine energy, which is a welcome endorsement of the potential of marine renewables, which is very much in line with the Executive's plans for the sector. The Executive and the Carbon Trust will work together further to promote marine renewables.
I recommend heartily that everyone make their contribution to the UK energy review.
I am sure that members will agree that our motion on future energy policy is framed in the most reasonable terms. In his opening speech, my colleague Alex Johnstone invited members to debate the subject with open minds. In our motion, we do not proclaim the superiority of one mode of electricity generation over another. We simply ask that all options be considered.
It is fair to say that, as Rob Gibson pointed out, in assessing the overall balance sheet, many cost factors are attributed to the development of the nuclear industry—historical and prospective—which have to be taken into account. That is why it is important that there is transparency about the cost implications and why people must approach the debate with open minds. It is not a matter of coal against gas, or wind power against nuclear energy; it is about ensuring that we have a secure and affordable supply of the energy on which our prosperity and way of life depend, not least for the sake of those citizens who live in lower-income households and for whom fuel poverty is a major issue.
I am an agnostic on the question of how we achieve that secure and affordable supply. Nothing would please me more than to see the development of technologies that would supply all our energy needs at affordable prices from domestic renewable sources, be they wind, wave, tidal, biomass or solar power. Sarah Boyack made some useful points on localised generation and the importance of energy efficiency.
Mr McLetchie mentioned wind power and spoke about his support for renewables. Why have the Conservatives quite shamefully and blatantly campaigned against every wind farm application across Scotland?
That is a gross distortion. The member will find that the Conservative party has campaigned against extensive, large-scale and wholly inappropriate wind farm developments in certain parts of Scotland. We have done so because we cannot understand what is green or sustainable about despoiling the scenery and natural beauty of Scotland for the purpose of generating expensive windmill electricity, which is sustainable only at considerable cost to our hard-pressed taxpayers and overcharged consumers. That is what informs our attitude to that issue.
The evidence is that there are still many closed minds in the Parliament on the subject of future energy and a determination on the part of some to rule out a nuclear option. That is all the more staggering when one considers the concerns about the security of gas supply from abroad—which were recently exemplified by the situation with regard to the Russian Federation—the significant contribution to electricity generation that is made by nuclear power stations, which will have to be replaced, and the major contribution that nuclear generation makes to achieving our CO2 emissions target and fulfilling the international environmental obligations to which the previous Conservative Government committed us at Kyoto.
Will the member give way?
Sorry, I have no time.
It seems to me, having listened to the speeches of Richard Lochhead and other members of the SNP, that the attitude of members of the SNP—which is that they object to nuclear power on the basis that Scotland generates far more electricity than it consumes—is extremely curious. The SNP wants us to be an independent nation, but its policy would prevent some of our most successful companies from exporting their product. Characteristically, we were about five seconds into Mr Lochhead's speech when we heard all about Chernobyl. The fact of the matter is that the accident at Chernobyl happened because the communists wanted to build nuclear energy on the cheap. The accident was the result of a failure of a failed political system. The design of that system did not encompass a building to contain any leak that might happen. As Phil Gallie, with his expertise in the electricity industry, pointed out, the safety record of the nuclear industry in this country is outstanding.
Will the member give way?
The minister is welcome to make what will be his most important contribution of the day.
On the issue of the nationalists' policy on the relationship between energy supply and consumption, does Mr McLetchie agree that if we applied the same criterion to the whisky industry—which would mean that we would produce only for our own consumption—that would have a negative impact on Scotch whisky exports?
It would have a devastating impact. However, Mr Wilson and I would make a noble effort to try to plug the gap and sustain employment.
Those who have declared their outright opposition to nuclear power stations have a degree of honesty. However, I cannot say the same thing about Her Majesty's Government and the Executive, which hide behind the fiction that decisions cannot be taken on new nuclear power stations until the issue of waste disposal has been resolved. That is nonsense because it implies that there are no such issues to be resolved at present. We all know that that is far from being the case. Something like 90 per cent of the waste already has to be disposed of. The issue has to be resolved in any case and I have no doubt that it will be.
In that context, all the expert evidence—for example, the report from the Council for Science and Technology that was published in May last year—shows that waste products from the 10 new nuclear power stations that are required to replace the current nuclear component of the generation mix would add no more than 10 per cent to the existing volume of radioactive waste over a 60-year period. That report goes on to say:
"The issue of nuclear waste from modern reactors might therefore be seen as a smaller barrier to positive decisions on new power stations than that currently perceived. Furthermore, we believe that any ultimate solution derived for the existing legacy should be suitable to accommodate the waste from new nuclear plants."
Quite so.
We all know that, on this issue, as on many others, the Scottish Executive is adept at playing for time. However, time is not on our side, as John Home Robertson pointed out in his sensible and balanced speech. We need to take decisions in the near future because of the timescales involved. Therefore, I urge Her Majesty's Government to make up its mind on the energy policy of Britain, of which I am proud that we Scots remain a part, and I urge the Scottish Executive to co-operate in the implementation of that policy and not to frustrate it, so that we in Scotland can play our part in securing an affordable supply of energy for ourselves and future generations.