Scotland's Future Energy needs

Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I should declare an interest in that I receive support from the Sustainable Energy Partnership for my current private Member's Bill.

I accept that the general election got in the way of proceedings, but does my hon. Friend agree that the report might have carried more weight if the Committee had called more than one independent witness who is well known for having a particular view in favour of nuclear power? Professor Lovelock is a well-known scientist, but I am not sure that he is an expert on the economics of the energy industry, which, after all, is what the report should have been about.

Mr. Sarwar :
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. His views, along with those of other members of the Committee, will be taken on board...

David Mundell : Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right, and if he had listened carefully to what I said, he would know that it is the tone of Mr. McConnell's approach to the nuclear issue that needs to change. Mr. McConnell needs to make it clear that if the UK Government determine that we will have future generation nuclear power, such a power station would be welcomed in Scotland. That is what I want to hear Mr. McConnell say...

Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op):
The hon. Gentleman has a great deal of passion about this issue, and people have been passionate about it in different parts of the debate. However, it is important for all of us to try to be dispassionate in analysing the facts and figures.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that anyone could build a nuclear power station now, if they thought that it was a financially sensible thing to do. That is not happening, so it is widely accepted that to have the development of nuclear power would require some sort of subsidy or intervention in the market to make it possible. Can the hon. Gentleman, being—from time to time—a good right-wing Tory, tell us which type of market intervention or how large a subsidy he would want to see to make nuclear power possible?

David Mundell :
Mr. Amess, I am being characterised in all sorts of ways this afternoon, and being given designations that are not necessarily accurate.

The reason that no-one is proceeding now with nuclear development is that it clearly does not have general Government support. Indeed, in Scotland it clearly does not have Scottish Executive support, because noises are not being made to support and promote the industry. As I have just said, if Mr. Jack McConnell stands up and says that he would welcome and, indeed, encourage new nuclear development in Scotland—with all the jobs and economic development that such a station would bring to the area in which it was located—then we would see a seminal change regarding the industry...

Mark Lazarowicz :
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again, given the number of interventions he has taken. No one suggests that wind energy can meet all the energy needs of Scotland or anywhere else, but on the question of wind energy should he not bear in mind the latest figures from the Department of Trade and Industry, which suggest that the cost for onshore wind is now significantly lower than that for new nuclear build? The projection for offshore wind is that its cost, too, could fall below that of nuclear by 2020.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that the report is a little too critical of the possibility of renewable energy, which it describes as somewhat uncertain? That contrasts with its description of nuclear fusion as a possible major source of power in the not too distant future, which is somewhat optimistic to say the least.

John Robertson :
It all depends on what my hon. Friend means. If 30 or 40 years is in the distant future, that possibility is in the distant future. However, we have a short time in which to secure the world's climate, so we may not be able to wait for fusion

1st December 2005, Column 151-2, 158-9, 163 Westminster Hall