Nuclear Power

HL Deb 06 May 2004 vol 660 cc1257-72

1.50 p.m.

Lord Tombs

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what practical measures are required to keep the nuclear power option open, in accordance with declared government policy.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a tacit recognition by Government that we may need to maintain the nuclear option in order to meet our commitments on climate change. Others, including me, while convinced that nuclear power will be essential for that purpose, regard the security of future energy supplies as even more pressing and the proposed reliance on imported gas as imprudent. But, whatever their protestations, the Government have come perilously close to closing the nuclear option. That has occurred through a combination of disjointed government policy decisions and unvoiced procrastination, both of which continue today.

We have enjoyed the benefits of civil nuclear power in this country for almost 50 years, during which time nuclear stations have generated almost 2,000 terrawatt hours of electricity, so avoiding the emission of around 2 billion tonnes of CO₂, if that electricity had been generated from coal. That is roughly four times our annual CO₂ emissions. The safety record of the industry has been impeccable. The events at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have not been replicated here, for which we must be grateful to the designers, constructors, operators and safety regulators.

In spite of those achievements, the industry is becalmed in a fog of government indecision, in contrast to the situation abroad. British Energy was saddled with impositions which can only be described as perverse, including local rates much higher than that for any other form of electricity, high fuel reprocessing costs and climate change levy—for an industry which generates no CO₂. As though that were not enough to hamstring the company there came the introduction by DTI and Ofgem of the new trading arrangements, NETA, which produced a reduction in the wholesale price of electricity of 40 per cent. The effect of those disconnected impositions was to bring about the financial collapse of British Energy; and the report by the National Audit Office well illustrates the casual approach of DTI in that unhappy development.

The financial problems of British Energy are sometimes used by opponents of nuclear power to suggest that the industry is uneconomic. No form of generation could be operated profitably under such a regime. We are left with an industry of which we should be proud, which has been "rescued" from a government-created crisis and which is now effectively operating on a care and maintenance basis at a time when its contribution to the country's future prosperity and security has never been so sorely needed.

The privatisation of electricity supply removed any sense of strategy from the fragmented industry; and that responsibility now lies uneasily between Ofgem, with its devotion to short-term pricing, and a mixture of departments which includes DTI, Defra, ODPM and the Treasury—a combination which is rich in advisory committees and short on action. DTI nominally occupies the lead role but patently fails to exercise it. This simply will not do. Secure energy supply, particularly electricity, lies at the heart of the country's economic life and requires a better informed and more purposeful approach.

But let us turn from the present situation to the practicalities of, to quote the Government's hope, "preserving the nuclear option". The first need is to see that future investment in generating plant is enabled through the market. At present this is not the case, with the notable exception of wind power, where a complex system of subsidies has been introduced to induce investment which would not otherwise take place. Here, vast numbers of wind generators are to be constructed offshore, with the aim of reducing CO₂ emissions to meet our international commitments and ambitions. In his helpful response to my question in the House yesterday, the Minister indicated that the Government estimate of the total extra cost to electricity consumers by 2020 will be around £30 billion. That represents more than twice the total construction costs of around 10 gigawatts of modern nuclear power stations, with the advantage of continuous supply and sufficient to replace our present ageing nuclear stations. I suspect that many people would be disappointed and dissatisfied with a choice made on their behalf to place all the chips on wind rather than nuclear power.

The tariff structure has to be changed to attract future investment, perhaps by reverting to the earlier practice of basing tariffs on long-run, not short-run, marginal costs. But even success in this field would require a declared strategy, perhaps based on government consents to construction or other means. The industry is now so fragmented that all strategic matters find their way to inter-departmental government committees with their inevitable discontinuity of transient Ministers and civil servants and their patent lack of technical knowledge. The electricity consumer and the country deserve a better fate. This is a highly complex industry, not a table-top game for politicians and economists.

Some serious thought has to be given by Government and Opposition to this decision vacuum and an unquestioning reliance on market forces, which will not suffice, as is evidenced by the present government interventions. The Government could try to get their act together by reverting to an energy department, providing leadership and, it is to be hoped, coherence. I hope that they will do that. By such means, the idiosyncrasies of multiple Ministers and departments could be subordinated to a well considered strategy and would restore a welcome accountability.

The question of nuclear waste disposal has been the subject of determined procrastination by the Government for more than five years since a Select Committee inquiry, of which I had the honour to be chairman, reported. Since then other, more determined countries have proceeded vigorously and it is time that we followed suit. The problems are well understood and soluble; all that is needed is government action. It should be noted that a programme to replace our present nuclear capacity would increase the waste disposal volume by only 10 per cent over half a century of operation and would not affect the need for action today on a present problem which has to be tackled. To delay decisions on new nuclear capacity because of the waste disposal issue is irrational.

An important matter which is critical to any new nuclear programme is that of licensing, where safety is quite properly the dominant concern. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has an enviable record in that field and has served the nation well, but it suffers, as does the rest of the industry, from a shortage of skilled and experienced manpower which would delay implementation of a new programme. There is an urgent need to strengthen the NII's capabilities in order to start work on the presently competing modern reactors—the Westinghouse APR 1000, the General Electric simplified boiling water reactor and the Canadian Advanced CANDU, the last of which bears a strong resemblance to the SGHWR adopted by this country in the late 1970s and abandoned when the Government changed.

The United States Department of Energy has encouraged the formation of two consortia to develop the designs and safety cases of those reactors, with active support from the administration. We should watch this development closely and seek to take part, if only as observers. We must constantly bear in mind that through the BNFL acquisition of Westinghouse we occupy an important and potentially valuable position in the nuclear field and should seek to strengthen that in every possible way.

I have tried in this brief introduction to be objective and constructive in my examination of this important subject and I hope that the Minister will find it possible to reply in a similar vein. The practicalities of maintaining the nuclear option rest with government. There is a pressing need to establish a competence and leadership in energy matters within government and nowhere is this more urgent than in the nuclear field. Without determined action the nuclear option will steadily weaken. That would be a disastrous outcome to which the Government seem indifferent but which the nation cannot afford.

2 p.m.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for giving us another opportunity to talk about this matter. As always, he has made an extremely strong case. As this is a short debate, I shall be even briefer than I intended. I gather that there is not a new list; the Government have simply revised their arithmetic on how much time each speaker has. It is treating the House rather shabbily to allocate each speaker six minutes instead of eight.

Yesterday at Question Time I was struck by the following remark of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury: I am beginning to realise what fun I have missed by not taking part in the Energy Bill".—[Official Report, 5/4/04; col. 1101.] I am not sure that "fun" was the right word, but we certainly regretted not having a DTI Minister on that DTI Bill.

I seek to make only two points in this short debate. A solution to the long-term waste problem must be at least in sight before embarking on new nuclear build. The Government's chosen advisers in this field, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), was originally scheduled to report in 2005. However, I was startled to hear the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, say on Report that, the committee is due to report in 2006".—[Official Report, 18/3/04; col. 418.] I tabled a Question for Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who was then in charge of the Bill, asking: Why it is expected that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will not now report until 2006, when it had previously been announced that the Committee would report before the end of 2005". The noble Lord replied: CoRWM is scheduled to deliver its work programme proposals by the end of March 2004".—[Official Report, 31/3/04; col. WA 173.] I then wrote to the noble Lord to ask what was the problem. I have not yet received a reply. I rang his private office this morning to ask when I would get a reply. My letter was dated 6 April, today is 6 May, and I have still not had a reply. I find that rather shabby treatment. This morning I asked the Library to search the web again. Shortly after 11.30 a.m. I got a response: in CoRWM's 36-page Programme of Work 2004—2006, at page 11 the final schedule states that the fifth key output is "reporting and closure", and that the target date for the final output of "recommendations to Ministers" is 2006. That will have been nearly 10 years since the failure of the NIREX planning application in 1997. I share the indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. It simply is not good enough. Far too much time has been wasted in shilly-shallying.

Perhaps there is hope that it need not go as far as that. This morning there arrived on my desk the Nuclear Industry Association newsletter Industry Link, which states: With waste being seen as one of the primary obstacles to new nuclear build, CoRWM's recommendations could profoundly influence the future of the industry. Time is of the essence". It further states that CoRWM, want to extend the completion date from the end of 2005 to the end of 2006, but if the Government refuses, they will have to revise their strategy". I must ask the Minister: are Ministers really going to accept yet a further year's delay? When will the decision on that be announced?

My second point relates to the nuclear option. A week or two ago we had the annual report on the energy White Paper. On Report, in discussing a new clause, we referred to, among other things, the need to report on what was being done to keep the nuclear option open to avoid dependence on foreign skills and technology. In response, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said: My Lords, in the Sustainable Energy Act there is a requirement for an annual report which should cover everything raised in the Energy White Paper…That includes…keeping the nuclear option open. Therefore, we are already required to detail most of the issues—in practice, probably all the issues—included in the prescription".—[Official Report, 18/3/04; col 408.] By "prescription", he meant in the amendment. So what do we see in the White Paper? Absolutely nothing new. The paragraph in the annual report more or less repeats word for word what was in the White Paper. There has been no progress and no details. It is as if no steps were taken in 2003–04 to discharge that White Paper commitment.

I am being driven to conclude that, so long as the present Secretaries of State of the DTI and Defra remain in office, nothing will be done. They are not prepared to do or say anything that could presage new nuclear build. That is what we are up against. I find this a matter of profound anxiety.

2.6 p.m.

Lord Bradshaw

My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, by stressing the fact that it is a duty of government strategically to plan certain facilities, such as ports, water supply, energy and airports. At last they have come off the fence on airports; however, nothing is happening in the other areas, which are all extremely long-term industries. I am afraid that the cycle of doing things is right outside the electoral cycle and completely outside the five-yearly pricing reviews, if indeed they last five years, of industry regulators. Courageous government action is needed. It is amazing that a government with a majority the size of this one's shy away from taking tough decisions.

There is considerable doubt about renewables, and concern about the investment subsidies needed to support them. There is also doubt about the net benefit in CO₂ reduction from certain renewables, apart from wind farms, such as biomass. How definite are the Government about the security of our energy supplies anyway? How secure is the base load? It seems that we are getting increasingly nearer the margin. Before long, we will go over that margin, and there will he only one body at fault—Her Majesty's Government.

Sweden, which has eschewed nuclear power, has also faced up to the problem of decommissioning. I believe that it has not decommissioned anything because there is no secure substitute but nuclear power. How dependent are we on imported gas from inherently unstable regimes? Before long, terrorists of one sort or another will blow up supplies on which we are basing our future. How much is being done about fuel economy and combined heat and power? Precious little, judging from the answers that we get in this House. So far as concerns our nuclear capability, I am anxious to know how we can staff it, whether designs are available for which the Government have any preference or whether they are so far away from making a decision that they have not even made up their mind on that. How long would it take from deciding to go ahead to actually commissioning a new nuclear power station? I assume that new nuclear power stations can be built adjacent to existing stations, so at least we do not have to go on to a greenfield site and face all the resulting problems.

Like both previous speakers, we are extremely concerned about nuclear waste disposal. The decision seems to be ever postponed, when others are getting on and taking it. I shall be very brief, because the Minister owes the House a proper reply and plenty of time in which to give it. We need a strategy. It is absolutely dishonest to say that the French will build nuclear power stations and we shall rely on them, because it is not an issue that a government can shuffle off on to anybody else; they must make decisions themselves. I repeat that the matter must be taken beyond the electoral cycle. I seek some sort of cross-party consensus on how we should go ahead.

2.10 p.m.

Lord Oxburgh

My Lords, what has to be done to keep a particular technical specialist capability alive is a matter of experience and judgment. I suppose, almost inevitably, the relevant experience and judgment is not to be found within government, and must be looked for elsewhere. I suppose it is therefore subject to claims that it may represent vested interests. For what it is worth, I am neither pro-nuclear nor antinuclear. I believe passionately that the nuclear option must be kept open, because the problems that may have to be tackled by keeping it open are so important to us.

Looking at the state of the nuclear industry today, and the effort that goes into research, I see no chance of the nuclear option genuinely staying open. There is very little opportunity even to remain an intelligent customer for other people's technology, if that is what is at the back of the Government's mind. One must retain that capability at the very least, and there really is no sign that we can do it. The reason is that capability depends on people, and if one looks round the nuclear industry today—with the greatest respect to those in it—one cannot avoid the very clear impression that technical capability is very long in the tooth. As an academic discipline in this country, nuclear engineering is virtually dead. The fact that it is not totally dead is due to the support given to particular university departments by BNFL. But it is a close thing.

To build an academic department that can start a research programme and producing students will take five to seven years, even if one imports talent from outside. It will be 10 years before the first students can emerge from it. This is all part of what is needed to keep the nuclear option open. If we look at expenditure on research relevant to the nuclear industry in this country, it is a minute fraction of one per cent of that spent in other countries that run nuclear reactors. It is incredibly low. I do not see how the Government can conceivably justify this.

I hope that the Government have taken note of, and will pay attention to, the extremely careful report that was produced—admittedly with the support of BNFL—by an independent committee of experts with irreproachable credentials. That committee, which I think published its widely available report nine months ago, looked at what was necessary to keep a nuclear capability open. It said that, at a minimum, we needed an expenditure of around £20 million a year, about half of which could come from existing resources. So they were talking about an additional £10 million a year. That is not a large sum in the light of this country's current expenditure on research and development. I would put it to the Minister that if we seriously wish to keep this option open, rather than paying lip service, we must make at least that contribution from public funds to keep the research effort at that level.

2.14 p.m.

Baroness O'Cathain

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for raising this issue in an Unstarred Question for at least three reasons. First, he brings to this House enormous experience and expertise. Secondly, he gives those of us who have been seriously worried about the ambivalent view of this Government, and indeed other governments, towards nuclear power an opportunity to smoke out—or try to prise open with a pin—the Government's true feeling, if not policy, about nuclear power. Thirdly, by speaking on the Floor of this House, instead of in Grand Committee, more of our colleagues will be alerted to the apparent lack of urgency displayed about the future supply of electricity generation capacity in this country.

Linked to this last point, it is becoming apparent to me that the Grand Committee process is greatly diminishing the knowledge base of many of our fellow peers. People do not attend Grand Committee meetings, the proceedings do not appear on the monitors, and although the speeches in the debates on the amendments are recorded in Hansard, they are tucked away at the back of the Official Report, and I doubt that readership is high. I fear that we are in danger of reducing the effectiveness of the House by this process. This is not a debate in which to raise this issue, but where else can we do so?

Now that I have eroded yet more of the time we have, I will make a short yet, I hope, cogent speech on the subject of this debate.

Keeping the nuclear power option open is essential if we are not to have blackouts, brownouts or power "outages" in the not too distant future. An over-reliance on imported electricity is fraught with political, economic and logistical danger. The Government's reluctance to be brave—and I use that word advisedly—in not talking openly about the prospects for new nuclear power facilities has very damaging effects. Why would bright young scientists, physicists or engineers opt for a career in a nuclear power industry which has such minimal and half-hearted support from Government and, indeed, lacks endorsement or appreciation by Government? I am utterly convinced that we shall have to proceed with new nuclear build in the longer term. Where will we have the skills to effect that programme?

The Government have made the decision to support the retention and retraining of a core of nuclear experts, but quite frankly this is pathetic. A sum of a miserly £5 million has been set aside over four years. If my mathematics is correct, that amounts to 0.0000001 per cent of GDP, in order to "safeguard our future electricity supply". Even if I am a couple of noughts adrift—and I do not think that I am—it would be utterly hilarious if it were not so serious. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said in Grand Committee that, my honourable friend in the other place is aware of the representations that have been made about this figure, and he is looking at it again".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. GC 379.] May I ask the Minister if his honourable friend has looked at it again, and if he has come to the conclusion that it should be multiplied many, many times?

We are currently one of the major players in the world in the nuclear industry. We have built up a huge expertise, and it is being utilised overseas. If we let this level of knowledge and experience fall off, we shall lose our place at the international table. Other countries are powering forward with plans of a practical nature. I ask the Minister, where is the UK in all of this? And, as a supplementary, does he really care?

Does any politician care? The nuclear industry is one with an unusually long lead time where, even if decisions were taken this year to build and commission a new generation plant, the commencement of commercial operations would probably not take place until the tenure of the fourth or fifth government from now. Herein lies a problem, and it is not one to which we are unaccustomed; namely, the short-term attitude of governments, and their inability to look much beyond the next general election. This is where this House scores, and where we should continue to do so.

In the course of a debate in Grand Committee on the Energy Bill, the Government boasted about the UK's participation in research though the European Union's framework programme for research and development: UK participations totalled 266 and these received 21.6 million euros".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. GC 380.] Not exactly a huge sum. That boast will not stand up when the lights go out.

There is a most important point that seems to be disregarded by the Government, and it would be very practical to rectify this problem; namely, that nuclear is a renewable method of producing electricity. We could and would easily meet our emission targets if there were an increase in electricity generated by nuclear power. Conversely, if we allow our current nuclear capacity to close down without replacement, we shall never meet any of the emission targets.

I was one of the 2.8 million viewers of the BBC2 drama-documentary, "If…the lights go out", broadcast on 10 March. That programme cannot be shrugged off as scaremongering; UK audiences are more intelligent than that. It served a useful purpose in highlighting the problems. The website asked viewers whether Britain should keep nuclear power, and 76 per cent said, "Yes". That means that another practical measure would be to undertake a knowledge and information exercise to inform the country of the benefits of nuclear power. Safety has increased immeasurably, and, in other countries, that is recognised. It would be a practical measure to ensure that it is recognised here.

It has been an interesting but brief debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, stressed the importance of confidence and leadership. I would add joined-up government to that list. The noble Lord has done a great service in bringing the matter before the House. I thank him.

2.20 p.m.

Lord Ezra

My Lords, as has already been said, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for asking what practical measures are required to keep the nuclear option open. We debate against the background of the fact that nuclear energy now supplies 23 per cent of UK electricity. However, in 20 years' time, all but one—Sizewell B—will close. It will contribute only 2 per cent of UK electricity, so it is proper to ask how that gap is to be filled.

The Question does not ask us to discuss what other measures might be introduced but to consider what could be the future role for nuclear energy. If the nuclear option is effectively to be kept open, several steps must be taken. There are four that I consider to be of prime importance.

The first is a reduction in the capital cost of nuclear reactors. At present, a nuclear reactor produces electricity at two to three times the cost of a gas-fired station. As the noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Oxburgh, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, a good deal of work is going on new nuclear reactors. How soon can they be operational and reliable? I have been in the business long enough to remember the example of Dungeness B in the 1970s. It was an AGR reactor and encountered substantial delays and a massive cost overrun. If new nuclear reactors are to be introduced, we must be satisfied that they are reliable.

The second issue is radioactive waste management, to which the noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred. It is sad to reflect that the Select Committee on nuclear waste, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, reported in 1999 on a perfectly feasible solution—deep geological depositories—but, now five years later, we are still debating the issue. The committee on radioactive waste management may not report until the end of 2006. Noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred with great concern to that delay. It is an issue of prime importance, and things should be speeded up. Until it is resolved, we cannot keep the option open for nuclear power.

Thirdly, there is security. A new dimension to security is terrorism. How secure are existing and new stations likely to be? Obviously, details cannot be revealed. None the less, the public must be reassured that there will not be serious risk. I would like to hear what the Minister can say about that.

The fourth point has been referred to by several noble Lords: the preservation of the nuclear skills base. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, indicated the extent to which there had been a reduction in the number of people being trained in nuclear skills. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, also referred to it. It is of vital importance, if the option is to be kept option, that the skills should be maintained. Those skills will be required, in particular, in advice on the licensing of new designs for nuclear reactors.

I conclude by indicating that the aim of these and other measures must be to gain acceptance by the market and the public of new nuclear power construction. That can be achieved only by having the choice of reliable, lower-cost nuclear stations with a high level of safety and lower waste production.

2.25 p.m.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for asking the Question. I agree with the whole thrust of his contribution. This is not the first time that he has raised the issue, but it is a matter of great import.

First, however, I must say that, immediately before the debate, the Government Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, announced a 25 per cent reduction in speaking time. I do not think that noble Lords are best pleased. Furthermore, the speakers' list, which was issued by the Government Whips' Office, was not in the Peers' Lobby at seven minutes to eleven o'clock. The Government Whips' Office and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, might like to have a look at that.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding talked about the delays in the management of nuclear waste, as did many other noble Lords. I agree with everything that he said. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, started by identifying the general lack of progress on strategic issues and said, "Nothing happens". It is no wonder that there is increasing disillusionment among the electorate. Unusually, the noble Lord said nothing that I took issue with. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, claimed to be neutral, but he wants to keep the nuclear option genuinely open. He talked about the increasing weaknesses in the knowledge of nuclear science and engineering and warned that we might not even be able to be an intelligent customer for new build. He also talked about funding for research and quoted some figures. However, those figures are negligible, compared with the expenditure on current decommissioning.

My noble friend Lady O'Cathain mentioned, en passant, the difficulties with Grand Committee procedure. I am not a fan of that procedure either. My noble friend also made important points about the UK's nuclear science base and said that the Government would have to be brave. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about the need for courageous action. There seems to be a common theme.

The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made an interesting and valuable contribution. He talked about construction and programme risks. He is right. That is why new nuclear power must be placed on a strictly commercial basis, with all the decommissioning costs provided for. The role of government is to provide the right environment. Noble Lords are not convinced that the Government are doing that.

We need not make a decision on the matter today or even this year. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, is asking for one. However, many noble Lords have identified the lack of security for future energy supplies. There is also the problem of emissions. The public will not accept new build until the problem of nuclear waste is resolved. Many outside the Chamber portray the nuclear waste issue as an insoluble problem. There are two sources of waste: first, there is legacy waste and the waste from current nuclear operations; and, secondly, there is future waste arising from new build, if there should be any. But, of course, we know that that is only 10 per cent of our existing waste liabilities.

I do not think that the public are worried about nuclear safety, which was a point touched on by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. The evidence of safety is too compelling. Yes, there have been disasters, but we know what caused them and there does not seem to be a problem. However, new build would not be acceptable by the public unless they can be absolutely convinced that there is a robust solution to the waste problem.

Unfortunately, most of the public have not read the report on the management of nuclear waste by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. The anti-nuclear lobby is aware of that and they take full advantage of it. The Government have set up CoRWN to examine all the options, which was told. on no account, to report before the end of 2005. The committee has already excelled itself. I understand that it does not intend to report back before 2006, which was a point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, referred to "determined procrastination" on the part of the Government.

I have only one question for the Minister. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this question several times, but I have never received an answer. Perhaps the Minister, as Minister with responsibility for science, may be better placed to answer the question, which I am sure that he has anticipated. What disposal option for nuclear waste is remotely viable other than a deep geological depository? I should be very interested to hear his answer.

2.31 p.m.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. Two subjects have been covered, which need to be kept slightly separate. The first question is whether we should consider nuclear as part of the future plans for energy. The position of the Government is clear. We think that nuclear may well play a large part, for many of the reasons given in this House during the debate, including environmental issues and security of supply. But that is one issue, and that is why we believe that we must keep our option open.

The second question, which is the subject of this debate, is the actions that we should or should not take in the light of that. So I shall address the nature of the debate, which is to keep the nuclear option open. There is no disagreement on the other issue. However, I think that some noble Lords have the idea that there is a simple, cheap source of nuclear energy at hand, which, if only the Government would seize this opportunity, would solve our problems. That is not based on factual evidence. There is not an easy solution. If there were, the generators would be coming forward with proposals or pushing for proposals, but we are not seeing that at the moment.

Perhaps I may turn to what I think is the question in this debate; namely, whether or not we are keeping the option open as we very clearly said we would in the White Paper. By way of background, it is not right to say that this is mired in indecision. Very clear decisions were made in the White Paper about our priorities. That was set out. It may not be that everyone agrees, but those decisions were quite clear.

I now turn to the question of keeping the nuclear option open. The White Paper includes a commitment to quicker, more effective planning inquiries for major energy infrastructure projects, a commitment to the introduction of the European Emission Trading Scheme and measures to secure nuclear skills for the future. Those measures will ensure that we have the necessary pool of skills and expertise, if it becomes the right decision to have new build in the future, and should make the commissioning process easier.

The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, asked what practical measures are required to keep the nuclear option open. There are two key measures, which are skills and research initiatives aimed at ensuring that the UK maintains sufficient expertise to address the possible future challenge of new nuclear build. The White Paper also describes the government initiatives to address the issue of management of legacy nuclear waste, which impacts strongly on the public perception of nuclear power.

As I think we have said on a number of occasions in this House, we have put measures in place to support and develop nuclear skills. The Cogent Sector Skills Council was licensed on 2 March 2004. It will take a strategic view of the nuclear sector to ensure that the education and training base can meet the nuclear employers' current and future needs.

Cogent also represents the chemical manufacturing and oil and gas sectors and there are many synergies with the nuclear sector. It will operate through a mix of the Sector Skills Development Agency and industry funding. There are mechanisms in place to ensure that Cogent fulfils its role of meeting the skills needs of the industry.

The Nuclear Skills Group report and the prospect of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority have already spurred other skills initiatives funded by a number of authorities and with which Cogent have been engaged. Examples include the North West Development Agency, which is funding a nuclear skills project to support the siting of the NDA in the north-west. There is an initiative from Manchester University—UMIST—to forge collaboration amongst higher education institutes to deliver nuclear education and research. Energy Foresight is working to develop educational material and teacher training aids. The University of the Highlands and Islands and UKAEA have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the French Nuclear Energy Agency and the University of Grenoble to collaborate on nuclear skills issues.

As regards research, new opportunities for fission research have been announced as part of the research council's "Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy" initiative. As has been said already, £5 million is being made available over four years. I agree that that is a small sum of money in this context, but this is where, in the new spending review, we will have to look at the extent to which we can start ramping up this amount of money.

In doing that, the research councils consulted broadly in developing the programme. That included Defra, the DTI, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, NNC, UKAEA, Rolls-Royce, the MoD, Nirex and BNFL. The scope covers research under three key themes, which are the maintenance of current generation capacity, fission as a part of a sustainable energy economy and future fission power.

This also needs to be seen in the context of the new UK Energy Research Centre, which is currently being established. It is to be hoped that it will provide leadership in energy research and assist in giving coherence to the UK energy research agenda. It will have responsibility for establishing and co-ordinating a network across the broad spectrum of the energy research community of environmental, engineering, economic and social scientists. It will act as the hub of the National Energy Research Network, which will link to other centres of excellence, research institutes and so forth, and also offer a focus for wider international engagement.

Fission is seen by most people as a well developed applied technology. Any new nuclear power stations built in the shorter term are likely to deploy existing reactor designs. The UK currently keeps in touch with developments in reactor technology through industry involvement in international collaborations like the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor and international initiatives, including EURATOM, IAEA and the Generation IV International Forum.

Noble Lords will recall that the Generation IV International Forum aims to develop a framework for collaborative R&D on Generation IV reactor systems that could be deployed from around 2030. The initiative will allow nuclear technology and regulatory experience to be shared internationally and contribute to safer, more proliferation resistant, sustainable and economic future nuclear systems. The UK has played an active role in its development, without commitment to building a Generation IV design in the UK. There will be opportunities for UK participation through EURATOM. DTI funding for wider participation remains to be decided in the next government spending round.

However, I take very seriously the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. He addressed the key decision of whether we have the resources to be intelligent customers in this. Other than more money to be spent on research, he did not specify what that would consist of, but if he will write to me setting out where he believes there are gaps that would prevent us from being intelligent customers and which we need to fill, I shall be happy to look at that along with the committee of Sir David King, which is considering the subject.

I turn briefly to some of the points made by noble Lords. I shall repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. I do not think that there is a problem about the organisation of government. A clear responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Industry on this issue. I strongly disagree with the noble Lord in that I do not think that we can dismiss the issue of the disposal of nuclear waste simply as something that can be dealt with in the future. It needs to be tackled as a part of moving forward in this area.

It should also be said that there is no point in having experts come to conclusions on this matter unless we can reach consensus among a reasonable proportion of the population that the direction in which we are moving is right. That is why we have to take time with CoRWM to take the right decisions and reach consensus there.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about security of supply. We do not disagree that we have to look at nuclear energy as a part of the strategy. However, people are grossly over-exaggerating the dangers surrounding our future gas supplies. Of course there are issues of terrorism, but that is why we are diversifying our supply base.

I want to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on the idea that the lights are suddenly going to go out. There may be issues about planning, but we are talking about the long-term situation which will unfold as nuclear generation declines. Whatever people may say, we have some time available in order to take decisions. The lights are not going to go out during the next couple of years simply because we have not yet taken the decision on nuclear energy.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, knows well that, at this time, there is no alternative to deep geological deposits for high-level nuclear waste, although a range of options is available for the disposal of low-level waste. The primary issue is more the question of where such action is taken. However, I believe that a whole range of other options is being looked at to see whether they present any further opportunities.

The Government continue to believe that the ambitious programme on renewables and energy efficiency is achievable. However, what is clear within energy policy is that it is very difficult to predict the future, in particular where the three objectives of security of supply, cost and the environment must be met. It is not easy to predict the best combination of those factors for the future. Therefore we have stated clearly that we will consider new nuclear build as one of the options for the future.

I hope that, in the short time we have had to debate these matters, I have illustrated the fact that we have taken action to make it possible to keep the nuclear option open as we move into the period where we will start to close down nuclear power stations. We cannot predict the future exactly, but the steps the Government are taking form a sensible response in order to reverse the situation we had when we came to power, which was one where the whole area of nuclear research had been closed down. We have been turning that around so that if a decision on new nuclear build comes through, we shall be able to seize that opportunity.

As I have said, while we cannot predict the future exactly, we are confident that our plans are fit for purpose, although we shall continue to keep them under review so that we continue to be able to exercise the option.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, can the Minister answer the very specific question I put to him? When will the Government announce their decision on the timetable which has been put to Ministers by CoRWM?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville

My Lords, I do not believe that the Government have stated the timing of their response. I shall go back and examine the position, and write to the noble Lord.