Energy Bill

If the other policies—greater energy efficiency, greater energy conservation and more encouragement for renewables a decade ago—had been more effective, nuclear power might not have been needed, even according to the Government's analysis. There are a number of concerns about new nuclear capacity. It might surprise some hon. Members to hear that in my constituency there is an active operating nuclear power plant. It is not self-evidently politically wise for me to stand up and say that I do not support new nuclear. However, having considered the evidence and the arguments, that is the conclusion that I have reached. We need to set out why. First, to echo the words of a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, new nuclear initiatives risk distracting us from renewables and energy efficiency. The right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), when she was Secretary of State, said:"““It would have been foolish to announce””—" that the Government would support new nuclear—"““because that would have guaranteed””—" that is a strong word—"““that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables.””—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 32.]" She was right then—and that approach is right now. The danger is that if we go down that track and invest time, effort, legislative time and, undoubtedly, public money in new nuclear, that is bound to sidetrack us from the subject of energy efficiency and renewables. The Secretary of State said in his statement that he was not mandating new nuclear plants, but inviting them. What happens if industry does not come forward? How will the gap be met? If new nuclear investors judge that it is too risky, or that the economics do not add up, for whatever reason, what is plan B?