Energy Bill

I am not saying that that is the way forward; I am saying that it is an option. I am trying to make the point that we must take a different approach to the nuclear issue. Rather than being fundamentally for or against it, we must consider the role that it can play in any one country at any one time, in the light of that country's other options. Given that we still have considerable coal reserves, along with the scientific basis on which to develop clean coal technology—which would open up enormous markets in India and China, and would be of enormous economic value to the United Kingdom in decades ahead—and given that we have, arguably, Europe's best reserves of renewable wind, wave and tidal energy, I feel that at this stage a commitment to nuclear, which is what the Government seem to be making, may be premature. Of course, the old concerns about nuclear remain. There are the issues of safety and sustainability, and of how, conceptually, we can pass to future generations a legacy of unknown threats in view of the unpredictable consequences of storing highly radioactive waste for many thousands of years. I know that some of our scientist colleagues would say that the consequences are entirely predictable, but I believe that the capacity of human beings to predict so far into the future is not yet tested, and I find it difficult to understand how we can say that that is something that we should pass on to future generations. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) dismissed the issue of terrorism—although I am glad that he raised it, because no one else had discussed it. All that is needed is one suicide bomber getting through the security zone in any nuclear power station in the world, and the nuclear fission industry is dead. All that is needed is one aircraft flying into Sellafield, or any other nuclear installation in the world, and the impact will be exactly as it was with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.