Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to start by declaring an interest as Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy. And I want to follow this up by declaring a lack of interest, having no nuclear industry employees in my constituency.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to promote discussion on the future energy needs of Scotland.

This is a much needed debate. We currently have a first minister constructing his own folly in Edinburgh and who is creating a whole new age of irresponsibility by gambling like the banks with Scotland’s future energy.

This has been brought through the back door with planning policy in a way that was never intended in the devolution settlement. And there was good reason for this, with energy being an issue that transcends borders and one which is fundamentally important to the whole nation.

The First Minister is not pursuing an energy policy, but an energy prejudice, through planning restrictions which have only one criterion: no to nuclear regardless of the effects.

With power comes responsibility and his opposition to nuclear demonstrates his inability to rationally examine the need for a balanced energy policy and the benefit nuclear generation has delivered over the last forty years. It is safe, reliable and according to expert analysis affordable.

It would help us to reduce greenhouse gases, maintain security of supply and provide affordable energy for Scotland.

Today I want to ask my honourable friend what his department will do about their responsibility to provide this for the people of Scotland being frustrated.

In terms of our history, Scotland has been extremely fortunate with energy. There has been a long term contribution from our nuclear plants, which at their peak delivered over 50% of our electricity needs. Even today they still provide over 20% of our current base load.

We have been self sufficient in oil and gas due to the huge investment and exploitation of our natural recourses in the North Sea, and we have also had a profitable and viable coal industry.

So nuclear, coal and gas, with a contribution from limited hydro generation, provided core sources of energy and a welcome balanced energy policy that has been so important to maintaining our way of life.

But this now hangs in the balance.

Our two remaining nuclear plants at Hunterston and Torness will both reach the end of their life cycle sometime in the 2020’s. Hunterston recently announced a life extension until 2016, but it must be recognised that continuing generation after this will be extremely difficult and will require substantial engineering solutions to continue to contribute to our base energy load.

I was some what bemused when the SNP administration welcomed Hunterston’s life extension but where there is life there is hope – where there are nationalists there is hypocrisy.

In parallel to this our two Coal fired power stations at Longannet and Cockenzie are scheduled to close at the end of 2015 due to European emissions legislation. Even if this could be avoided, by 2020 these two coal powered stations will have reached their 48^th and 52^nd birthdays. Because of this, the environmental impact and the reliability of these fossil fuel plants will be significantly worse than modern equivalents. So with the imperative of climate change, and the SNP’s Greener Scotland manifesto pledges this should be setting alarm bells ringing.

I am in favour of a comprehensive balanced energy policy including coal, gas and nuclear and I fully support the development of renewables to meet our future need. But I am deeply concerned that whilst the SNP administration in Edinburgh advocates low carbon they reject nuclear power. This a proven, operational, safe and clean core source of low carbon energy, with emissions levels which according to the UN are similar to renewables. So the SNP’s dogmatic opposition to this is completely illogical and damaging.

The Conservatives, I should add, are no better south of the border. Their flip-flopping on nuclear is unhelpful and dangerous. Their backbenchers need to give the front bench a wake up call.

The need for a truly balanced energy policy utilising all proven sources that the Government has recognised has been reinforced by events this year.

Increases and fluctuations in the price of oil and the effect on the economy have underscored the need to reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels. My constituents feel this through their food and energy bills. But the current policies of the SNP will Scotland at the mercy of world events and dependent on gas for our core source to meet at least 50 per cent of our electricity needs.

I would urge the Minister not to stand by – energy is not a devolved area and we surely cannot allow dogma and misinformation to detrimentally impact on the Scottish people.

While I completely agree that Scotland is well endowed with natural resources to generate a large proportion of its electricity from renewable means, there are practical problems which affect both security and cost. Research and development is never cheap and requires huge capital investment to bring any development to fruition.

Demonstration carbon capture and storage plants for instance are being developed in different countries at present but it is expensive and on current estimates it will be 2030 before a commercially viable plant is fully operational.

Investing in research and development of renewables is vital but even if they can deliver the ambitious target from the Edinburgh Executive for 50% of our electricity by 2020, where will the other 50% come from?

We should not be taken in by the greenwash and saltire swathing of statistics by the SNP. While they trumpet the figures for 2006 with a lower proportion of nuclear as showing a greener Scotland, they fail to disclose an increase in the use of gas and a reduction in the share from renewables.

So a cleaner Scotland it certainly was not – and this is a lesson for where the Nationalists’ energy policy will lead us.

Further evidence for this was borne out in an astonishing piece in a recent Sunday newspaper where the First Minister claimed the Green Revolution would enter a new phase, with a return to Old King Coal.

Whilst this may make for benign headlines, perhaps he is unaware of the research showing levels of radiation which are up to six times higher for people living around coal plants, than nuclear.

Perhaps he is also unaware of the thousands of miners still living in Scotland today who suffer from the effects of working in the pits, and the heavy price they pay in terms of bronchial, chest and lung diseases. But he must surely know of the vast sums of money the taxpayer has, quite rightly had to pay for the extraction of coal and of the recent warning from the wind industry that a funding injection is needed to meet targets.

Our security of supply is now in real danger and the energy prejudice being played out by the SNP in planning policy is not only illogical but highly dangerous.

If they continue to oppose nuclear, and our two existing coal plants close in 2016, there will be no alternative but to turn to gas for our core supply.

The decision to build a new generation of nuclear plants is in my view sensible and necessary and should play a role in meeting our needs in Scotland. The decision to sell British Energy to EDF will I hope will kick start new nuclear build as soon as possible – but the First Minister’s prejudice could deprive Scotland of the delivery of this low carbon source.

A new reactor on the Hunterston site is supported not only by the workforce but by the local communities, which is regrettably more than can be said for a number of renewable developments we have had problems with. This has set us further back with the challenge we face.

The opportunity for new nuclear build with no cost or subsidies to the tax payer make sense and is vital if we are to avoid dependency on imported gas. The First Minister will not listen to reason – but will my Honourable Friend?

There are few more important topics facing the country at the moment than energy – does he agree with me the SNP should not frustrate Scotland’s needs by the back door?

Does he agree with me that we need to revisit the issue of planning policy? Can I also ask him whether he would support an independent body with jurisdiction for all of the UK to advise on energy sources for planning decisions, which have been plagued by prejudice?

Tonight it is also important to express our thanks to all those who work within the nuclear and coal industries in Scotland. I would like to thank them for their contribution for over almost 40 years, to Scotland’s economic success and in keeping the lights on and providing a safe, secure and core base load of generation.

The nuclear industry is a soft target for the media and those opposed to nuclear energy. Any problem, however trivial, has been blown out of all proportion and the atmosphere mystery and fear has been perpetuated. Yet there has not been a single nuclear emergency in this country and the industry has an enviable safety record compared with coal, gas and oil.

This safety record is no accident, the regulation and safeguards adopted by the industry, which are closely monitored, isolates the dangerous radioactive waste from the living environment.

The fact is that nuclear power contributes only 0.5% or so to the annual exposure to radiation for the population. 85% occurs from natural sources and 14% from medical treatment.

So the First Minister should be ashamed of his constant misleading rhetoric and demonisation of the workers in the nuclear industry. He jeopardises the continued provision of highly skilled employment and dismisses the contribution and benefits nuclear energy has made to communities in Hunterston and Torness and the Scottish economy as a whole.

In sum the SNP would risk the lights going off by relying on diminishing fossil fuels and would gamble our way of life on imports from far from stable supplies. But how will my honourable friend make sure this does not happen?

In the final part of this debate I want to move on from how we will keep the lights on, to push my honourable friend about another important energy issue: keeping the heating on.

This is a topic I have raised with a number of ministers, from a number of departments, in a number of Parliamentary sessions and I make no apologies for revisiting it today.

For many people throughout the country the 1^st of October would have been the day that they switched their heating on. But as a Glasgow MP, with high levels of pensioners and benefit claimants, I know many of my constituents will be facing an unacceptable dilemma this winter as they weigh up which essential costs to cut.

The rise in food and energy prices means that two core needs are being hit and this will not come as news to my honourable friend. From his time in DWP he will know that the measure we use to calculate the state pension increase – the retail price index – is at its highest level since 1991.

For Scotland the problem is more acute than the rest of the UK: incomes are lower but the heating season is longer and more bitter. Around a third of homes in the country have no connection to mains gas and in the multi-story flats in my constituency I see people with storage heaters running the most expensive fuel.

I would be the first to admit that we’ve done a lot to help prevent people facing such unacceptable choices. In my constituency the unemployment rate is down by 4% and 15,000 people receive payments worth hundreds of pounds a year to help with their heating bills. But we can and we must do more.

Back in March I asked my Honourable Friend to work with energy companies to identify the poorest consumers in need of social tariffs. I know that the BT basic scheme for a fixed phone line involves DWP helping them to identify eligible customers, so can he tell me what progress has been made on co-ordinating action over energy?

I welcomed the statement of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change last Thursday that he would bring in legislation if energy companies continue to overcharge customers on pre-payment meters.

But earlier this year Ofgem also found that customers on social tariffs often did not receive the best deal available – so will my honourable friend undertake to follow the Secretary of State’s no-nonsense approach on social tariffs?

Finally, when my honourable friend was in his former post I also lobbied him for a consolidation of the increase in the Winter Fuel Allowance and I would like to put my support for this on record again. But moreover I want to repeat the call I made for support with fuel bills to be extended to other vulnerable groups who receive no extra support in the winter – the unemployed, those on Income Support, the disabled and those with children.

My honourable friend might mention the cold weather payment in this respect but I would make two points on this. Firstly it will only be available to a small minority of those in fuel poverty.

And secondly it only kicks in when seven days of below freezing temperatures are forecast.

My honourable friend will no doubt know, that it does not take a week to die or fall ill from the cold – it can be just one bitter night when you don’t put your heating on.

I would urge him, in the new Energy and Climate Change department to work with colleagues throughout Government, to provide more help for people this winter – and if he’s looking for somewhere to start I would suggest the profits of energy companies themselves would be a good place. He can’t miss them – they’re huge this year.

I hope the link between the two issues I have raised is clear. Both are key to Scotland and my constituents – we cannot have a new age of irresponsibility which gambles with keeping the lights or the heating on.

We need action from the Government to make sure this does not happen – this would be a great start for the new department.

Filed under: speeches by admin