Hansard

During the previous debate, I noted the complaints that were made against the Scottish National Party for choosing to debate a devolved issue during a Westminster election campaign. I hope that all members are happy with the topic for this debate, because we have lodged a hybrid motion that covers devolved and reserved issues. That should ensure that we keep everyone on the Government benches happy.

The debate is important. It is about protecting the future of our people in Scotland and our environment and it is about securing a safe and affordable source of energy to meet our future needs. Most of all, the debate is about creating a non-nuclear Scotland. The SNP was interested to note that, in the manifesto that was launched yesterday, Labour refused to rule out a new nuclear power station for Scotland. The Labour Party's obsession with everything nuclear continues, whether it is considering weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde or more nuclear power stations, which will create mountains of nuclear waste. As a result, all the signs are that Scotland has been lined up to become the United Kingdom's nuclear dustbin. Allan Wilson and his Labour colleagues might raise the spectre of new nuclear power stations for Scotland, but it is for the Scottish Parliament to oppose such plans, which is why we are having this debate.

In recent years, many authorities have scouted for sites in Scotland in which they can store deadly radioactive waste. We have to lay down a marker today by rejecting the prospect of more expensive, polluting and dangerous nuclear power stations for Scotland. We have to say that this nation will not be used as a nuclear dustbin.

It has been reported that 18 million cubic metres of soil and rubble are contaminated by leaks, spills and discharges over the past 60 years from the 30 sites throughout the United Kingdom. It is no wonder therefore that the vast majority of the public in Scotland are opposed to nuclear power. Only last week, the most recent opinion poll stated that 83 per cent of Scots oppose the nuclear option.

One of last night's news programmes featured a tourism conference in Aberdeen at which many of the overseas delegates praised Scotland. They said that more and more people want to come to this country because of our reputation for having a fantastic environment and for being a safe place to visit. What on earth would those people think if they knew that, of the 33 sites that are earmarked in the UK for high-level radioactive waste disposal, 22—or two thirds—are in Scotland? Those include sites in Caithness and Sutherland, in Argyll and Bute, in Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, in Banff and Buchan, in Gordon, and in North Ayrshire and Arran. Those communities deserve the support of the Parliament in order to ensure that they are not turned into nuclear waste dumps. A further seven sites have been identified in Scotland for low to intermediate level nuclear waste disposal.

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management estimates that 470,000m³ of radioactive waste will have to be stored, two thirds of which could make its way to Scotland. That dangerous radioactive waste would have to be transported on our road and rail network and in our sea lanes and so would pose many risks to our local communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

If Scotland is turned into a nuclear dustbin, waste could be brought here not just from the rest of the UK, but from overseas. Under another Labour Government, Scotland faces the prospect of becoming not only the nuclear dustbin for the UK, but an international nuclear dustbin. Of course, the best way of dealing with nuclear waste is not to produce the stuff in the first place.

Over the past 60 years, the civic nuclear industry has been a hugely expensive drain on the public purse. When we inherited the industry from the defence sector, which is where it started, we also inherited that sector's culture of open-ended budgets and secrecy. The Royal Society said last year that the cost of dealing with existing waste throughout the UK could amount to £85 billion. Another authority said that it could cost £50 billion to decommission the 19 UK sites over the next 25 years.

According to a recent parliamentary question at Westminster, in the five-year period between 1997 and 2002, the Department of Trade and Industry subsidised the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and BNFL alone to the tune of £11 billion. The public purse has had to pay a price tag of £150 billion over the past few years to run the nuclear industry and yet we have not even begun to look at the construction costs of existing nuclear facilities in Scotland and the rest of the UK, never mind the cost of building new nuclear facilities. Let us not forget that Sizewell, which was the last nuclear facility to be built in the UK, took 15 years to build and cost way over budget. It is estimated that the life-cycle costs of a new nuclear power station in Scotland would be £2.5 billion. In an age of security concerns, do we really want to build new targets for international terrorists in Scotland, especially as it would cost an arm and a leg to protect those sites?

Some members on the Government benches and some Tory members have said that nuclear power is needed to fill the energy gap. We should be talking not about an energy gap, but about a window of opportunity for the development of Scotland's renewables sector, which has enormous potential in relation to meeting our energy needs in the near future. Taking that opportunity would also help us to tackle climate change.

This country possesses 25 per cent of Europe's wind and tidal resource and 10 per cent of Europe's wave resource. There is also fantastic potential for biomass, solar and other renewables technologies. If, over the coming decades, we were to spend even a fraction of the money that is used to subsidise the nuclear industry on renewables, Scotland could become Europe's energy powerhouse within a matter of years.

It is unfortunate that the minister who is responsible for developing the renewables sector in Scotland is also the minister who is responsible for the promotion of nuclear power. The minister should get his eye back on the ball and start promoting renewable power so that Scotland can become a clean, green country. He should ensure that we develop the fantastic potential of renewable energy.

The purpose of the debate is to let us speak with a united voice to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the ultimate say on whether new nuclear power stations are built in Scotland and on whether this small nation is turned into an international nuclear dustbin. Once we get that say and get that power, we must say no to nuclear; we must say no to more nuclear power stations in Scotland and to turning Scotland into a nuclear dustbin. I urge the Parliament to support the SNP motion.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM) is due to make its final report in July 2006; notes that the decision on where to locate sites for the long-term storage of nuclear waste is likely to be taken shortly after that date and that a number of potential sites in Scotland have been identified; notes that the UK Government is clearing the way to build new nuclear power stations; further notes that the UK Government has agreed to accept and store nuclear waste from overseas; agrees that only the Scottish Parliament can take the decision to locate any sites in Scotland for the long-term storage of nuclear waste, and rejects the need for a new nuclear power station in Scotland.