Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

I must own up to playing a part in the downfall of nuclear power in Britain

Because of my actions, there has been no serious attempt to deal with the growing problem of what to do with nuclear waste

Michael Brown
Tuesday 27 August 2002 00:00 BST
Comments

Brian Wilson, the minister for energy at the Department of Trade and Industry, is not attending the Johannesburg earth summit. After the recent rows about the attendance of the Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, this is understandable. Indeed there was no suggestion that Mr Wilson should have gone in the first place. And in any case he has other fish to fry following the latest reports that British Energy, the privatised nuclear electricity company, is facing bankruptcy.

Yet of all the ministers in government who have the opportunity actually to deliver the objectives of any protocols agreed in Johannesburg, it is Mr Wilson who may hold the answers. I have a personal confession to make to him as to why this country consumes more fossil fuels than those at Johannesburg might find desirable.

Back in 1985, when nuclear power was regarded as the answer to our energy needs, the Government agency Nirex (Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive) nominated four sites in England for the shallow disposal of low-level radioactive waste. One of the sites selected was on an area of land owned by the old nationalised Central Electricity Generating Board in my constituency.

The other three sites were in constituencies represented by Conservative government ministers – including the Attorney General and the Chief Whip (John, now Lord, Wakeham). There was an outcry from local residents. In my own case, property values in the area surrounding the proposed site fell by as much as 50 per cent. I led protest groups, local authorities and parish councils on marches, and took delegations to ministers.

Because of my lack of relative influence as a backbencher, compared to my rivals who were ministers, I suspected that my constituency would end up drawing the short straw. Knowing that I could not win my arguments in the division lobbies – I was one vote out of 650 – I decided on kamikaze action and, in a speech in the Commons, made it clear that "there would be no nuclear waste in my constituency so long as I remain an MP." Government ministers correctly interpreted this as meaning that I would resign and cause a by-election should I fail to get my way. As a result, the proposals were dropped six weeks before the 1987 general election.

Since then privatisation of all sections of the energy industry (save for British Nuclear Fuels) has taken place and the nuclear industry has stalled. Many have praised the stance I took on behalf of local residents, but others have, probably correctly, accused me of being the original Nimby (not in my back yard). The fact that my own house was less than two miles from the site may well have had something to do with my ability to understand the sense of local outrage.

As a consequence of my actions, there has been no serious attempt to deal with the growing problem of what to do with nuclear waste, and the reputation of the nuclear power industry has remained in the doldrums. In the meantime, we have signed up to the Rio and Kyoto treaty objectives on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the only way we can ever hope to meet our obligations is if we reduce our consumption electricity generated by fossil fuel.

This is an area where the famous "joined up" government we have heard so much about simply does not work. Mr Wilson does not have the strategic ability to take decisions over the need for a deep-disposal facility. One of the arguments I deployed against the waste dump in Cleethorpes was because it was to be shallow. If it had been a deep facility, and substantial compensation payments had been offered to the locals (which is what happens in France, which generates 70 per cent of its power from nuclear energy), I would have been lobbying to have the site in my patch. Every MP has his price – and likewise his constituents. But such decisions on disposal facilities are taken by the Department for Rural Affairs, specifically by Mr Meacher, who is known to be less sympathetic to nuclear power.

Mr Wilson will also need to take on the dreaded Treasury if he is to have any hope of rescuing British Energy, short of the embarrassment of having to bring forward contingency plans to renationalise British Energy. One of the most bizarre decisions taken by the Government – at the behest of the Chancellor – was to subject nuclear power to the climate-change levy. This levy, designed to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels by industry, loads the price of nuclear power by 0.43 pence per kilowatt-hour. Industry is able to choose its power source, but the inclusion of nuclear power in this levy means industry has no incentive to switch from using fossil fuels.

The nuclear power debate in this country has been stuck since 1987, yet it is clear that, with the ageing Magnox power stations facing decommissioning and the need to face up to the likelihood of an energy deficit in the years ahead, only a programme of new nuclear stations can provide the answer. Sir Jonathon Porritt, the Prime Minister's chief adviser on sustainable development, believes that this gap can be filled by renewable energy sources such a wind power. He is unlikely to make a convincing case when renewables account for less than 3 per cent of output. Even Denmark, which has managed an impressive 20 per cent of wind power, has decided that further progress is impossible. Meanwhile, in Finland, the public has been educated to support the construction of both a new nuclear station and waste disposal facility with virtually no protests.

As Johannesburg debates the need for improved water and sanitation for the developing countries, there will also be pressure to end the destruction of forests in Africa and Asia. Much of the smog that hangs over Asia in countries such as Indonesia is the result of individuals burning wood for fires. Clearly they will need to build power stations, which are bound to use fossil fuels.

We face the prospect that, in the short term, increased development to benefit the third world will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, blowing a hole in the agreements reached at Rio and Kyoto. This is bound to put pressure on the developed world to reduce further its power generation by means of coal, oil and gas. The irony is that, at the very moment that nuclear power may come to be more sympathetically regarded by environmentalists – except Sir Jonathon – the British nuclear power industry is facing bankruptcy.

Thus it is probably Mr Wilson, sitting alone in Whitehall this week while his colleagues are in Johannesburg, who faces the greatest immediate challenge as he prepares the forthcoming white paper on energy, to be published this autumn. I shall be cheering him on, but he needs to recognise, as his Tory predecessors did not, that bribing local people to accept waste disposal sites will make his task far easier. Meanwhile, my apologies to him for being the cause of this mess in the first place.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in