10 September 2007
John Hutton, Secretary of State for the newly-created Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), took part in a live webchat on Monday 10 September at 10:00 BST.
The webchat will took place following a series of consultation events on the future of nuclear energy. These were held on Saturday 8 September across the UK - in Exeter, Norwich, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leicester, London and Belfast.
- Visit the nuclear energy consultation website (new window)
- View our archive of webchats with ministers
- Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (new window)
Read the transcript
Moderator says: John Hutton, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, will be available to take questions on business issues in a live webchat on Monday 10 September at 10:00 BST. Log in to post your questions to the minister.
Moderator says:
John has just arrived. We’ll be starting in a few minutes.
Stephen Morris: Although there are no greenhouse gas emissions, how is it defensible to call nuclear energy a green/sustainable alternative for electricity when it produces waste that remains for countless years? Would it not be more appropriate to invest in finding truly sustainable alternatives and developing low power technologies in order to sustain economic development, rather than continuing to place consumerism and industrial demands above stewardship of the earth?
John replies: Good morning everyone. Glad to be with you today. I will try and answer as many questions as possible. First of all Stephen Morris’ question, nuclear is a low carbon producing form of energy. There are concerns about the waste that nuclear generates and these have to be addressed if nuclear is to play a continuing role in our energy mix going forward. I believe solutions can be found to this problem as other countries have shown. I think on the wider issue of renewables we do have ambitious plans to treble the amount of electricity that comes from renewable sources over the next 10 years or so, so I don’t think that people can say we are overlooking the contribution that renewables can make but there are some really difficult trade-offs we have to make if we are to make the profound impact we need to on climate change.
D Townsend: What is your reaction to the news on Friday that several environmental groups incuding Friends of the Earth, WWF and Greenpeace have withdrawn from the nuclear consultation process because they believe it is flawed?
John replies: I was very disappointed. We had given all of the NGOs the opportunity of putting their views directly to members of the public who took part in those events over the weekend and I think it was a great opportunity for the environmental groups to get their point across. We made every effort on the day to make sure the opinions of Greenpeace and other organisations were put accurately put to the public.
S Mckie: Mr Hutton could you please explain why the decicion for new nuclear build has already been taken and indeed was taken long before these consultations began, and do you have any comprehension of the legacy nuclear energy will have for future generations of humans. If you do have any comprehension would you explain why we have the right to do this to them?
John replies: We haven’t made a final decision on nuclear yet and the whole point of what we are doing at the moment is to engage the public in the very difficult choices we have to make if we are going to meet the challenge of climate change and ensure Britain’s energy security for the future. Nuclear waste will have to be safely stored for many generations. We are not in any way minimising the issue but as other countries have shown, I think there are ways to do this safely and securely.
Ged: Nuclear power isn’t the future, it’s not safe and in the current international climate stations would be a magnet for terrorists. Not to mention the amount of waste it would produce. Why wreren’t renewabl;es discussed in depth at the weekend?
John replies: They were fully discussed at the weekend.
J. Wilson: Given that new stations will only reduce carbon emissions by 4% by 2025 and will constitute only 3.6% of UK total energy use, has the government really considered cheaper, faster alternatives? A widespread network of efficient combined heat and power stations along with aggressive energy efficiency measures and committed investment in large-scale renewables is likely to increase energy security for less cost than nuclear.
John replies: We have already set out plans for improving energy efficiency and we are looking at ways of extending the deployment of combined heat and power. We think it is important to have as many options available to us as possible to tackle the challenge of carbon reduction and energy security. I understand your point about large scale renewable projects and we should look to explore the potential from all of these sources but it is just worth reminding ourselves that some of these projects involve the risk of environmental degradation.
Graham Nickson: I have read that if every house in the country substituted a compact fluorescent light bulb for a tungsten filament light bulb the power output of a Sizewell B type nuclear power station would be saved. Isn’t putting energy in saving energy a better way forward that simply trying to generate more and more? Is has the bonus of creating jobs at community level and does not generate tons of highly dangerous nuclear.
John replies: We are looking to support much greater energy efficiency both at home and in the work place. Of course the best power station is the one you don’t need to build!
Malcolm Reid: Given that high level nuclear waste similar to plutonium, which has a half life of 24000 years would need half a million years of cooling to reduce its radioactivity to one thousandth of its initial level, how much money does the government expect nuclear operators to set aside to manage their nuclear waste? How much will they pay for the exemption in every property insurance cover in the UK for the consequences of a nuclear accident?
Given that government R&D funding of nuclear power over the last 50 years has far outweighed their R&D funding for all the renewable forms of energy put together and produces just 18% of our electricity, how can the government conceive of continuing to starve genuine renewables of development funding and support?
The 2 comprehensive reports by the government’s own Sustainable Development Commission on nuclear power, both published in March 2006, came out strongly against new nuclear power. What new evidence makes the government want to ignore this?
How much has the government studied the energy policies of Denmark and Holland in developing Combined Heat and Power for approximately half their electricity production, thereby doubling the energy output per unit of primary fuel compared with the UK? Does the government recognise that such a development needs smaller local power stations for which nuclear power is inappropriate?
John replies: There is a lot in your question Malcolm but just on two points. As you know we are planning to triple the amount of electricity we get from renewable sources by 2015 through initiatives like the renewables obligation. There won’t be any taxpayers subsidy for new nuclear if this is the decision we make coming out of the consultation and I think really on the wider point about whether we should go down the nuclear road, it is obviously the case that there are very divergent views and the difficult job of government in this instance is to try and reconcile those views if we can. As you know our preliminary view is that we shouldn’t rule out any option at this stage.
Julie Clark: If we only have a limited pot of cash for action on climate change, will spending £40 billion+ on nuclear construction and perhaps a further £80 bn on decommissioning not hamper the investment desperately needed to enable British renewable technologies to succeed in the marketplace?
John replies: Hi Julie. Again I would just emphasise that over the next few years I expect the contribution that renewable sources make to our electricity requirements to increase very substantially because we are prepared to support actively this kind of technology. There will be no taxpayer subsidy or investment in new nuclear power stations. Our view is that it would be perfectly possible for both nuclear and renewable energy to develop alongside each other without nuclear crowding out new investment in renewables. It would be for the energy companies to make financial provision for the storage and safe disposal of nuclear waste, with very strong health and safety regulation put in place by Government.
Louise Glen-Lee: What regulatory reform would you put in place to ensure that UK business does not thrive on the back of sweat shops and no/low wage work in other countries?
John replies: Because of new legislation we enacted last year, companies have to report on these issues in their annual reports and this will help consumers make judgements in relation to the ethical issues your question generates.
David Johnson: Mr Hutton, Why does the government persist in denying small business access to assistance for R & D grants on the basis of profit? Is this an indication that if your business is failing the government will help out?
John replies: R&D grants are made on the basis of the merits of the proposal and the availability of alternative sources of finance. We don’t discriminate against small firms and it would be wrong to do so.
Hans Monsen: In Puerto Rico there is a tax incentive by the US Government for investors to open businesses by allowing companies to have tax breaks i.e pay no tax for a certain number of years. Do you consider that the UK Government could do the same in deprived areas of the nation? This could particularly be targeted at foreign investors e.g. manufacturing companies…
John replies: The Government does seek to support inward investment in areas where there is, for example, high unemployment and we do this through the Selective Finance for Investment. Unemployment I am glad to say is falling more quickly in those areas that had the greatest problems.
christopher burns: How can we provide social justice and sustainable futures whilst at the same time being supportive of enterprise.? as at the moment capitalism is causing great environmental and social harm
John replies:
Thanks for your question, I think this really goes to the heart of the issues we are trying to grapple with. I think economic prosperity and social justice are not mutually exclusive and I think that has been shown to be the case in Britain over the last 10 years. But I agree with you, we have got to do all we can to tackle the hugely important issue of climate change quickly and urgently but in a way that wouldn’t threaten our economy and therefore the quality of our vital public services which help make Britain a fair and decent place to live. The challenge of climate change can and will only be tackled by international agreement and the willingness of all countries to take action on a regulatory level to preserve our environment. We have got to make a massive effort globally to reach such an agreement and that’s what we are committed to doing here in the UK.
paul drake: What is the governments interpretation of "Peak Oil". Is there anything to be concerned about, or is this a type of scaremongering?
John replies: Oil and gas are finite natural resources but I think we should not underestimate the impact of new technologies in helping us utilise hitherto harder to reach reserves of oil and gas. I think we should continue to do everything we can to make engines more fuel efficient, but it does also underline the need to have a wide range of energy sources other than fossil fuels. That’s why we should look at promoting more use of renewable sources and that is why the Government has the preliminary view that we should leave open the option of power companies investing in nuclear in the future.
Liz Gould: Mr Hutton,
Can you please explain to me why , if the Government is seriously committed to a cleaner energy policy, we are n ot going down the same route as countries such as Sweden and building combined heat & power plants. Surely money would be better spent encouraging / subsidising this for every new build industrial estate, shopping complex , inner city revamp such as the work going on in Liverpool at the moment etc as well as giving decent grants for homes & businesses to go for renewables such as solar panels & wind turbines.
John replies: I was in Liverpool at the weekend and saw some of these major regeneration projects that you are talking about. They are all looking to lower their carbon footprints and this is being built into the design of these major new schemes now. I think we should continue to do more of these things in the future and we have set out our proposals on how that could be done. There are some practical difficulties in the UK that would prevent us moving quickly to widespread CHP and this is partly due the nature of our energy transmission system itself. I don’t think we can meet all of the climate change and energy security challenges that we face just through these types of means.
Malcolm Reid: Is tripling the amount of renewable energy by 2015 from such a small base of around 2% an adequate target?
John replies: I think it is probably one of the most ambitious targets in the EU.
Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley: Dear Mr.Hutton,
I like the look of your new job. Our P.M announced in his NCVO speech earlier this week that "… Citizens Juries are not a substitute for representative democracy, they are an enrichment of it." Will you be getting involved with these, on the basis that this kind of dialogue could "enrich" our democracy by finally plugging some of these ridiculous so-called "gaps"? People stuck in so-called "gaps" sometimes need ways to kickstart innovation to help all stakeholders concerned find the right way to go which will be most profitable for everyone. Sometime difficult situations need a cross departmental approach in order to facilitate better regulation which does justice to the "whole work/life" balance of all stakeholders more equally. Could you see a citizens jury eventually being used in this way?
John replies: I am looking in my own department of finding a way of using citizens juries more frequently to address some of the issues that you have raised. I think they can really help us and it’s right to involve the public in this way in the decision making process. But we mustn’t let this, however, detract from the accountability that ministers must ultimately have for the decsions that they take and, as you say, that must continue to be through the ballot box at general elections.
bob: Do you think it is impossible for the UK to be hit by an Enron-type scandal? How robust is our business regulation compared to other countries (it was supposed to be robust in the US)?
John replies: We have made further changes to the legislation in this area only recently to prevent this type of problem in the UK. Any regulation in this area has obviously got to be proportionate to the risk and mustn’t have the effect of creating unnecessary and possibly damaging costs on companies and therefore on consumers as a whole.
John Pierce: The Government has clearly stated that it would like to prevent people on lower incomes paying more for everyday goods and services. So why does it appear that the Government supports energy companies charging low income households higher energy prices through unfairly over-priced prepayment meter tariffs? Couldn’t this new department require energy companies to charge metered customers the same prices as those with quarterly bills?
John replies: Hi John. The recent Energy White Paper set out a number of measures to reduce the level of fuel poverty in the UK but a further 200,000 households by 2010. We continue to strongly encourage energy companies to consider their most vulnerable customers when considering tarriffs, and we are working with OFGEM to consider new ways to encourage further protection of the most vulnerable customers from the large differences in bills because of the payment method they use. And finally, I think it is just worth remembering that we do have a very competitive energy market and one of the easiest ways that customers can reduce their energy costs is to move to a supplier offering a better deal. OFGEM research shows that nationally pre-payment metre customers could save £250 million by switching supplier, with individual customers being able to make savings of up to £170 per year.
Sarah Kroenkvist: There are no countries that has solutions to store the dangerous nuclear waste as you said earlier, yes Sweden has investigated into storing the waste far underground - which is not only very expensive, it’s more like an escape rather than a solution, since storing radioactive waste is not a sustainable option.
The UK does not need Nuclear power - if renewable and decentralised energy were implemented instead. Why after all the knowledge we have about nuclear energy and its devastating effects on the people working with it, the waste and if an accident would happen - is it still considered as an option?
John replies: The risk of a major accident involving the type of reactor that could be used in the UK in the future is very small - in fact it is less likely than the earth being hit by a large meteorite. Of course safety and security isses are taken very seriously. The nuclear industry in the UK has an excellent safety record.
Louise Glen-Lee: Mr Hutton- what do you dream of doing in your job and how can we as a nation support you in that?
John replies: Thanks for the question. I think dealing with the problem of climate change and energy security are probably the most immediate issues for me and I want to make sure that we deal with those in a sensible and sustainable way. Of course I think in politics generally everything depends on a successful dynamic economy so I just want to make sure people in the UK continue to work in the jobs they feel are right for them and enjoy the lifestyle they aspire to.
I have got to go now. Remember there is a month to go on the nuclear consultation. If people want to contribute, they should log on to the consultation website. Your views are important so make them known.
Moderator says: That’s all we have time for today. Our next webchat will be with Ruth Kelly, Transport Secretary, on 20 September at 10:00 BST.
delicious
digg
facebook
