:00:17. > :00:25.Good morning, conference. Wdlcome to the emergency motion for today,
:00:26. > :00:31.which is the one on nuclear power at Hinkley Point. If you haven't seen
:00:32. > :00:40.the text, you can get it from the stewards. There is no amendlent to
:00:41. > :00:43.this, we don't take amendments on emergency motions. Tomorrow morning
:00:44. > :00:48.at nine o'clock, we will be doing the emergency motion on loc`l
:00:49. > :00:56.communities welcoming refugdes. You will find the motion, as I said on
:00:57. > :01:02.page five, and also Conference Extra on page 22. So I am going to call
:01:03. > :01:13.Martin Hall, who is moving the motion. And Woody Gideon Amos please
:01:14. > :01:17.stand by? Good morning, conference. Good morning, conference. Good
:01:18. > :01:23.morning. Feeling nostalgic for the coalition yet? Go on, you are! Never
:01:24. > :01:25.mind equal marriage and tax cuts, on energy and the environment, we
:01:26. > :01:29.achieved the biggest carbon reduction ever and launched the
:01:30. > :01:33.first Green Investment Bank unlocked investment in low carbon endrgy
:01:34. > :01:37.through the energy act, cre`ted 200,000 green jobs and planted
:01:38. > :01:43.million trees and more than doubled renewable energy in the UK.
:01:44. > :01:49.They sent powerful signals to investors that took us to the top
:01:50. > :01:53.ten places in the world to hnvest in renewables. We promised, we
:01:54. > :01:58.delivered and we should be proud of our green record. On nuclear, both
:01:59. > :02:02.Liberal Democrat and coalithon policy was garted. The -- gtarded.
:02:03. > :02:07.The deal was nuclear could be part of low carbon mix, but only
:02:08. > :02:12.alongside investment, energx efficiency and storage and
:02:13. > :02:16.crucially, without public stbsidy. What has happened since the Tories
:02:17. > :02:20.took power on their own has been heart breaking for Liberal
:02:21. > :02:23.Democrats, bad for the environment and potentially disastrous for
:02:24. > :02:28.Energy Bill pairs. They've ditched the Green Deal without repl`cing it,
:02:29. > :02:31.cut solar subsidies early and encouraged local opposition to
:02:32. > :02:36.windfarms while stamping on local opposition to fracking. Just the
:02:37. > :02:40.kind of policy inconsistencx, contradictory approach, mixdd
:02:41. > :02:44.messages a recent Select Colmittee report said had damaged invdstor
:02:45. > :02:47.confidence and taken us out of the top ten places in the world to
:02:48. > :02:52.invest in renewables. In thd last ten days, the same Select Committee
:02:53. > :02:56.says we're now on course to miss our renewable energy target. Th`t's half
:02:57. > :03:00.the deal on nuclear broken that we backed renewables too. What about
:03:01. > :03:03.the other half the deal? No public subsidy for nuclear? There's
:03:04. > :03:09.mounting evidence things ard going wrong. National Audit Officd report
:03:10. > :03:16.earlier this year spelled ott the bill for British bill pairs just for
:03:17. > :03:20.Hinckley C, ?6 million in 2013, nearly 30 billion projected now The
:03:21. > :03:23.problem is the contract for difference, a guaranteed endrgy
:03:24. > :03:27.price designed to help the new, innovative and competitive renewable
:03:28. > :03:31.ind Troy viability and lower prices and renewable costs have fallen
:03:32. > :03:36.faster than anyone imagined and there's more innovation comhng in
:03:37. > :03:39.wind, solar, geothermal, wave, Bayeux gas, ocean, thermal
:03:40. > :03:44.conversion, tidal flow turbhnes and more. Because their contracts for
:03:45. > :03:49.difference are shorter, bill payers will benefit from the falling costs
:03:50. > :03:55.in time. The contract for Hhnckley by contrast, was awarded to
:03:56. > :03:58.electricity de France on a staggering 35-year time scale. We're
:03:59. > :04:02.going to be paying this state-owned French energy company and its state
:04:03. > :04:06.owned Chinese partner for a generation. The final bill could
:04:07. > :04:09.reach ?40 billion. It will burden our children and grandchildren with
:04:10. > :04:14.higher Energy Bills for dec`des quite possibly tipping some into
:04:15. > :04:19.fuel poverty. You see the ntclear industry is not new, innovative or
:04:20. > :04:22.competitive. In 60 years thdre has never been a single Nuclear Power
:04:23. > :04:28.Station built anywhere in the world on time, on budget and without
:04:29. > :04:33.public subsidy. And the Hinckley C model of an EPR reactor hasn't been
:04:34. > :04:37.built at all. France and Finland in progress, are billions over budget
:04:38. > :04:41.and years behind schedule. The contract for difference wasn't
:04:42. > :04:45.enough for EDF. Astonishingly the Tories have obliged them. In a foot
:04:46. > :04:49.note to a statement last October, they officially dropped the
:04:50. > :04:54.coalition's pledge to no public subsidy. Just the previous day,
:04:55. > :04:59.energy ministers Andrea Ledsom, remember her? She said it w`sifiedal
:05:00. > :05:04.energy companies stood on their own two feet. She was justifying cutting
:05:05. > :05:08.renewable subsidies. For Hinckley, the cheque book was open. Gdorge
:05:09. > :05:12.Osborne announced a Governmdnt loan guarantee estimated at ?2 bhllion
:05:13. > :05:17.now but likely to rise. The Hinckley deal already included a funded
:05:18. > :05:21.decommissioning deal that promised future taxpayers would foot the bill
:05:22. > :05:25.if the cost of closing it down and cleaning it up overran as wdll.
:05:26. > :05:33.George Osborne will be history by then. The recent report says energy
:05:34. > :05:37.efficiency and storage and interconnection with other countries
:05:38. > :05:41.would save the UK ?1 billion a year while keeping the light on `nd
:05:42. > :05:45.meeting climate targets. Fotr new large windfarms would bring us much
:05:46. > :05:51.electricity into the grid as Hinckley. Conference, as thd motion
:05:52. > :05:57.says, Hinckley C is a bad ddal. We need a UK energy policy basdd on
:05:58. > :06:01.energy efficiency, renewabld energy, storage and interconnection. Please
:06:02. > :06:06.live up to that proud, green record in Government and support this
:06:07. > :06:15.motion. Thank you very much. APPLAUSE
:06:16. > :06:20.Thank you. Martin is hoping and we all hope he will regain that seat
:06:21. > :06:27.for us. Could counsellor Jaxne Lock stand by. I call Gideon Amos.
:06:28. > :06:35.Conference, this time last xear I stood before you as a former member
:06:36. > :06:38.of the now shamefully abandoned UK's zero carbon homes taskforce. I'm
:06:39. > :06:44.here this year because I want to talk to you about carbon reduction
:06:45. > :06:48.and how one of our most important carbon reduction proinjects in this
:06:49. > :06:52.country, Hinckley, cannot bd completely opposed and attelpted to
:06:53. > :06:56.be stopped by Liberal Democrats My suggestion to you is today hn this
:06:57. > :07:01.short, half hour, emergency motion debate is not the way to ch`nge our
:07:02. > :07:08.long standing policy that this party has debated at great length. For
:07:09. > :07:12.many of us, for many environmentalists like James
:07:13. > :07:17.Lovelock, for our party, we have come to recognise the importance of
:07:18. > :07:23.nuclear in our energy mix, `s a way first and foremost of achieving the
:07:24. > :07:29.low carbon road that we havd to go down, achieving the 80% redtction in
:07:30. > :07:32.emissions by 2050. That is ` target that is apparently being ab`ndoned
:07:33. > :07:38.by the Conservatives. It is not a target that this party should be
:07:39. > :07:43.willing to abandon. It's essential not just for our carbon emissions
:07:44. > :07:47.targets and vierltal targets, this is essential for the communhties
:07:48. > :07:49.around the world who will stffer most from carbon emissions `nd
:07:50. > :07:53.climate change and they are, of course, the poorest countrids, the
:07:54. > :07:58.countries like Bangladesh and other countries which will suffer most if
:07:59. > :08:04.we fail to achieve global c`rbon emissions reductions targets. I
:08:05. > :08:08.welcome the opportunity to debate this and am grateful to the local
:08:09. > :08:16.party for bringing this mothon forward and much of what it has to
:08:17. > :08:20.say is valuable. But to simply oppose the Hinckley project as is
:08:21. > :08:25.stated in lines 24 to 26, I would suggest a separate vote shotld be
:08:26. > :08:29.taken on those if possible, is not a realistic policy to be made on the
:08:30. > :08:34.basis of the evidence. It is not correct to say that the project is
:08:35. > :08:39.entirely dependent on public subsidy. It has a huge amount of
:08:40. > :08:44.private investment. It is not the case to say, it's not true to say
:08:45. > :08:49.it's unconstructible. There are two in China nearing completion at the
:08:50. > :08:53.moment. I could go on. But the most important point for me is that we
:08:54. > :08:58.need a transformation in our energy provision in this country. We need
:08:59. > :09:03.to see a transformation which was indeed led by Ed Davey, our
:09:04. > :09:07.brilliant Secretary of Statd, who tripled renewable energy in this
:09:08. > :09:10.country, who brought about the beginning of the kans formation we
:09:11. > :09:16.need to see, more renewables, more low carbon energy and backed up by
:09:17. > :09:20.base load that nuclear, cle`n, safe nuclear power can provide. The one
:09:21. > :09:24.irony of this motion, if it was passed, we would end up as ` party
:09:25. > :09:27.more antagonistic to the pe`ceful use of nuclear power than wd would
:09:28. > :09:33.be to the use of nuclear we`pons. Let us get our priorities rhght
:09:34. > :09:36.conference, and let us back the low-carbon agenda, by all mdans we
:09:37. > :09:42.must criticise the policies coming out of the Government and the way
:09:43. > :09:47.they've been handled. But complete opposition to this policy, project,
:09:48. > :09:50.instead of an agenda about transforming our energy mix and
:09:51. > :09:55.basing that on a zero, low carbon energy supply is the route we have
:09:56. > :10:00.to go down. Thank you. APPLAUSE
:10:01. > :10:04.Thank you. Our PPC for Taunton Dean. I should just point out we can't
:10:05. > :10:08.take a request for a separate vote at this stage, I'm afraid they have
:10:09. > :10:18.to be submitted in writing the day before, sorry about that. Could I
:10:19. > :10:21.ask John Shoe smith to stand by I now call counsellor Jayne Lock, the
:10:22. > :10:36.leader of Somerset County Council. Good morning conference. Slhght
:10:37. > :10:39.correction to that, you're pre-empting it by a few months. I
:10:40. > :10:45.will be leader of Somerset County Council next May.
:10:46. > :10:51.APPLAUSE I was first elected as a Liberal
:10:52. > :10:56.Democrat counsellor in 1987 and in that election we were fighthng the
:10:57. > :11:00.development of Hinckley C. @s the Liberal Democrats we were stccessful
:11:01. > :11:04.then. I'm now leader of the Liberal Democrat group in opposition on
:11:05. > :11:08.Somerset County Council and here we are 30 years later, building a
:11:09. > :11:14.Nuclear Power Station, using the same technology as then. Th`t is why
:11:15. > :11:19.I am supporting the motion to conference to oppose the
:11:20. > :11:24.construction of Hinckley C. The construction of similar powdr
:11:25. > :11:28.stations in France and Finl`nd are years behind schedule and
:11:29. > :11:32.substantially over budget and clearly, are not working. On the
:11:33. > :11:37.very reasonable assumption that these issues will apply to the
:11:38. > :11:41.proposed Hinckley Point powdr station, it seems un-Lukely it -
:11:42. > :11:46.unlikely it will be operational until at least 2030 and cost far
:11:47. > :11:51.more than the current budget, the estimated final cost is 25 billion,
:11:52. > :11:57.the cost of the Severn Barr`ge less tan 20 billion. Hence Hinckley C
:11:58. > :12:01.will not contribute to solvhng the need for base load electrichty
:12:02. > :12:06.generation in the 2020s and any electricity it generates will be far
:12:07. > :12:09.more expensive than solar and wind generation when it becomes
:12:10. > :12:14.operational. By 2030, smart management of electricity stpply and
:12:15. > :12:17.demand will enable a far higher contribution of intermittent
:12:18. > :12:22.renewables to be relied upon than at present. The power plant will be out
:12:23. > :12:28.of date before it is ever ttrned on. Another consideration is th`t of the
:12:29. > :12:32.safety of this plant, one of the last tsunamis to hit the UK was in
:12:33. > :12:37.Bridgwater bay, the very site of Hinckley. A daily newspaper reported
:12:38. > :12:41.only yesterday that another tsunami of this scale could hit in the next
:12:42. > :12:45.few years. I think it depends on part of one of the Canary Islands
:12:46. > :12:49.dropping off, but hey. When Somerset County Council was asked about their
:12:50. > :12:53.preparations for a tsunami, the council informed me there wdre a
:12:54. > :12:57.number of places where effective barriers have been constructed. One
:12:58. > :13:03.of the examples given to me was the nuclear power plant at Fukushima in
:13:04. > :13:08.Japan. Clearly, no local authority nor central government can know how
:13:09. > :13:12.big the next tsunami will bd. My experience working in close quarters
:13:13. > :13:16.with the Tories is that thex are completely unprepared for the impact
:13:17. > :13:20.of this project as always, they know the cost of everything and the value
:13:21. > :13:25.of nothing. Finally, we must question how many of the 25,000 jobs
:13:26. > :13:29.will be filled by the local workforce. Somerset does not have
:13:30. > :13:31.the people now and with our impending exit from the European
:13:32. > :13:37.Union, where will these skilled workers come from? Too many
:13:38. > :13:41.unanswered and unconsidered questions about this project, we
:13:42. > :13:46.cannot allow it to be the ndxt white elephant in the UK. But let me make
:13:47. > :13:51.it clear - when we do retakd control in Somerset in May '17, we will work
:13:52. > :13:55.with the decision taken by Government and in the best hnterests
:13:56. > :14:02.of the people for Somerset, because we have to. Thank you.
:14:03. > :14:07.APPLAUSE Thank you, Jayne. As corrected our
:14:08. > :14:17.Group Leader of Somerset Cotnty Council. Could I ask Becky Forest to
:14:18. > :14:25.please stand by. I call John Shoesmith from mid-Derbyshire. Good
:14:26. > :14:30.morning. I'd like to explain in the next three minutes why Hinckley
:14:31. > :14:33.Point is essential to your future and essential moreover to your
:14:34. > :14:38.children's future, more importantly I should say to your childrdn's
:14:39. > :14:43.future. It is. I'd like to start off by looking at energy. Our ctrrent
:14:44. > :14:47.energy use is perhaps there. Over the next 30 years we face a
:14:48. > :14:53.desperate struggle to bring down that level of energy use by
:14:54. > :14:56.insulating all our buildings, by electrifying those things that are
:14:57. > :15:00.currently operated by fossil fuel. That is a huge task, not chdap. Over
:15:01. > :15:05.here I'd like it talk about energy supply. The current level of
:15:06. > :15:09.renewable energy supply is way below that. Over the next 30 years, we
:15:10. > :15:14.need to put in a desperate dffort to bring up that level of renewable
:15:15. > :15:18.energy supply to try to match the level of demand. There have been
:15:19. > :15:23.lots of studies done of that over the past few years and mostly, they
:15:24. > :15:27.end up with a bit of a gap to fill and the crucial political issue for
:15:28. > :15:32.us to address is how that g`p is filled. There are two ways to do it.
:15:33. > :15:39.The first, is to bring down the level of demand by asking pdople to
:15:40. > :15:45.make lifestyle changes, to cycle, to walk, to turn down their hole
:15:46. > :15:49.heating, to eat less meat. Those are fine, a few people do them. I do
:15:50. > :15:54.them myself. But asking the whole country to do them is virtu`lly
:15:55. > :16:02.impossible in a democracy. The other way to fill that gap is by the use
:16:03. > :16:05.of nuclear power. Even if wd put renewables everywhere we sensibly
:16:06. > :16:12.can, there's still a gap for nuclear power to be filled and nucldar power
:16:13. > :16:18.is the only sensible way to do it. So when you look at Hincklex,
:16:19. > :16:23.consider this: If you kill that project, then your children have
:16:24. > :16:29.little option, have a very difficult task to do to bring our energy into
:16:30. > :16:35.balance and to reduce ourselves to a zero carbon state. If we fahl to do
:16:36. > :16:38.that, by 2050, they'll know they've missed it and they will facd runaway
:16:39. > :16:45.climate change. That is an `wful prospect. I urge you, in considering
:16:46. > :16:49.how to vote on this, to rejdct it, because Hinckley Point, oncd it s
:16:50. > :16:56.gone, will be very difficult to bring back. We'll' face virtually
:16:57. > :17:00.certainly a no nuclear future and that is very, very difficult thing
:17:01. > :17:07.to live with. I urge you ag`in, please reject this motion. Thanks.
:17:08. > :17:21.Thank you, John shoesmith from adoption. Could I ask David to stand
:17:22. > :17:24.by? I call Becky Forrest from Bolton. Good morning, conference and
:17:25. > :17:30.thank you for the opportunity to speak. I only joined the party on
:17:31. > :17:37.June 25 so this is my first time speaking at conference. . I speak to
:17:38. > :17:42.you today having expected to oppose this motion. I am in favour of an
:17:43. > :17:47.interim use of nuclear power until such time as we can develop
:17:48. > :17:52.affordable and economically viable renewable energy that everybody can
:17:53. > :17:58.access. Until Theresa May ptt it on hold, I had not paid much attention
:17:59. > :18:02.to Hinkley Point C so the fhrst isolation of the new Prime Linister,
:18:03. > :18:08.read a couple of articles around it to -- the first decision. As I
:18:09. > :18:11.understood it, there would be no government or taxpayer subshdies, it
:18:12. > :18:15.was funded by foreign private investment and my first instinct was
:18:16. > :18:20.to wonder why she was jeopardising a project that provided vital
:18:21. > :18:24.infrastructure at potentially no public cost. Based on this, I was
:18:25. > :18:28.ready to oppose the motion. However, as a teacher and a science teacher,
:18:29. > :18:35.I like evidence and experts. So I looked into the matter further. I
:18:36. > :18:37.was astonished that in real terms in the contract, consumers and
:18:38. > :18:43.taxpayers would effectively end up funding this project. The fhxed
:18:44. > :18:47.wholesale energy costs negotiated and guaranteed by the Tory
:18:48. > :18:53.government is much more than today's market price. This means th`t if
:18:54. > :18:58.Hinkley Point C does not get that price from its consumers, the tax
:18:59. > :19:02.payer will up the differencd. Worse still, that price is fixed for 5
:19:03. > :19:06.years of energy provision. Hn retrospect, I believe Theresa May
:19:07. > :19:10.was right to review Hinkley C but in failing to take a brave dechsion to
:19:11. > :19:14.now withdraw from that contract she is once again playing an active part
:19:15. > :19:20.in a Tory government which hs once again letting the public down. In my
:19:21. > :19:24.naivete, I believed Hinkley C was subsidy free in such a fundhng
:19:25. > :19:28.arrangement would allow us to benefit from the supply of
:19:29. > :19:32.electricity without the rel`ted expense of the infrastructure.
:19:33. > :19:36.However, this is clearly not true. We will gain the expense without any
:19:37. > :19:40.of the control and as such, I ask you to support this motion that
:19:41. > :19:49.Hinkley C be opposed in its current form. Thank you. APPLAUSE.
:19:50. > :19:56.Thank you, Becky. Could I ask Fiona Hall to stand by? The last three
:19:57. > :20:01.speakers have all been first-time speakers at conference. I c`n assure
:20:02. > :20:05.you the next not. So I call Ed Davey. I spent nearly
:20:06. > :20:10.three years of my life lookhng at this deal. But I promise yot if you
:20:11. > :20:13.vote for this motion, and whll not take it personally. I want to
:20:14. > :20:21.convince you to vote against this motion. The motion and many speakers
:20:22. > :20:24.and commentators said the price of Hinkley Point C is very expdnsive
:20:25. > :20:29.and will involve public subsidy Having looked at many more lodels of
:20:30. > :20:33.future prices linked to this decision, more than I think the
:20:34. > :20:37.National Audit Office did, H am always astonished people can assert
:20:38. > :20:42.with such certainty that thdy know it is very expensive or good value
:20:43. > :20:48.for money. Why? Because to know that, you have to know the price of
:20:49. > :20:53.electricity between 2025 and 20 0. If you know that, you reallx clever.
:20:54. > :20:58.Because guessing the price of electricity next year is a lock s
:20:59. > :21:05.game. You also have the Nobdl Prize of carbon between 2025 and 2060
:21:06. > :21:15.Carbon markets are not workhng very well unfortunately -- you h`ve to
:21:16. > :21:19.know the price. This is the problem, uncertainty, we do not know the
:21:20. > :21:24.future prices, technology, but we have to make decisions about things
:21:25. > :21:29.that have to be tackled. Clhmate change. I am sure climate change is
:21:30. > :21:31.happening and we have to take measures to do that and Hinkley
:21:32. > :21:33.Point C does that.