House of Commons
Thursday 3 July 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Renewable Energy
1. Mr. Hanson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards promoting renewable sources of energy. [5203]
The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The Government are undertaking a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy options, such as wind, water, solar and biomass, as a means of ensuring diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies.
We are also examining the role of research and development to maximise the benefit to the economy of the emerging new environmentally friendly energy industries.
Mr. Hanson:
I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive reply. Does he agree that the recently announced changes and the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill will go a long way to help promote renewable sources of energy? Does he agree also that renewable energy sources are one of the key features that the Government must achieve and secure to help them meet their laudable target of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO 2 emissions by 2010?
Mr. Battle:
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Yes, the targets are tough, but that is all the better in our drive towards renewables, which we see emerging as a contribution to our achieving the CO 2 targets. The renewable energy industries need a clear signal that there will be confidence in them as generators of energy in future. The purpose of the alterations to the fossil fuel levy is precisely to create space and more support for renewable sources of energy.
Mr. Evans:
I support any promotion of the use of renewables, but will the Minister give an assurance that local people will always be consulted and taken heed of when any applications for the erection of wind turbines, especially in areas of beautiful open countryside, are made? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we only diverted more money, perhaps away from subsidising some of the more inefficient ways of producing energy,
Mr. Battle:
Energy efficiency and conservation are not incompatible with developing sources of renewable energy. Energy efficiency measures, as proposed by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for example, are a positive way forward.
All the projects that go through for non-fossil fuel obligation support must have local consent and support. Some people oppose wind farms, but there is quite substantial opinion in favour of them among those who see them as a positive way forward. In international terms, we should not confine our attention to the turbine itself but think of the chain of engineering in a wind farm. It is a good product and it can win markets internationally.
Mr. Tipping:
Will my hon. Friend examine the research into renewable and sustainable energy and extend it towards clean coal technology? Does he agree that coal faces a challenging time and that any help that we can give it to become a more competitive and environmentally sensitive source of fuel will be welcomed by coalfield communities throughout the country?
Mr. Battle:
My hon. Friend has a record of championing cleaner coal technologies. Research has already been undertaken, and we are pulling it together. It is important that coal generation tackles noxious emissions such as sulphur and nitrous oxide. It is important to look to technologies to ensure that coal is burnt more cleanly and that there are not nasty emissions. We shall do all we can to assist in research and development and to bring the process to market. We shall also assist in ensuring that there is some space in future for coal and coal burning, while not jeopardising the environment.
Mr. Roy Beggs:
Does the Minister accept that there are many small potential hydro sites, as yet undeveloped, throughout the United Kingdom? Will he give early consideration to the difficulties and costs that face those who seek to promote new, small hydro sites? Perhaps too much difficulty is being created by ill-founded objection at local level.
Mr. Battle:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that matter. We want to support small hydro schemes--that is part of the package of support for renewables. Hydro is eligible for NFFO as well. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me details about difficulties with projects in his part of the world. If he does, I will see what can be done to assist.
2. Mr. Hinchliffe:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to review the criteria for regional selective assistance. [5204]
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths):
This will be addressed in my right hon. Friend's comprehensive spending review.
Mr. Hinchliffe:
My hon. Friend is aware of the serious concern about the current calculation of unemployment
Mr. Griffiths:
I want to ensure that regional selective assistance is based on reliable criteria. I know that my hon. Friend will want to pursue this point with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. I am sure that his work to date has contributed to the success of 19 companies in Wakefield in receiving offers of regional selective assistance to secure 820 jobs and in securing capital investment of £31.3 million.
Mr. Nicholls:
Is the Minister aware of the concern that, very often, selective assistance does not so much create jobs as remove them from one part of the country, by a job-shuffling technique, to another? There is great resentment in areas such as Teignbridge that that is precisely what is happening to them. While I do not expect an answer today, will the Minister at least say that the review will consider whether real jobs are created or whether they are stolen from people who had them in the first place?
Mr. Griffiths:
The maps were drawn up in 1993. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should put his question to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was President of the Board of Trade at the time. He might be able to tell the hon. Gentleman why his constituency did not qualify. These matters are being addressed in the comprehensive spending review.
Mr. Barry Jones:
Does my hon. Friend know that this form of assistance is ever more important to communities such as mine? Does he know that, in recent years, objective 2 status and development area status have been stripped away from my constituency? What prospect might there be of such status being awarded again?
Mr. Griffiths:
I am sorry to say that I cannot give that assurance, but I know that my hon. Friend will seek to ensure that the best case is made for his area, where he has a reputation for championing local causes.
3. Mrs. Ballard:
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance her Department has issued to the Post Office in respect of the protection of local services. [5205]
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney):
The Government are committed to a nationwide letter and parcel service with daily delivery to every address in the country, to a uniform and affordable tariff structure under which it costs the same to post a letter anywhere in the United Kingdom, and to maintaining a nationwide network of
Mrs. Ballard:
People in my constituency, in Wellington in Somerset, have recently experienced a deterioration in the service at their local post office. They will be glad that the Minister is committed to a network of post offices, which I hope he agrees is vital to the survival of rural communities. This week, the chairman of the Post Office called for greater commercial freedom. In answering that request, will the Minister also ask the chairman to give greater commercial freedom to individual sub-post offices to allow them to negotiate with public utilities and others their own contracts to provide services to local people rather than having to be part of a block contract?
Mr. McCartney:
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about the post office in Wellington. On 10 July we arranged for Post Office representatives to meet town councillors, after which significant improvements to the arrangements in Wellington were agreed. The Post Office will have another meeting on 12 August, following which I have asked officials to keep the hon. Lady informed of progress. If, after that date, she is still not satisfied, she is more than welcome to contact me, and I will try to assist her to ensure that the Post Office meets the standards and requirements that our constituents deserve in their postal services.
With regard to the hon. Lady's second point, we shall ensure that the review takes account of the needs of users of Post Office services. The review's purpose is to ensure that, between now and the turn of the century and beyond, the United Kingdom will have the first-class service that its people deserve. I shall ensure that the hon. Lady's comments are included in the evidence that we are gathering as part of the review.
Mr. Mackinlay:
Is not there a problem for all hon. Members in that the Post Office will always hide behind the fact that these are operational matters? Many hon. Members feel that there is a need to expand and increase the number of Post Office Counters outlets in their constituencies, but the franchises have already been given to particular people based on a geographical area. Many hon. Members want more outlets, but are impeded by the Post Office's claim that that is a matter for it rather than a matter of service delivery to the public.
Mr. McCartney:
My hon. Friend should put the matter in perspective. With 19,000 outlets, the United Kingdom has the largest network of any postal service in the world. The Government suspended the Crown post office conversion as a matter of urgency; that was welcomed by both sides of the House. We did so to ensure that the conversion was considered in the context of the overall review, so that whatever decisions are taken at the end of the review will enhance the opportunities for the users of the services, rather than that the Post Office board should have its view and its view alone. The review is an open process and the points that my hon. Friend has made have been made to me by a range of people, including those in the postal service.
Mrs. May:
The Minister has made a number of references to the review of the Post Office and its
Mr. McCartney:
There is uncertainty in Maidenhead and elsewhere because the previous Government ran a campaign to undermine the Post Office for the purpose of privatisation, leaving us with a demoralised service. The review has commenced and, when appropriate, we will announce its decisions. The Government's recommendations, unlike those of the previous Government, will enhance the role of the Post Office as a publicly owned public service, not a privatised one.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |