| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.30 pm
The Minister was wrong to say that there is a clear energy policy for the nuclear industry. Her predictable response to my question was to refer it back to the industry. Nuclear power represents 30 per cent. of energy output. It is no good saying that reducing CO 2 is not just about energy output, but about transportation. If the 30 per cent. nuclear component produced vehicle-type emissions, half the cars in this country would have to be taken off the road. If she is saying that when nuclear power stations are decommissioned she can make up for their lack of CO 2 emissions through transport policies, she will have to have a hugely draconian policy on transportation.
Mrs. Liddell: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman listens to what I say. I pointed out that a wide range of issues relate to emissions and affect our CO 2 targets. I get the impression that the hon. Gentleman, who is a committed, right-wing, free marketeer, is now backing off from the use of market mechanisms to determine future generation. Perhaps he should make it clear whether that is Conservative policy.
Mr. Gibb: I should be delighted to make that clear. The market mechanism is fine, except that the previous Conservative Government and this Government have signed up to international agreements to reduce CO 2 emissions. They are an interference in the market mechanism. To enable those targets to be met, the
Government must inevitably interfere in the market to encourage or nudge it to deliver what they have signed up to. If there is no nudging, there is no certainty that the targets will be met. They could be met, but there is no certainty that the market will deliver them, because this is an artificial constraint on the market mechanism.The Government are not fulfilling their duty to explain what will happen in 2012 and beyond as Magnox stations are decommissioned. This is an important point, because there is a genuine concern about what will happen. The Minister has not done herself any favours by failing to set out in straightforward terms what the Government intend to replace nuclear power with. If they are saying that energy efficiency will fill the gap and will make up for 30 per cent. of energy production, and that nuclear power stations will be replaced by gas-fired power stations, there will be a colossal increase in CO 2 emissions. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that that can be dealt with by reducing transportation a little and by energy efficiency measures, because they will not be adequate to deal with the increase in CO 2 caused by the decommissioning of nuclear power stations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) expressed his disappointment at the lack of Government commitment to combined heat and power, which is important because its operation is equivalent to reducing CO 2 emissions by 86 per cent. It not only produces electricity from gas, which is 50 per cent. more efficient than coal or oil as regards CO 2 emissions, but it avoids the need to use other electricity sources to heat greenhouses, factories or homes.
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I am intrigued to know whether, if a future Government decided to build more nuclear power stations, Bognor and Littlehampton would be a suitable spot to construct one. If not, why not?
Mr. Gibb: The Minister is going into planning issues. Places around the country already have nuclear power stations, and sites are available there, especially where plants are being decommissioned. That is an issue for the Government. They must address these concerns, and it is no good throwing them back at the Opposition.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I have had a long interest in nuclear power stations, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I have seen all the plans of the sites where people want to put additional nuclear power stations, and his constituency does not feature among them.
Mr. Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby said that it would be wrong not to require electricity companies to purchase surplus electricity from households or small businesses that has been generated by photovoltaic energy, combined heat and power, or wind. The headquarters of The Body Shop in Littlehampton has a wind-turbine generator, which generates much of the power for the company's operations. What is wrong with that? The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs said in Committee that forcing the electricity industry to
buy back surplus electricity would be like requiring Tesco to purchase the lettuces that he grows on his allotment. There is a difference between his lettuces and electricity, because his lettuces wilt over time but electricity is an homogenous product which lasts. It is a fungible asset, which can be sent back down the wires with no deterioration in quality.
Mr. Robathan: The point about the wind-turbine generator at The Body Shop is that people should be encouraged to install small-scale renewable plants--wind-generated or whatever--through net metering, because it will remove the costs. The Government seem to have ignored that. They say that we do not understand, but they seem to have missed the point.
Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I believe that small generation plants will be the future of renewable energy in this country. Anything that can be done to encourage them, such as net metering, is to be welcomed.
Mr. Bruce: I suspect that the Minister will not speak again. My hon. Friend referred to different forms of fuel. Despite the Minister's challenges about the Government's decision to subsidise coal, she has not said how that affects the CO 2 load and what their long-term policy on coal is.
Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I suspect that I can answer. The Government do not have an overall, long-term, strategic energy policy. They merely respond to day-to-day crises and to internal Labour party politics. That was the whole basis of the energy White Paper published in October 1998.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby also made the important point, which had not occurred to me, that the new clause would enable the public to assess the workability of the climate change levy, and to see how much damage it is doing to British industry and to the aims and objects of the levy. He also suggested that the Government were resisting the Liberal Democrat amendment because they were concerned that they could face court action if they failed to deliver on their manifesto promise. Perhaps we should propose that all Labour manifesto promises be put in amendments to Bills. I should like to suggest an amendment to the Finance Bill about the Government not raising taxes, as the Labour party promised time after time before the election.
I was concerned about the right hon. Lady's statement that the Government's target was that 5 per cent. of Britain's electricity requirements would be met from renewables by 2005, not 2003. My memory of the renewable energy consultation document is that the target was 2003, not 2005. [Interruption.] I am grateful for sedentary confirmation of that by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).
Mrs. Liddell: We are on course to meet the target by 2003.
Mr. Gibb: How does that differ from the Government's target of 2005?
Mrs. Liddell: If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to say 2003.
Mr. Gibb: It does help me, because it is consistent with the target that the Government have published in their consultation documents. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that confirmation.
The hon. Member for Lewes made the obvious point, but made it very well, that the phrase in the Liberal Democrat amendment was lifted from the renewable energy consultation document. It goes to show how meaningless are the Government's promises if they are not prepared to put them into the legislation when it is proposed and passed by the Standing Committee.
This has been a disappointing debate. It was an opportunity for the Government to set out in five or 10 minutes the broad, general thrust of their energy policy. It is a lost opportunity, and it goes to show how important the new clause is, because it would have required the Government to publish details of their energy policy. I am disappointed that the Government will not accept the new clause. However, given that we have had a debate, albeit disappointing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9
Mr. Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 6, line 15, leave out "wherever appropriate".
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in page 7, line 6, leave out "Subject to subsection (2)," and insert "In performing that duty".
No. 23, in clause 13, page 9, line 25, leave out "wherever appropriate".
No. 30, in page 10, line 16, leave out "Subject to subsection (2)," and insert "In performing that duty".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |