| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Mar 2003 : Column 593—continued
11.40 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on securing his place in the ballot and choosing this topic. I congratulate him also on the breadth of support he has achieved, not only from the dozens of organisations that have put their names to the Bill, but from Members across the House. Two of my hon. Friends have spoken eloquently in support of the Bill and I confirm that the Conservative party wishes to see it go into Committee.
The speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) was welcome. He said that we needed to restore credibility to the process after what
had happened to his Bill. He did restore credibility to the process, but also to himself. He produced a withering demolition job, although he said he would not, of the inadequacies of the energy White Paper. His analysis sits at the core of the dilemma facing the Government.The Government have decided to proceed by a series of targets and statements in the White Paper, and they have to be held to account for what they say they are going to achieve. The Government's problem was illustrated by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and by the promoter of the Bill; the Government cannot deliver what they intend. There are dozens of policy instruments but the policy framework is non-existent. That is why I found it impossible to support early-day motion 910 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown in support of his Bill. Frankly, there is no policy framework and I am not sure how he could include that in the first line of his early-day motion. It could only have been an attempt to secure the good will of the Government. There is hope for the hon. Gentleman that he will get his Bill through this place because the Bill we are debating today gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State to get her hands on money that she would otherwise not have been able to spend.
The dilemma for the Government is whether to go for a liberal market in energy or to have a regulated and directed set of policies. The Government have fallen between two stools. The House will not be surprised to hear that the Conservative party favours a liberal market solution, but that market must operate within a framework. The absence of such a framework means that the Government cannot deliver what they have set out.
The United Kingdom cannot do this alone. The main aim is to protect our planet by dealing with emissions into the atmosphere. That is the overriding environmental threat. That should provide the framework within which energy policy sits and that is what we intend to provide when we provide our response to the energy White Paper and produce our own energy policy. In the absence of a framework, we will have a gentleman in Whitehall telling everyone how much is to be produced by renewables, coal, gas and the rest. As we have seen, there has been a conspicuous lack of success with such schemes.
I note that the Minister for Energy and Construction is not here and understand that he is in Shetland meeting the Norwegian Minister in a long-standing engagement to discuss arrangements for the future supply of gas to the United Kingdom. I have had the privilege of dealing with energy policy since last July and I have concluded that issues of renewables and nuclear generation are interesting and that gas is important. Gas is rapidly taking the lead position in this country's energy market. I am loth to criticise the Minister for Energy and Construction for not being here to reply to the debate when his discussions with the Norwegian Minister are essential to the economic success of the United Kingdom.
I should like to deal in detail with the problems of definition in the Bill. Clause 8 says
- "'sustainable energy policy' means measures which reduce emissions of carbon and methane and promote reductions in the use of energy, and, for the avoidance of doubt, does not include nuclear power, and the term 'sustainable energy' shall be considered accordingly."
I am not sure that a definition necessarily revolves around a reduction in the use of energy. We are faced with a relentless increase in energy consumed in the UK, about 1 per cent. a year. That is not the problem. The problem is what is associated with it—the emissions into the environment. If we are talking about nuclear generation, those emissions are the radioactive waste that comes from that process. We must ask ourselves fundamental questions about how we try to improve the environment. It is not necessarily a question of reducing the consumption of energy. We must deal with the consequences of that energy consumption.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sidney Chapman), in supporting this Bill, reminded us of the commitments in the Labour party's manifesto. That is always a useful thing to do when those commitments are not being met. He then gave the House his definition of sustainable development, which I thought was as good as one could get in seven words. That is hardly surprising when we consider that he has the expertise of being the chairman of the committee in the Council of Europe. He also made the important point that it is the mark of a civilised society that people should have warm homes. The efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)—especially in his private Member's Bill—are to be commended on that issue.
These debates offer one the opportunity to listen and then think about what may be better policy solutions to the objectives that we all share. On the basis of the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and others, I am beginning to think that we should be considering absolute standards of fuel poverty rather than relative standards of fuel poverty. For example, we should ensure that every home in the country—where, because of the minimum income guarantee, everyone has a basic income—can be heated by 10 per cent. of the disposable income in the home, to use the definition of fuel poverty. If we set that as a standard to be achieved in housing stock throughout the United Kingdom, it would be an absolute standard to work towards. We could then have targets that were based on a proper audit of the quality of the country's housing stock.
The Bill makes an extremely important contribution to energy efficiency by giving Government the targets that are so painfully obviously absent from the White Paper. The Association for the Conservation of Energy, in the welcome briefing that it provided for hon. Members, said:
- "This makes it all the more perplexing that the White Paper contains no firm target for improving energy efficiency. It also seems clear that the Government does not have the 'commitment' to energy efficiency of which Brian Wilson spoke."
- "By contrast, the White Paper seems to have adopted a reverse hierarchy. It has set a firm target for CHP . . . an aspirational target for renewables . . . and no target at all for energy efficiency."
The aspiration on renewables is given in paragraph 4.11 of the White Paper. The Government have already said that the target of 10 per cent. is challenging, but at least that target is backed up by the policy of the renewables obligation. However, we have to ask whether the targets are appropriate. The Government have set the aspiration of a 10 per cent. contribution by renewables to our electricity generation by 2010, and a 20 per cent. contribution by 2020. That gives one the rather horrid feeling that the Government are using a wet finger in the air to judge what the targets should be.
The fundamental question to ask is this: why do we want renewable energy to supply a share of our electricity? Is it because we want to reduce CO2 emissions? If that is the fundamental reason, are there better ways of doing it? Evidence was given to the Government by Ofgem that, because of the cost of reducing CO2 emissions by focusing on renewables, it would be economic nonsense. It is a hugely expensive way of reducing CO2 emissions. It has been pointed out that achieving energy efficiency is a much more effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. We need to consider policy in the round and decide what the roles of gas, coal, nuclear generation and renewables will be within a framework that promotes the reduction of greenhouse gases.
This Government's record on combined heat and power is, of course, appalling. It is extraordinary that, although there is no target for energy efficiency in the White Paper, there is a firm target for CHP—but absolutely no measures in place to achieve it. David Green, the director of the Combined Heat and Power Association, welcomed the White Paper with the words:
- "There is a complete absence in the White Paper of any significant new measures to reduce the damage done to Britain's green generators over the last three years by weak and inconsistent delivery of Government policies."
- "we will undertake a review of the existing guidance on information";
"we will continue to emphasise the benefits of CHP";
"We will work with OFGEM to keep these developments under review";
"Over the coming months we will consider the nature and extent of such a target or targets and announce our conclusions";
"as we consider and consult on the expansion of the energy efficiency commitment . . . we will explore the opportunities for incentivising CHP technologies";
- "We have invited the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust to review their current and future programmes".
- "will support field trials designed to evaluate the benefits of micro-CHP".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |