| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Timms: As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) rightly pointed out, the definition reflects that in existing primary legislation, and is the appropriate one to use. I should point out that both the fuel poverty strategy and the Government's annual report on progress in implementing the strategy provide information on the basis of the two common definitions of fuel poverty. We are therefore ensuring that the information that everybody needs is placed in the public domain, where it can be accessed. By contrast with the previous
Government, this Government have a very strong commitment to make real progress on this issue, as we are now doing.
Mr. Chope: I find this incredibly disappointing and frustrating. I am tempted to say, "Let's divide on this", and see whether we can add the provision to the Bill. At the same time, I am conscious that I want to see this Bill, however inadequate, on the statute book. I find it frustrating that the Government are so pig-headed, particularly on something that is of such fundamental importance to millions of our constituents. I know that some Members are minded to say, "Let's divide", so if I were to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, perhaps they may wish to resist that. However, if we divide on the amendment, we will not be able to discuss any other aspect of the Bill, but perhaps the Government are already intent on destroying it. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this section 'sustainable energy' is to be regarded as including nuclear power.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 8, line 5, leave out 'renewable' and insert 'sustainable'.
No. 3, in page 8, line 10, leave out 'renewable' and insert 'sustainable'.
No. 4, in page 8, line 11, leave out 'or nuclear fuel'.
Mr. Chope: This group of amendments deals with the nuclear industry. There has been a fundamental failure by the Government to incorporate anything sensible about nuclear power in the White Paper. If we are to be serious about reducing carbon emissions, we must recognise that we cannot do away with the 20 per cent. of electricity that is generated by nuclear and replace it with the energy generated by windmills, because not enough windmills will be built quickly enough to replace the energy that would not be generated if our existing nuclear generating capacity were closed. If the Government are to be serious about global warming, they must be much more serious than they have been in recognising that there is and should be a role for nuclear in the future.
The Nuclear Industry Association's newsletter, "IndustryLink", of June-July 2003 contains an article headed "Grand vision-small promises". It says:
- "The Government's long-awaited energy White Paper was published on 24 February. It expounds a grand vision, but promises to deliver very little.
The cornerstone of the White Paper is the ambitious objective of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2050".
The same document refers to what has been happening in Switzerland, where 40 per cent. of electricity is generated by nuclear. Recently, there have been referendums in Switzerland and people have shown their support for nuclear energy when faced with the possible alternatives and their concern about carbon emissions. In Finland, there has been a great development of nuclear power, so why cannot we have a similar vision from the Government here if they are to be serious about energy issues? Some 20 per cent. of our electricity is currently generated by nuclear, but they are keen to phase it out and they have no proposals for an alternative. In the meantime, our nuclear generating industry is losing its best scientists and experts. They are forced to go overseas because they do not see a future for themselves in this country.
This is a serious issue, and the amendments would ensure that its seriousness is brought home to the Government regularly through the legislative procedure contained in the Bill.
Brian White: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need a nuclear debate in this country similar to the one that has just been held in Finland. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would be quite right to object if we tried to slip that debate in at 20 minutes past 2 on a Friday afternoon. We need such a debate. Both pro and anti-nuclear people support the Bill. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment but to join me in calling for a proper nuclear debate.
Mr. Timms: We set out clearly in the energy White Paper our policy on nuclear. It is currently an important source of carbon-free electricity, but its economics are not attractive at present and major issues about nuclear waste are still to be resolved. That is why we have not made any proposals to build new nuclear power stations, but we do not rule out the possibility that, at some point in the future, new nuclear build might be necessary. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there would need to be full public consultation before such a decision was made. Indeed, we have undertaken to publish a further White Paper setting out our proposals if we decide to go down that road. I hope that the House will not accept the amendments.
Mr. Chope: Again, that was a totally unsatisfactory response from the Minister. Why do we need a further White Paper to discuss nuclear in the future when we already have all the information before us? What is missing is the Government commitment to endorse nuclear as a means of enabling us to reduce carbon emissions. I again express my grave dissatisfaction with the Government's approach.
A letter from one of my constituents says that replacing nuclear with renewables would result in an enormous bill to the taxpayer that would be far in excess of what would otherwise be necessary. It says that nuclear electricity accounts for about 25 per cent. of total electricity output, and that if British Energy had
been supported to the same extent as renewables, its shares would be worth more than £10 each today rather than the 4p at which they currently stand. That shows that the Government have discriminated unfairly against the nuclear industry, including through the climate change levy. I again express my dissatisfaction, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 7, at end insert
'in respect of residential accommodation and at least one energy efficiency aim in respect of office accommodation.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 10, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'residential'.
No. 11, in line 20, leave out 'residential'.
No. 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, at end insert
'in respect of residential accommodation and at least one energy efficiency aim in respect of office accommodation.'.
No. 13, in page 2, line 41, leave out 'residential'.
No. 14, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'residential'.
Mr. Chope: The amendments identify a lacuna in the Bill. The Government sit on an enormous office estate. Those of us who occasionally visit it know that it is overheated, badly designed and wasteful of fuel and energy. However, the Government are prepared to accept only obligations on people with individual houses, which is unsatisfactory. If the Government were to accept the amendments, it would demonstrate that they are serious about their desire to improve energy efficiency.
Brian White: I had to draw the line in the Bill somewhere. Many people wanted me to include provisions on many things, such as transport. I drew the line where I drew it and although I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Timms: I have several problems with the amendments, not least the lack of a clear definition of office accommodation in the Bill, which would cause considerable problems with the Bill's implementation if they were accepted. I hope that the House will resist the amendments.
Mr. Chope: I presume that the Minister is saying that he will amend the Bill accordingly when he has a definition of office accommodation. That may be done
in the other place if the Bill receives its Third Reading today, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Brian White.]
2.27 pm
Mr. Chope: I shall not object to the Bill receiving its Third Reading, but I hope that the Government are suitably ashamed of the way in which they have destroyed the will of the House by holding the Bill's promoter to ransom and destroying it in Committee so that it is now a pale shadow of its original form.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |