| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tynan:
May I add my welcome for this vital new clause? It gives the Government and the Opposition an
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1327
opportunity to examine annually how we maintain security of supply in this country. That will become an increasing problem over the next few years, with the phase-out of coal-fired power stations because of the European emissions targets and the situation in relation to nuclear power.
We must consider what the best source of energy for this country would be. I happen to believe that it would be nuclear rebuild. I know that that will not gain much support in the Chamber today. The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) referred to the Government's cowardice on energy supply. I would level that charge at the Opposition, who believe in a nuclear policy but have so far failed to demonstrate their support for it in the Chamber.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: May I read out part of a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition? In reply to a constituent about energy policy for the future he says:
"I can assure you that nuclear energy will be a vital part of this".
Mr. Tynan: I am delighted to be corrected and accept the evidence of that correspondence. Certainly, it helps me to feel a lot better, because it means that I am not alone in my support for nuclear energy.
Carbon dioxide emissions will be another major problem over the next few years. I asked the Secretary of State
"What estimate she has made of how much carbon would be emitted if all gas fired power stations that have been approved, but are yet to enter into service, entered service."
"There is currently around 4,800MW of gas-fired capacity comprising six large stations, approved but yet to enter into service."
That sends signals to me that there could be a move to a gas economy. The Minister also said:
"emissions from these stations would amount to around 3 million tonnes of carbon per annum."—[Official Report, 15 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 814W.]
There is no such thing as a carbon dioxide emission from nuclear power.
4.30 pm
I understand the waste problem, but that already exists, especially with military and civil waste. It must be dealt with and I am glad that the nuclear decommissioning authority is being set up to deal with it.
Other major issues are security of supply and global warming. It is said that either 20 or 40 per cent. of our energy must come from renewables. I welcome the news of a renewables obligation and of an increase in the use of renewables—although I believe that the Scottish environmental and culture committees said that there was a problem with wind power and that we should move towards tidal power. I am sure that that will be the subject of a future debate.
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1328
How can we ensure security of supply? If we intend to obtain 70 per cent. of our energy from gas—which would presumably feature in the report—and if it is to come from, say, Russia or the middle east, I do not think that we can guarantee secure supply. Given renewable power and a 20 or 40 per cent. target, and given all the measures relating to domestic heating referred to in new clause 4, security of supply will be the big issue in connection with gas coming into this country. I understand that we have kept the nuclear option open, but unless the Government make a decision on our new nuclear power build—perhaps we shall have to wait until the next general election for that—I do not believe that we can maintain security of supply.
I certainly do not believe that we can do that with wind power. I visited Dunlaw, a wind farm on the east coast of Scotland. It had 26 turbines with a capacity of 17.26 MW and on a windy day, it was producing 4 MW. That was the standard level. The problem with wind power is that it is an intermittent source of energy. I welcome the news that we are to use it, but without some back-up we shall have a problem. I understand that in 2015 Longannet power station will be phased out, not because of any problem with transmissions but because unless it changes to clean burn, European emissions arrangements will ensure that it disappears. Wind power is, however, the most flexible power source we have at present.
I welcome the idea of an annual report. It is an essential means of holding the Government to account and I am pleased that Government time will be available for the report to be discussed. It will be interesting to see what it contains and how secure supply will be. I believe that history will show that, unless we change the mix that we propose in the future, with the majority of energy coming from gas, we will fail the people of this country badly. To those who want no nuclear power, let me say that the people of this country will never forgive the Government if we lose power for a day, two days or three days. If that happens, people will not care which energy source the power to light their homes comes from. The report could be used as a serious measure in the development of power and security of supply.
Mr. Page: As the House knows, clause 1 originally placed on the Secretary of State the duty
"to ensure the integrity and security of electricity and gas supply".
Placing that duty on the Secretary of State's shoulders was responsible and justifiable, but the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) feels that it would be too much for any Secretary of State to bear. With a verbal flick of the hand, the Minister condemned the clause to oblivion with the same relaxed attitude as a Roman emperor would dispatch a group of Christians to the lions. That said, I am grateful for new clause 5. It is perfectly possible to accept the assurance from the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services in his famous letter of 28 June, which I like to quote, that the new clause is designed to
"emphasise the Secretary of State's responsibility for security of supply",
although "security of supply" and the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament for its delivery are not mentioned. However, the new clause is obviously better than the vacuum in Committee, and I therefore welcome it.
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1329
I support the request from the hon. Member for Ochil for a debate in Government time. As a former Parliamentary Private Secretary to a previous Leader of the House, I know that the timetable is subject to competing pressures, and even the best intentions of Ministers as responsible and mature as the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services may get pushed to the back of the queue, so the debate should be set in tablets of stone.
I want to make three quick points. First, I endorse the remarks made by other hon. Members about the various time scales. I can see short-term and long-term strategies, but I cannot see a medium-term strategy, and I wonder why we do not have such a strategy on energy production—I do not know whether I am being pedantic or whether the point is relevant.
Secondly, I support the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on the importance of nuclear power. New clause 5(2)(a) states that an assessment must be made of the
"generating capacity in Great Britain",
and I hope that that includes an assessment of the generating capacity of nuclear power. I shall give a little encouragement to those faint hearts who do not believe that nuclear power has a significant role to play, by quoting last week's The Sunday Telegraph—it must be true—which states:
"In total, there are some 30 nuclear power stations currently under construction around the globe . . . Together they will generate 2610TWh of power without emitting greenhouse gases. Coal-powered stations generating the same amount of power would spew 2.4bn tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere every year."
If that saving is not significant, I do not know what is. I hope that the evaluation and monitoring of what is available from our nuclear industry is kept at the forefront, because as much as we all want renewables to win through and provide our energy, if the wind does not blow, it is difficult to obtain a satisfactory base load.
Thirdly, on annual reports, our energy requirements will increasingly be met from abroad. Our gas will come from further and further afield, and it will go through areas and regions that may not be stable. The annual report should look at security of supply of oil and gas from other countries to ensure that we do not get caught without any power. As has been said, if the lights go out, people will not say, "Oh, it is because of this or that." They will rightly look for someone to blame.
Having said all that, I welcome new clause 5, which helps to fill the vacuum that was created. I still think that the original phraseology was right, because it would have focused the Secretary of State's attention. Nevertheless, the Minister has taken such responsibility off the shoulders of a future Secretary of State and we now have a reasonable compromise.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |