| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab): I add my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for the amendment. We had several quite intense debates about the role of the Secretary of State and Ofgem in relation to renewable and sustainable energy. It is a matter of great joy to me that the will of the populace has prevailed. The Minister has recognised not only that Ofgem is a pivotal player in determining future growth of renewable and sustainable energy, but that it has been seen as something of a barrier and has operated on neo-liberal economic principles that were not compatible with some of the difficulties of renewable energy. That recognition is now in the Bill and it is totally consistent with the Government's intentions. I always think that that is what legislation should be like—it should say what it means on the tin. Now that we have the amendment, I am very glad.
On the point that was made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) concerning the effect of locational charges on renewable generators, I still have some difficulties with the locational charges argument. After all, wave heights and tidal streams are not very strong at the notional centre of consumption just north of Birmingham. The system disfavoured renewable energy and therefore needed the protection of clause 177, or clause 181, depending on which version of the printed Bill one looks at.
Unfortunately, the Bill contains sunset clauses. I still cannot understand why they are there. It is slightly sad that we ran out of time on Report in the House and did not get to the amendments seeking to delete those sunset clauses. It is important, if we are going to make the best use of the magnificent natural resources off the north-west coast of Scotland, that we give investors the confidence to tackle the big challenges that they face over and above the straight commercial challenge. On the face of it, the sunset clauses introduce a note of unpredictability and uncertainty, and a lack of protection.
Mr. Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more is at stake? The time scale for the projects is very long—it will probably be about 25 years—but there is a maximum of 10 years relating to investment. Not all projects will necessarily start at the beginning of that 10-year period.
Dr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman is right; I was about to make the same point, and he has saved me the labour of doing so.
I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government will have to address that issue and give some assurance to investors in renewable energy that there will be consistency of approach over a time span sufficient to match the development and investment time scale that is involved.
20 Jul 2004 : Column 298
We have made a significant step forward with the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister and I do not think that anyone will oppose it.
Mr. Timms: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) for their kind remarks. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who both played a very constructive part in our debates in Committee and in the House, as have hon. Friends of theirs who have had the opportunity to speak in this debate. I agree with what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said about the constructive contribution that has been made in the other place as well.
I think that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) spoke in favour of the amendment. I was not entirely sure, but I believe that that was the import of his speech. I understand the point that he raised, which has been drawn to my attention by others as well. There is a process that will lead to a decision on transmission charging later in the year, and it will be for the independent regulator to make that decision in the light of the duties that have been imposed on it. I would not want to anticipate at this stage precisely what the outcome will be, but I understand the concerns that he has raised.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown is right and that the amendment will command universal approval.
Lords amendment No. 10A agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 10B agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 17A to Commons amendment No. 17 agreed to.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With the permission of the House, we shall take motions 6, 7 and 8 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (North West Region) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (North East Region) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
That the draft Regional Assembly and Local Government Referendums (Date of Referendums, Referendum Question and Explanatory Material) (Yorkshire and the Humber Region) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
Question agreed to.
20 Jul 2004 : Column 299
DRAFT MENTAL HEALTH BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 15th July relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Mental Health Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Mental Health Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 31st March 2005.
That a Select Committee of 12 honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Mental Health Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—
(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(iii) to report from time to time;
(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
That the quorum of the Committee shall be two; and
That Mrs Liz Blackman, Mrs Angela Browning, Mr David Hinchliffe, Mr George Howarth, Tim Loughton, Mr Paul Marsden, Laura Moffatt, Ms Meg Munn, Dr Doug Naysmith, Mr Gwyn Prosser, Dr Howard Stoate and Hywel Williams be members of the Committee.—[Gillian Merron.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
PETITIONS
Fuel Duty
8.53 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con): The voice of rural Dumfries and Galloway has not always been heard by this Government, but wind of this petition has clearly blown across Parliament square to the Treasury. Faced with the signatures of thousands of my constituents, the Chancellor announced late today another postponement in the proposed 2p a litre rise in tax on petrol and diesel. That increase displays callous disregard for rural motorists and their anger on this issue cannot be put aside; it must be acted on.
To the House of Commons,
The petition of residents of Dumfries and Galloway,
Declares that further increases in tax on petrol will have an adverse effect on the livelihoods of those living and working in Dumfries and Galloway.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reverse his decision to impose the increase in tax on petrol due to be implemented in September 2004.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Victoria Road Post Office
8.54 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con): I rise this evening to present a petition of no fewer than 731 of my constituents of Romford who are deeply concerned by the prospect that one of their local post offices could be closed under the current review being conducted by Post Office Ltd. The petitioners are concerned that the Victoria road post office could be yet another victim of the review and the policy that has led to post office closures throughout the country.
The Victoria road post office serves the area of my constituency between Victoria road in central Romford and the Brentwood road, which borders the constituency of Hornchurch. It serves a large community, and many elderly people live in the area and depend heavily on the services that it provides. It is a focal point in the community and if it were to close, it would have a damaging effect on the local area.
The petition is supported by all shopkeepers in Victoria road and the surrounding area of central Romford. It is strongly supported by St. Alban's church in Princes road in Romford, together with the parents of children at local schools, including Manor primary school. It is also supported by members of the local residents association—the New Century residents association—and has the backing of the three local councillors for the Romford Town ward: Wendy Brice-Thompson, Frederic Thompson and Andrew Curtin. The main signatory to the petition is Mr. Ajit Chaterjee, a former teacher of mine at Marshalls Park school.
The petition reads as follows:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of the People of the Victoria Road area of Romford
Declares that Victoria Road Post Office is threatened with closure. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons does all in its power to keep Victoria Road Post Office open.
And the Petitioners Remain, etc.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |