| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): On 5 October, addressing the Conservative party conference, the hon. Gentleman said:
"To tackle congestion, I'll expand the road network."
Did he anticipate that that would lead to a reduction in carbon emissions?
Mr. Yeo: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the rest of my speech to the Conservative party conference, he would know that the answer to his question is yes. Technology opens the door for us to allow people to use their cars as they wish. The car has hugely enhanced people's lives in the last century, and we want people to be free to use their cars. We will not have a transport policy that is predicated on an attempt to get them out of the car, but we will encourage cleaner cars, such as more fuel-efficient and alternative-fuel cars. In that way, we can get the best of both worlds.
I hope that when the hon. Gentleman speaks in this debate he will clarify his position on the decision of Lewes district council to ban solar power in the town, despite the fact that it was particularly badly affected by flooding. It might be the case that in the minds of the hon. Gentleman and his Liberal Democrat colleagues there is no connection between violent floods and climate change, but it would enlighten the House, and possibly amuse it, if the hon. Gentleman were to clarify his position on that.
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1211
Norman Baker: Lewes district council did not ban solar power or any other renewable source. Indeed, evidence from planning applications demonstrates that the council has granted 13 out of 18 applications for solar panels in the last four years. Having heard the facts, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his allegation, which he continues to make.
Mr. Yeo: I am happy to repeat the allegation: there is a conservation area in Lewes in which the council's policy is to ban solar power.
Let me move on to a wider scale. It is not only Britain that needs to change policy if we are to tackle successfully the challenge of climate change. The United States of America needs to change even more. One of the blackest marks on the Prime Minister's record is his complete failure to use his influence with President Bush to try to get the US to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Without United States involvement, the Kyoto process is seriously, and possibly fatally, weakened. Nobody will take the Prime Minister's claim to be concerned about climate change seriously until there is evidence that he personally has used his uniquely advantageous position to win a change in the United States' approach.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): Before the hon. Gentleman too rapidly escapes from transport, would he like to make clear the Conservative party's attitude towards aviation? Does it intend to apply extra taxes? It talks about renewable energy; is there an attitude towards the use of fuels in general?
Mr. Yeo: We have now developed a detailed policy on road transport, but I recognise that aviation is an even faster growing source of carbon dioxide emissions, and the absence of tax on aviation fuel creates an unlevel playing field in terms of transport choices. Therefore, between now and next spring, I intend to add more detail to our response on aviation.
I hope that the Government also accept that a failure to address the fast-growing source of emissions that aviation constitutes is yet another gaping hole in their strategy towards climate change.
Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): As and when it comes, the policy that my hon. Friend announces will be greatly welcomed not only by Conservative Members but by many people in the environmental lobby, because the Government's record on aviation is disgraceful. We hear nothing from the Ministers with responsibility for it, and what we do hear is lamentably unambitious; they have no vision and no plan.
Mr. Yeo: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's encouragement, although I am unsure whether it is universally shared by Conservative Members. He is rightly known to be one of the most committed environmentalists in Parliament, and I am delighted that he is here to be supportive today.
Returning to Britain, energy policy is a key factor that will determine how successful we are at tackling climate change. The Government's White Paper on energy was a chance for them to set out a coherent approach to this
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1212
problem; sadly, it signally failed to do so. Government energy policy should have two overriding aims. First, it must ensure security of supply. Secondly, it must enable Britain to honour its environmental commitments. The White Paper implied, wholly misleadingly, that both aims could be achieved without any effect on electricity prices. That was dishonest. The truth is that if we are to have secure energy supplies and meet our environment goals, prices will rise. That throws up the additional challenge of how to deal with the problem of fuel poverty; however, the way to tackle that is not through energy policy, but through greater investment in energy efficiency and through the benefits system.
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) (Lab): I agree with quite a lot of what the hon. Gentleman has said. The point he is leading to now is extremely topical because of the sharp rise in gas prices. Does he agree with me that, to a large extent, the key is to have an energy policy that is based much more strongly on indigenous energy sources? We should not be talking about renewables versus nuclear versus clean coal; we should be talking about the role of all three, which will lead to a diminution in our future dependence on imported gas.
Mr. Yeo: I greatly regret the right hon. Gentleman's absence from the Treasury Bench. I recall his contribution to previous energy debates with much pleasure and a good deal of respect, and it is a shame that he is no longer a force for good sense in the Government, especially in their approach to energy policy. His point is well made, and I intend to address the subject he raises.
The White Paper seriously underestimated the probability of interruptions to supply, not just decades from now, but in the next few years. Given the damage that even brown-outs inflict on the economy and the hideous disruption to business and domestic life that any power cut causes, the White Paper's underestimate could have devastating consequences for Britain. Our infrastructure is already creaking, and our dependence on gas imports is increasing alarmingly, especially given the source of those imports and the limited number of entry points. I am indebted to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, whose latest paper, No. 230, published this month, confirms the worrying position. It states:
"By 2010, it is estimated that the UK will be 50 per cent. dependent on imported gas, rising to 80 per cent. by 2020".
"estimates suggest that the minimum share of gas in electricity generation will rise to 46 per cent by 2012 and some analysts suggest that this figure could be as high as over 60 per cent."
About a quarter of our electricity needs might soon be wholly dependent on imported gas. Remember that at present gas is imported into the United Kingdom through just two pipelines: the Bacton interconnector in Norfolk and the pipeline from Norway that enters through St. Fergus in Scotland. I do not need to spell out the vulnerability of that arrangement in today's world. It is not as though our gas storage capacity provides any protection—indeed, as POST notes,
"many European countries . . . have large strategic storage capacities, of up to 80 days' on average compared to 13 days for the UK."
Never before have we relied on imports for more than a quarter of our natural gas needs. No wonder the POST note contains a concluding warning:
"The shift from domestic gas surplus to import dependency may leave the UK more vulnerable to supply interruptions and gas price fluctuations".
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman's comments about security and imports are pertinent, but does he not accept that they apply equally to nuclear power? To the best of my knowledge, there is no uranium mine in the UK.
Mr. Yeo: There are a great many more than two potential suppliers of uranium, which can be imported in a variety of ways and is not confined to two highly vulnerable pipelines. However, any form of energy is to some extent at risk from a variety of threats, of which terrorism is only one. That is why it is so crass of the present Government in terms of renewable energy to put all their eggs in one basket, and in terms of fossil fuels to become so vulnerable and wholly dependent on imported gas.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |