| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Greg Clark : Will the Minister give way?
Malcolm Wicks: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) first, not because he is my hon. Friend but because he stood up first.
Dr. Whitehead: I thought it might be worth reminding my hon. Friend of Piltdown man, who I think was discovered in Kent and turned out to be a complete hoax and fraud.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we will now get back to the amendments and new clauses under debate.
Malcolm Wicks:
I will not say any more about fuel poverty, because I hope that I covered that in my earlier
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1076
remarks, but I remember, once upon a time in Bromley, discussing with elderly people and their representatives very real concerns about—to use the jargon—fuel poverty. There are people in Bromley who are too cold, just as there are in all our constituencies, and we need to help them. That is the serious point to make about this issue.
A substantive point was raised, perfectly properly, about the definition of a unitary authority in relation to new clause 4(6). We have checked and I am advised that unitary authorities are included under district councils.
Gregory Barker : I am delighted to be called to respond to the debate, which I do not intend to delay. A good point was raised about parish councils and unitary councils and I can see the merit in that argument. I certainly do not want untoward burdens to be placed on that tier of local government. Nevertheless, I know that there is a great deal of support for measures to tackle the problems of climate change at the lowest level of local government. I have received numerous letters from people involved in parish councils who want us to be more robust in giving clear direction to local government at all levels.
Let me come back to the point that I made in my opening speech about the survey of 300 local authorities, to which 92 per cent. responded. The authorities thought—Conservative Members have said this—that the issues covered by the measure fell under the remit of existing provisions on the statute book that provided powers to tackle climate change, but that the reason why they were not being prioritised—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to face the Chair while he makes his remarks?
Gregory Barker: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The existing powers were not being used because of a perceived lack of political direction from central Government, and the Bill will now clearly put a duty on the Secretary of State to provide that much-needed central direction. I thought that new clause 1 was a brief and correct measure, but the Minister has drafted his own interpretation. I am not entirely sure what the extra lines in new clause 4 add to new clause 1, but I bow to the knowledge of the civil service, which will have advised him as he drafted his measure. While acknowledging that we have won this battle, I willingly and happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in the course of each calendar year to lay before Parliament a report on the amount of energy consumed in the previous calendar year in the United Kingdom which was produced by—
(a) those sources of energy mentioned in section 82(7) of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20) (microgeneration);
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1077
(b) nuclear energy;
(c) fossil fuels.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, at end insert
'and
'(c) the reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases in the United Kingdom during the three most recent years for which information is available which is attributable to—
(i) the use of those sources of energy mentioned in section 82(7) of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20) (microgeneration);
(ii) nuclear energy.'.
Mr. Chope: I tabled new clause 3 because if we are to have a constructive debate about climate change and sustainable energy, which is what the Bill is all about, we need to ensure that the public are properly informed of the facts and options. At the moment, the extent to which energy consumption in this country is rising and the sources of that energy consumption are not generally known. New clause 3 thus refers specifically to energy consumption.
In 1998, energy consumption in the United Kingdom was 155.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent. The "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2004", which is published by the Department of Trade and Industry, says that that was shared among the domestic sector, which consumed 46.1 million tonnes of oil equivalent, industry, which consumed 34.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent, transport, which consumed 53.7 million tonnes of oil equivalent, and other sectors, which consumed 21.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent. Solid fuels accounted for 5.3 million tonnes of oil equivalent. Petroleum accounted for 66 million tonnes of oil equivalent. Gas accounted for 55.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent, electricity for 27.1 million tonnes of oil equivalent and renewables for 0.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent. One does not have to be a mathematician to see that renewables, which are effectively the subject of today's debate, produced an extremely small proportion of the energy consumed.
11.30 am
The latest figures for 2004—I will not cite the statistics for the intervening years—show that total energy consumption in the United Kingdom rose from 155.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent to 161 million tonnes of oil equivalent between 1998 and 2004. Energy consumption in the United Kingdom thus increased by 5.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent. Over that period, the amount of energy consumption by fuel changed dramatically. The amount for which solid fuels accounted dropped from 5.3 million to 3 million tonnes of oil equivalent, while the figure for petroleum increased from 66 million to 69.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent. The figure for gas increased slightly from
10 Mar 2006 : Column 1078
55.9 million to 56 million tonnes of oil equivalent, and the figure for electricity from 27.1 million to 29.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent—an increase of 2.1 million tonnes. However, the amount of energy that came from renewables fell from 0.9 million to 0.7 million tonnes of oil equivalent, although it is fair to say that 2.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent came from "heat sold" in 2004.
I cite the statistics because they show that the mood music behind the Bill, which is an attempt to make people think that if we talk a lot about renewables, we will sort out the problems of climate change, is completely fallacious. Although there was an increase in energy consumption of 5.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent between 1998 and 2004, the amount of energy produced by renewables went down. We know from the Government's most optimistic figures that 10 per cent. of electricity should be produced by renewables by 2010, but that would be less than 3 million tonnes of oil equivalent, which is a lower figure than the total increase in energy consumption between 1998 and 2004. On even the Government's most optimistic view, renewables will not contribute to reducing the proportion of energy consumed that comes from other sources.
There is a belief that global warming and climate change are the biggest issues that we face, and the Government's chief scientific adviser says that they are more important than terrorism. If they are of such gravity, it is important that we ensure that the proper figures are available so that a good public debate can take place.
Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend think that one of the reasons why renewables have failed to make the breakthrough into viability and credibility is that the planning constraints, which have already been touched on in the debate—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |