The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
†
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
Ellwood,
Mr. Tobias
(Bournemouth, East)
(Con)
†
Hendry,
Charles
(Wealden)
(Con)
†
Howarth,
David
(Cambridge)
(LD)
†
Keeley,
Barbara
(Worsley)
(Lab)
†
Mactaggart,
Fiona
(Slough)
(Lab)
†
Palmer,
Dr. Nick
(Broxtowe)
(Lab)
Pelling,
Mr. Andrew
(Croydon, Central)
(Con)
†
Pritchard,
Mark
(The Wrekin)
(Con)
†
Smith,
Sir Robert
(West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
(LD)
†
Southworth,
Helen
(Warrington, South)
(Lab)
†
Trickett,
Jon
(Hemsworth)
(Lab)
†
Wicks,
Malcolm
(Minister for Science and
Innovation)
Tom
Healey, Annette Toft, Committee
Clerks
†
attended the Committee
European
Standing
Committee
Tuesday 24
April
2007
[Mr.
Joe Benton
in the
Chair]
Energy Policy for Europe
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Science and Innovation (Malcolm Wicks):
European energy policy has risen up the agenda over the past couple
of years, and I welcome the chance to debate its direction
today—either fully or more briefly, depending on the wishes of
hon. Members. I stand ready to serve and debate.
Europe is increasingly becoming
a driver of UK energy policy, as energy issues and the closely related
and critical issue of climate change are increasingly global in nature.
The strategic energy review was born out of an initiative during the
UK’s presidency of the European Union in 2005. At the informal
European Council meeting at Hampton Court, Heads of State and of
Government agreed to the formation of a common EU energy policy that
responded to the needs of citizens and fulfilled the aims of
competitiveness, security of supply and sustainability.
Following the
Commission’s green paper in March 2006, the European Council
gave it a year to report back on an energy policy fit for Europe.
Following a thorough consultation, the Commission published its
strategic energy review on 10 January. Alongside the review, it also
published its communication on climate change and a number of
underpinning documents, which it was not felt necessary to debate
individually.
From
the UK’s point of view, there was much to welcome in the
strategic energy review. We particularly welcomed the fact that energy
policy and climate change policy were recognised as inextricable, which
is surely right. The energy sector is the biggest emitter of greenhouse
gases, releasing some 80 per cent. of the total, so any measures that
we take to mitigate climate change will have an impact on the energy
sector, and any measures that we take to improve our energy policies
will have an impact on our ability to tackle climate change.
Sir Nicholas Stern’s
report proved convincingly that there is a clear economic advantage to
tackling climate change early, and we must let it heavily influence the
formation of our energy policy. We also particularly welcome the strong
emphasis on the functioning of the internal market. The
Commission’s sector inquiry, published at the same time, clearly
demonstrated the failures in the internal market and how to address
them. We congratulate the Commission on its work.
However, a
great deal has happened since the publication of the strategic energy
review in January. Member states debated it at the Energy Council on 15
February and at the Environment Council on 20 February. As intended,
the European Council discussed the strategic energy review at its
meeting on 8 and 9 March, and adopted an energy policy for
Europe.
Briefly, the policy encompassed
the following: the need to make further progress towards achieving a
fully functioning internal energy market; an ambitious unilateral EU
target to cut greenhouse gas emission by 20 per cent. by 2020, with a
commitment to go up to30 per cent., provided other developed
countries made similar commitments; and implementation of the
EU’s energy efficiency action plan of October 2006 as a means of
reducing EU energy consumption by 20 per cent. by 2020.
The policy
also encompassed a binding target of a20 per cent. share of
renewable energies in overall EU consumption by 2020; a 10 per cent.
minimum binding target for the use of biofuels, subject to its
sustainability being proven; a reiteration of the importance of the EU
emissions trading scheme in producing a market-based and cost-effective
means to deliver emissions reductions; proposals for 12 to 15 carbon
capture and storage demonstration plants by 2015, with the aim for all
new fossil fuel plants to be fitted with carbon capture and storage by
2020; and a reaffirmation of the EU’s intention to speak with
one voice on its external energy policy.
The agreement was
groundbreaking, and it showed clear UK influence over the agenda.
However, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. Many of the proposals
that we agreed will need further work and analysis. There is still a
great deal to be done.
The
Chairman:
We now have until half-past five for questions
to the Minister. I remind hon. Members that questions should be brief
and asked one at a time. There is likely to be ample opportunity for
all hon. Members to ask several questions.
Charles
Hendry (Wealden) (Con): The Minister has given a helpful
introduction. In 1997, the European Union set a target that 12 per
cent. of energy should come from renewable sources by 2010, but it also
noted that that is unlikely to be met. What steps are being taken to
achieve 20 per cent. by 2020? What does the Minister expect to be the
contribution to that target from nuclear, from coal using carbon
capture and storage, and from
renewables?
Malcolm
Wicks:
Is the question about the 20 per cent. reduction in
carbon
emissions?
Charles
Hendry:
No, it is about the 20 per cent. proportion coming
from renewables.
Malcolm
Wicks:
Nuclear is not regarded as a
renewable in the conventional sense. It is another technology that does
not produce carbon emissions, but it is not part of any target to
produce renewables. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the pace towards
using renewables, reducing carbon emissions and getting on top of the
issue across Europe understandably varies from nation to nation. I am
sure that the French Government would argue that their historically
massive investment in nuclear power is the major way in which they have
achieved relatively low carbon emissions—it is certainly a major
way in which they have done so, although they would not be complacent.
Other nations have a lot of resource in terms of hydro energy, because
of their geography and climate.
As the hon, Gentleman knows, the
UK is committed to developing renewables. New estimates may come out
soon, but I imagine that about 4 to 5 per cent. of our electricity
comes from renewables. We want the figure to be 20 per cent. by 2020.
The new European framework and strategy present the European Union as a
whole with even more demanding targets on cutting down greenhouse
gases, and therefore with strong targets on building up renewables.
European progress has been made, but the Commission now has a great
deal of work to do on the implications for Europe as a whole and for
particular nation
states.
Sir
Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): The
Minister rightly said that nuclear is not renewable but that it is, in
a sense, low carbon. On 12 March, the Prime Minister was reporting back
after a European summit, and in answer to a question from my hon.
Friend the Member for Cambridge, he said that the actual target for the
country would be adjusted to take account of its nuclear capacity. Does
the Minister not see that as a classic case of nuclear power pushing
out renewables, as was feared?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I do not see that at all. I should make the
technical but important point that nuclear energy is not a renewable in
the sense that energy from wind power, solar power or tidal power is,
because uranium is needed, although in terms of a grouping of
technologies that help us to reduce carbon emissions, some people talk
about nuclear energy in the same breath or same paragraph as those
other sources. I can understand that
approach.
As
I said, the European Commission has reached the point in the
discussions with the nation states of saying, “We have now got
an ambitious strategy for Europe as a whole on building up renewable
resources.” It is now for the Commission to discuss with the
different nations what the arithmetic will be. Given that nations are
at different stages, have different circumstances, and have different
natural and other resources, the arithmetic is not expected to be
evenly applied across all EU member states.
Some states have considerable
nuclear resources. It is important to stress that the ultimate
objective is not to develop one particular technology, be it nuclear,
renewables or anything else, but to cut down on carbon emissions.
Therefore I can understand why the arithmetic will be different from
nation to nation and why those with a considerable nuclear resource
might say that that should be taken into account. That is not
inconsistent with a general drive to boost renewable technologies
across the whole
EU.
Mark
Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): The Minister mentioned the
word “groundbreaking”. As he will know, the Council of
the European Union summit of8 and 9 March spent a lot of time
on competition in the European gas and electricity sectors. The
conclusions on page 421 of the bundle state
that
“neither document
breaks any very new
ground”.
The bundle
suggests that there was not anything groundbreaking at the EU Council
summit. Why is there so much confusion on such an important and
strategic issue?
Malcolm
Wicks:
The UK Government have pressed, during our
presidency of the European Union and subsequently, to promote a market
in energy in the European Union. We think that that is part and parcel
of the nature of a common market. The principlehas always been
agreed across Europe. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is market
liberalisation in the United Kingdom and we are at the head of the
European race on that. We have consistently pressed the issue in all
our meetings; when I was Minister for Energy, I certainly did so at the
Energy Council, at prime ministerial level and others.
The Commission is determined to
promote market liberalisation. Two strong Commissioners—the
Energy and Competition Commissioners—have pressed the issue
hard. Dawn raids have even been initiated on certain energy companies
to seize evidence and documentation. The Commission has been strong on
that. The debate on how liberalisation might be achieved continues. Of
course there is some resistance, and a strong debate is going on in
certain nation states. However, at the moment the intention is that the
issue should come before the Energy Council in June this year. We are
moving in the right direction, but none of us should be naive or
innocent about the difficulties of putting that particular piece of
European principle into the important
thing—practice.
David
Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): I come back to the question
asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and
Kincardine. How does the Minister think the Commission’s setting
of renewable energy targets is going? As I understand from what he is
saying, nuclear capacity will be taken into account to reduce renewable
targets, but, to make up for that, countries that already have
renewable energy will also be able to reduce their targets to take that
into account, with the effect that countries that have neither
renewable nor nuclear energy will end up with very high targets. Is
that how he sees it working? If so, is that a practical way
forward?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I addressed the nuclear issue because the question
was put to me. However, it is not for me to go too far on that at the
moment. The fact is that the European Commission has come up with
appropriately ambitious targets, given the crucial dimension of climate
change. We should all be delighted by that; it has been a UK lead and
the story book will show that we are moving ambitiously in the right
direction.
The target
on renewables is demanding—appropriately so, given the critical
nature of the issue. One would not and should not expect the 20 per
cent. target to apply to every nation state. That would be wrong.
Intellectually, I do not see why that would be a starting point, given
our different resources—natural, nuclear and the rest—and
our different geographies and climates. All that I can say is that the
Commission will now get into the discussion, and has already done so,
about the exact implications for the different nation states. All I was
saying was that one should not be surprised if nuclear energy were part
of that discussion; that is to be expected. As I said, the European
Commission has been asked to bring forward detailed proposals later
this year. That is where we stand.
Charles
Hendry:
May I press the Minister a little further about
the Commission’s target for a 20 per cent. reduction in
greenhouse gases by 2020? We are getting a slight surplus of targets,
all of which seem to involve reductions of 20 per cent. by 2020, and
things are getting confusing. Clearly, that target is for the whole of
the European Union. To what extent, therefore, would it be possible for
some countries to rely on others to make the reductions, knowing that
if other countries achieve a reduction of 25 or 30 per cent., they can
sit back and get away with a reduction of only10 per cent.? Is
not that a recipe for people to do less than they should because they
think that others will take up the
slack?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I can see where the hon.
Gentleman is coming from, and it is not a bad warning, but we cannot
all be in the business of saying, “After you, European
partner”—certainly Britain would not want to be. That
would be ridiculous. At the risk of repeating myself, I point out that
our nations have different access to different fossil fuels and use
them differently. We are also at different stages with
renewables—for example, some countries are ahead of us because
of hydro power. Given those differences, one would not expect
reductions of 20 per cent. across the piece. That would be neither
intellectually sound nor good European policy. Discussions on this
matter will, no doubt, be difficult, but the negotiations between
member states and the European Parliament will start after the European
Commission comes up with further proposals.
Sir
Robert Smith:
The Minister rightly praised the
Commissioners’ commitment to the principle of a liberal and
transparent market, but it has been a long time in coming. I wonder
what assessment the Government have made of what is being delivered by
other Heads of Government, as there seems to be an awful lot of
reticence to deliver on the ground. The principle might be agreed, but
when does the Minister think that the fuel-poor and intensive energy
users who suffered in the last two winters will see the full benefit of
the European-wide open
market?
Malcolm
Wicks:
We have shared that sense of frustration because
this was, in principle, already European policy. As I said, it is part
of the logic of having a single or common market. We have been a leader
on this, in terms of market liberalisation, and for 10 or so years we
were huge beneficiaries of our own policy, with lower energy costs than
others elsewhere in Europe—certainly lower than the European
Union median. However, we have been through difficult times with rough
winters, such as the one that we have just come out of and the one
before, and energy costs have risen considerably to the disbenefit of
industry, particularly intensive users of industry. I have had many
discussions with intensive users, such as people who make
chlorine.
There have
also been huge rises in domestic energy prices, although I am advised
that for the domestic customer—this will not be widely
believed—we are still below the EU median. Intensive users have
certainly suffered and we are pleased that energy costs are now coming
down. Market liberalisation is not the whole answer, however: the price
of a barrel of oil is a major determinant and the huge international
thirst for
energy resources is a critical part of the backdrop to this story. We
believe that market liberalisation is very important and we are doing
our best to press forward. We have made some progress, but I do not
understate the difficulties of reaching the conclusion that we wish to
bring
about.
Mark
Pritchard:
While I have no doubts that the Minister and,
indeed, the Government are well-intentioned about getting EU energy
policy right, I wonder whether there is enough urgency in the EU on the
issue of energy security, particularly in the context of Russia, which
was discussed at length at the Council meeting. The Minister mentioned
dawn raids by the Commission, but there are raids by Russian energy
companies on our stock markets in the UK and in France and Germany
every day. I wonder whether the new Russian monopoly of liberalised EU
energy markets is being taken seriously enough by EU leaders and
particularly by the
Government.
Malcolm
Wicks:
The short answer is yes, but let me give a slightly
longer answer. In recent years, the geopolitics of energy has become
immensely significant in many European countries and has influenced our
own energy policy. I noted earlier that that is why we need to talk
about energy security and not just, in a slightly more neutral way,
energy supply. Many parts of the world, as the hon. Gentleman well
understands, are rich in energy resources, but there is sometimes a
correlation with insecurity and lack of democracy. I am not talking
about any one country or region, but the hon. Gentleman understands
me.
The dispute
between Russia and Ukraine has had a marked impact on thinking. Europe
as a whole and certainly the United Kingdom need a twin-track strategy.
We must seek to maximise the energy that we can produce ourselves,
which is why, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin knows, we are actively
engaged through the pilot partnership with those who produce oil and
gas in the North sea to try to maximise what remains. We are being
smart, and companies are being entrepreneurial about our own North sea.
That is why we are having another look at British coal through a newly
established coal forum. That is not easy, but we are taking it
seriously. It is certainly why we are developing renewable resources,
and why the energy review recommended that the Government should be
supportive should the market come forward with a new generation of
nuclear reactors. A new consultation on that will be announced as part
of the May White
Paper.
We must
maximise our energy resources across the European Union, and certainly
here in the UK. The other strategy is to be smart about ensuring that
we do not put all our energy eggs in one basket. Gas is
crucial—it will be for decades to come—and we are
sourcing it from different parts of the world. The Langeled pipeline
from Norway is
critical.
I said that
there are two parts to our strategy, but in fact there are three. The
first part should be energy efficiency and
conservation.
Sir
Robert Smith:
I want to press the Minister on the security
of the Russian supply. What realistic effort is the EU making to get
Russia to deliver on the energy chapter treaty, and does he foresee
that being delivered? What pressure is being put on Russia to sign
up?
Malcolm
Wicks:
A great deal of pressure. We think Russia should
sign up to that treaty, but the Russians are resistant and, sadly, that
remains the
position.
I
shall give some further information, particularly in relation to the
last question. I am advised that the European Commission was asked to
assess the impact of vertically integrated external Russian companies
on European Union markets. It is generally recognised that there is
some urgency about
that.
Charles
Hendry:
I want to press the Minister a little further. In
addition to the issue of supply, there is the issue of ownership.
Gazprom is essentially an arm of the Russian Government, and its head
is the Deputy Prime Minister, so there is a close link between Gazprom
and the Kremlin. Its decisions are not always commercial and may have a
political element. Are the Minister and his European counterparts happy
that a company that is essentially controlled by a foreign Government
could own key strategic elements of our energy
supply?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I understand the question, and of course, ownership
is not unimportant. In Britain, across the political divide, although I
can speak only for my party and Government, we recognise the challenge
of globalisation and we have never sought to play a nationalist card
when it comes to energy, because it would not be appropriate. The
critical point, returning to my earlier answer, is that we must and
will ensure that we have a properly functioning market in the United
Kingdom. It is not as if we have only one or two energy companies, and
a foreign company wishes to swallow 50 per cent. of our supply
capacity; it is not like that at all. If we stick with competition to
ensure a liberal market, we will avoid any dangers to which the hon.
Gentleman might allude. It goes back to my phrase about not putting all
our energy eggs—whether domestic or foreign-owned—in one
basket.
Mark
Pritchard:
The Minister mentions not putting the
Government’s—the nation’s—energy eggs in
one basket, but I wonder whether there is a danger of the Government
putting all our diplomatic eggs in one basket. The issue is relevant to
the nation’s energy policy, because when I have met diplomats
over the past year, green diplomacy has been at the top of their
agenda. There is nothing wrong with that, because there is consensus on
the issue. However, I wonder whether energy diplomacy has the
prominence that it should have, particularly considering the need to
undertake more diplomacy to increase our energy security, supply and
ownership through better relations with central Asian countries amid
the dash for gasin that region. We must also build diplomatic
relationships to secure our desperately needed energy links with north
Africa vis-Ã -vis liquefied natural gas. Is the Minister prepared
to comment on that point?
Finally, in the context of what
has just been said, and given that the Russian Government are not
prepared to let Royal Dutch Shell or British Petroleum look for new
fields in Siberia or other parts of Russia, there is an unequal playing
field for gas energy exploration, supply, integration and
delivery.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I understand the last point, and
one reason why we support the free market concept and market
liberalisation is so that our very strong British
companies can play a full part throughout the
European Union and in other foreign fields—not least Russia.
Part of one’s frustration is that sometimes, market
liberalisation seems to work one way—in terms of ownership in
this country, with which there should be no quarrel—but not the
other. That is a frustration with the rest of the European Union, but I
understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about Russia. It has huge
oil and gas resources, much of it in terrain that is difficult to
exploit, and frankly, we judge that the Russians need our great British
expertise for a joint effort.
More
generally, I am not complacent about diplomacy, because I remember our
Prime Minister saying some months ago, when he opened the London end of
the Langeled pipeline, that in this century, energy security could
become as important to a nation’s security as the armed
forces—as defence. It is an interesting point to discuss, and I
suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I are not too far from agreement on
it. It is also why the Langeled pipeline—our partnership with
Norway—is important, and why, with the development of the
liquefied gas market, we must establish links with a range of
countries.
Our
partnership with Qatar is important. I have visited its huge liquefied
natural gas resource and met Qataris—a little bit of diplomacy
there—on two or three occasions to discuss that project. LNG
will, by definition, come in by ship to the Milford Haven plant. From
memory of my days as Minister for Energy, I think that it is coming on
stream in the first quarter of next year. It is very important, and
could represent20 per cent. of British gas consumption. That
makes the point that we are being smart, diverse and, yes, diplomatic
about those issues.
Sir
Robert Smith:
We have talked a lot about the Commission
being committed to using the market, opening it up and making it more
transparent. Is it not a contradiction that it should have come up with
specific projects at EU level that it wants to link grids between the
different countries of Europe? Would it not make more sense for them to
drive the market through and get it to design the best fixes between
countries, rather than there being a centrally prescribed solution from
Brussels?
Malcolm
Wicks:
When the hon. Gentleman says “them”,
does he mean the
companies?
Sir
Robert Smith:
I mean the EU
Commission.
Malcolm
Wicks:
That is an interesting point. Perhaps we agree. Our
view would be that, if a liberalised market can develop, the market
itself will have the commercial incentives to develop the kind of
national grid—I use the term in a broad sense, for both
electricity and gas—that we require. As in the United Kingdom,
there is great need for investment across the European Union into the
basic infrastructure for delivering
energy.
Have I
misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s point, or is that more or
less all
right?
Sir
Robert Smith:
I understand that the
Commission has identified certain projects that it wants to go ahead
between the different nations. I cannot help feeling
that,
if there is going to be a market solution, it should be left to the
market to decide where such projects should best be placed, rather than
it being left to the EU to design those bits of the
group.
Malcolm
Wicks:
Let me write to the hon.
Gentleman on that issue to make sure that I get that one right. I have
talked about Qatar and Norway. Owing to the interest in the diplomatic
side, I am advised that it would be helpful if I mentioned one or two
other initiatives. For example, one is Euromed, with north African
countries, which is to build a Euro-Mediterranean energy market. There
is also the energy community treaty, about an energy market for
south-east Europe. Thirdly, the Baku initiative relates to Black sea
and Caspian countries. Would the hon. Gentleman like a letter from me
with detail on that? No? I shall not write letters that are not wanted.
We are all concerned about waste paper and saving energy.
All such things illustrate how
one of the important things and strengths of a European energy
strategy, apart from the other dimensions, is trying to develop what we
might call a European energy foreign policy. That will not replace the
different energy foreign policies of different nations and different
bilateral agreements and so on. However, the list illustrates how the
European Union is increasingly reaching out to other parts of the
world.
Charles
Hendry:
We are inordinately grateful to the Minister for
spending so much of his time tripping off around the world to secure
our energy supplies for the future, although the environmental
consequences are obviously rather severe. Has he visited Germany and
France? Much as we welcome the European Union’s new stance on
liberalisation and open markets, the big sticking points are Germany
and France under the current regime—which may, of course, be
about to change. Is there any movement within the German Government
from Chancellor Merkel, or within the French Government? I am also
thinking of German and French energy companies, which are involved in
vertical integration but seem to be absolutely the ones that are
determined to block progress on the
issue.
Malcolm
Wicks:
A great debate is going on in both those countries.
Yes, of course I have recently discussed those matters with German and
French colleagues. We discuss such matters more formally in the Energy
Council when it meets, as it does regularly. Let us be honest. There is
a great debate in both countries about, on one hand, the pressure for
liberalisation and, on the other hand, the resistance from some
powerful interests in those countries. That is the honest answer to the
question. There is a debate going
on.
We discuss these
matters at the Competitiveness Council, and I am attending a meeting at
the end of the week. Although it is not the Energy Council, I will take
the opportunity to raise the issues informally again with my German
colleagues.
Sir
Robert Smith:
The Minister is now wearing his Minister for
Science hat, and the document refers to the EU’s ambitions to
see more pan-European research into and delivery of energy and
renewables. Can he
reassure us that any UK spending will be additional to the planned
spending on the Energy Technology Institute and not a
diversion?
Malcolm
Wicks:
The institute’s plans are clear. They are to
spend a £1 billion budget over 10 years—50 per cent. in
the public sector and 50 per cent. in the private sector—to
explore a range of energy technologies. Obviously, the institute will
need to take account of our commitments in Europe and our wider energy
policy, but it is a key development in terms of renewables and other
technologies that are becoming so important, including carbon capture
and storage, in which the hon. Gentleman has some expertise. That is
important because Europe will burn a lot of fossil fuel in decades to
come, and there is no getting away from that. If that is not to impact
badly on our carbon emission targets, we must develop carbon capture
and storage. I am pleased by the European Commission’s strong
approval for the development of such projects throughout the European
Union.
Charles
Hendry:
The Prime Minister and the Government have
announced that there will be a carbon capture and storage project in
this country as one of the 12 throughout the EU to look at feasibility
and viability. How will they be co-ordinated throughout the EU? Will
there be a central organisation to look at what each one is doing, and
how will they tie into what is happening in other countries—for
example, the United States, where a number of such pilots are already
up and
running?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I am certainly aware that in different countries
the concept of carbon capture and storage has grabbed the imagination,
for reasons that I have just cited. Nations such as Australia have a
keen interest, and I have discussed the matter with the Australian
Minister, not in Australia, but somewhere else in Europe. My carbon
footprint is relatively light at the
moment.
Certainly
there is strong interest in the matter in the United States, and there
is interest from Governments and major power companies. We are
committed to having one demonstration project to demonstrate the
technology. That is what it is about, because no one has yet put
together the whole chemistry set. There are examples of good practice,
as in one of the Norwegian oil or gas fields. We know from the
Norwegian experience, which I have discussed with the Norwegian
Minister, that carbon dioxide behaves properly underground.
Geologically, what happens is what one would expect to happen. In
simple terms, it stays
there.
Some of the
chemistry set has been demonstrated effectively, but the whole
chemistry set has not been fully put together. We want a demonstration
project, and there will be a competition for that in the United
Kingdom. I suspect that the Commission has not yet—to be fair,
why should it have, although it must do so soon—thought through
the details of how that will be co-ordinated throughout the European
Union. However, the ambition to build 10 to 15 carbon capture
facilities is laudable, and we support that. Indeed, we hope to be one
of the
15.
Sir
Robert Smith:
The proposals from the EU also refer to
developing a customer’s charter with four key goals, one of
which is to establish schemes to help the
most vulnerable EU citizens to deal with increases in energy prices.
What pan-European levers will be used to tackle fuel
poverty?
Malcolm
Wicks:
I might have to write to the hon.
Gentleman about the pan-European element. It is perfectly reasonable
and important that there is a European ambition. My first reaction is
that so much depends on actions within nations. Here in the United
Kingdom, various energy-efficiency projects—Warm Front and its
equivalents in Scotland and Wales—have made quite an impact. We
are thinking through the idea that was raised during the energy review
of requiring our supply companies to work with customers so that our
homes become more energy efficient. Currently, it is in the interest of
the gas or electricity company to sell us more gas and electricity. How
do we turn that situation around so that they are incentivised
financially to make our homes more efficient? Of course, there are then
the social security programmes, such as pension credit, winter fuel
payments and the rest.
My first reaction is that so
much depends on the nation state. However, we have a great deal to
learn from one another. Colleagues from the Department for Communities
and Local Government are moving from the concept towards the practice
of one day building carbon-neutral dwellings, which is an
extraordinarily ambitious target. I am sure that we have a great deal
to learn from the Scandinavian countries—both those in the EU
and Norway, which remains outside. There may be more to the issue, and
I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mark
Pritchard:
My question follows on from the last two
replies to the last two questions. Although fuel poverty is an
important issue, and I am sure that the Committee agrees with the
question and the response, the greatest form of fuel poverty would be
no supply, which links very nicely into the comment from my hon. Friend
the Member for Wealden about Germany. The Minister rightly talked about
the liberalisation of energy markets in Europe and a common EU energy
policy, but is there an inherent contradiction in that? For example,
Germany has just signed up with Russia to install under the Baltic sea
a new pipeline that will bypass Poland and Ukraine. Poland is a member
of the European Union; Russia is not. What is Russia’s strategic
intent, if it has one? If it does not, what is its commercial intent,
and is it good for the United Kingdom and for Europe? There is an
inherent conflict in EU policy, and I am worried that in Europe, there
is no urgency to resolve the issue.
Malcolm
Wicks:
It would not be right for
me—a British Minister—to comment on that pipeline and
that investment. To be realistic, and I am not commenting on that
particular project, it is perfectly reasonable for a Government of a
particular nation to undertake bilateral agreements. I have mentioned
Qatar and Norway, with which we have a range of such agreements.
Alongside such agreements, we need to develop the European strategy
that we have discussed, and energy insecurity and geopolitics always
make for lively discussions on and off the record in European Energy
Councils. Such issues are the geopolitical facts of life, and they are
a major driving force.
Climate change was a sufficient
driving force behind the idea of a European energy strategy, but my
judgment is that energy security issues are now almost as important in
the minds of European politicians. For those geopolitical reasons, we
see the development of foreign policy that I have touched on, the drive
towards renewable energy, and—I am bound to say, although it is
controversial in some quarters—among some nations, the renewed
interest in nuclear
energy.
Motion made, and Question
proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 5282/07,
Commission Communication “An energy policy for Europe”
and No. 5354/07, Commission Staff Working Document “EU energy
policy data”; further notes the Government’s position on
these documents; and agrees that the Commission’s Strategic
Energy Review represents a helpful staging post towards an energy
policy that will underpin our ambitions of addressing climate change,
improving sustainability, enhancing energy security and increasing EU
competitiveness.—[Malcolm
Wicks.]
5.15
pm
Charles
Hendry:
I thank the Minister for the way in which he took
our questions. I thank him also for finding time in his busy diary to
be in the United Kingdom for an afternoon, and for the comprehensive
answers that he has given, bearing in mind that he has moved on from
his energy brief to a science one. He was a fine Minister for Energy
and will be a very good Minister for Science and Innovation, but it is
good to know that he still keeps an interest in the energy issues that
we are considering.
As the Minister explained, this
package of proposals has three pillars: sustainability, competitiveness
and security. They include reducing dependence on imported
hydrocarbons, diversifying sources of energy, building infrastructure
such as new liquefied natural gas terminals, and improving
Europe’s capacity to cope with disruptions in supply. The
Commission is also seeking a new long-term pact with Russia on energy
supplies.
Our position
is clear: we have been demanding the liberalisation of the energy
markets in Europe for some time. They are punishing British consumers
with higher bills. However, we do not believe that a single regulator
is required to facilitate cross-border electricity trade. Co-operation
between regulators should be sufficient once the liberalisation
measures are implemented. As we have discussed, energy markets in
France and Germany in particular all too readily protect those
countries’ infrastructures from other countries and other
companies by integrating supply, transmission and distribution. It was
noteworthy that Chancellor Merkel recently asked the Spaniards to be
reasonable when a German company sought to take over Endesa, but no
such approach is taken when a company wishes to get involved in the
German market. That clearly conflicts with single market rules, and
more action is needed. We have been encouraged by the approach taken by
the European Commission, which has already gone further than many of us
thought it would. Nevertheless, more needs to be done to achieve a real
internal market.
We heard that
vulnerable groups are hard pushed to afford current energy prices, and
liberalisation especially aids such people. Across Europe, old people
and those on low incomes will receive enormous benefits if the
single market is allowed to flourish. European Governments should be
consumer-driven rather than focused on creating national champions that
create higher energy bills for their
citizens.
We agree
that security of energy supply is paramount. Energy supplies must come
from a reliable third country when self-sufficiency is not possible.
Gazprom already owns 10 per cent. of the Anglo-Belgian interconnector
and there is speculation that it might buy into the Anglo-Dutch one or
into Centrica. We justifiably have concerns about a company that has
very strong links with its Government. Unlike the Norwegian gas
industry, which is nationalised but separate from its Government,
Gazprom has very close, direct links with the Kremlin. We have concerns
about how much its policies are politically rather than commercially
driven.
We also have
a concern that there may be attempts to give the EU greater control
over the mix of generating energies, given our view that energy is a
sovereign issue which should be decided by the United Kingdom
Parliament. I am keen to establish whether the Government would use
their veto to protect that area of policy and I would welcome some
words to that effect from the
Minister.
We certainly
welcome the commitment to greater use of renewables. In 1997, the
Commission made an initial commitment to producing 12 per cent. of
Europe’s energy from renewable sources by 2010. It is now
suggested that the figure should be 20 per cent. by 2020. We are
sceptical about whether the Commission’s suggestion for a
binding target to increase the level of renewable energy in the overall
mix—from 7 per cent. now to 20 per cent. by 2020—can be
achieved. The cast-iron rule of targets seems to be that a date is
always set for the target to be met soon after office has been left, so
that somebody else has to explain why it has not been met. The case
here also appears to be that rather than accepting that it will miss
its target, the Commission has set another target that sounds difficult
to meet, but is 30 years down the line so nobody will be able to judge
for some
time.
Malcolm
Wicks:
We will still be
here.
Charles
Hendry:
The Minister may still be here in an Opposition
role, and I hope that he has every opportunity to question us when the
time comes.
I hope
that the Minister can also say a little more about the ETS, which has
not worked effectively in its first round. There will need to be a much
tougher regime in subsequent rounds if the scheme is to be effective.
The way forward is to have a cap-and-trade system. The European system,
under which more certificates have been allocated and energy has been
reduced, has been extremely flawed and we hope that the Minister will
make a clear commitment to tightening that up in due course.
The
Commission plans to launch the European strategic energy technology
plan later this year. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out
how the Government intend the UK to contribute to those targets and the
plan. The harmonisation of regulations is likely to
occur if all member states apply the single market spirit equally, which
would negate the requirement for a single energy regulator. As
negotiations about the formulation of such a body get under way,
standards will necessarily be the lowest, not the highest, common
denominator, despite the Commission’s report stating that they
must be the highest. Does the Minister therefore agree that a European
regulator is unnecessary and predictably counter-productive to the aim
of higher standards throughout the EU?
From reading the report, it is
abundantly clear that more needs to be done in liberalising energy
markets in other European countries where British companies are not
able to operate, despite the companies of those countries having bases
of operations in the UK. Perhaps the Minister will go a bit further in
explaining how he will drive forward such changes. The document is
thoughtful and helpful, but many of the issues that it covers are
sovereign issues for the UK Parliament, rather than matters for
European activity. That said, we recognise that many of the issues
require international co-operation. Work at European level is therefore
to be welcomed as well.
5.21
pm
Sir
Robert Smith
:
First, I should declare my entries in
the Register of Members’ Interests which are relevant to energy.
They consist of a shareholding in Shell Transport Trading Co. and
overseas visits to the offshore northern seas conference in Norway,
which was organised by the then UK Offshore Operating Association, and
to Calgary with British Airways to meet oil and gas
interests.
Charles
Hendry:
I should have mentioned my interest in
attending the same conference in Stavanger last year and going on trips
to look at wind farms in
Spain.
Sir
Robert Smith:
I congratulate the Minister on his move to
become Minister of Science and Innovation. I suggest that there are
other moves coming to his Government and rumours of structural changes
that could mean even more upheaval. We might see yet another Energy
Minister given the
turnover.
Charles
Hendry:
One a
year.
Sir
Robert Smith:
At the very least.
[
Interruption.]
I am talking about averages.
We keep coming back to the same
debate, and there is frustration with the pace of progress of
liberalisation in the EU. We can see the benefits of a liberal market
and the damage that has been done to our markets by the failure of the
rest of the EU to liberalise. The protectionist instincts, which have
been mentioned specifically in relation to France and Germany, protect
certain sectors of the economy at the expense of the rest. If the rest
of those economies could see what could be done for them, they, too,
would be clamouring to join us in having a more liberal market. Without
that, we still have the conundrum of our country being connected to a
different market and the distortions that result from it. As we have
seen, particularly during recent winters, energy is vital to the
national interest. If
the lights go out and the power goes off, there is major disruption to
our way of life, our livelihood and our economic well-being.
Energy policy
is vital to individuals at the level of tackling fuel poverty and
trying to keep homes warm in the winter, but it is also now recognised
as vital to the environment. I should therefore like to hear how the
Government see the emissions trading scheme delivering on
Europe’s climate change needs. The current system is not
delivering and its failure to do so makes the ambitious targets, which
have been introduced by the policy, even more unlikely. Without a
clear, longer-term price for carbon, it is difficult for the market to
deliver the many solutions from the innovative range of
possibilities.
Liberal
Democrat Members welcome the neutral view that the EU has taken on
nuclear policy in allowing nation states to reflect their own national
interests and concerns. During my visit to Norway, I heard that based
on previous trading, Norway thought that in the winter before last it
had gas to spare that could have benefited customers in Britain. There
was a short section of pipe in Belgium, however, that was failing to
take the gas through. As far as the Norwegians could see, production
was not at capacity. The constraint was not physical; a market
distortion prevented UK customers from benefiting. It would be useful
to hear what progress is being made in getting behind the failures of
the EU transmission market to deliver proper pricing signals throughout
the market and to us.
I want, too, to reinforce what
has been said about the role of Russia. By turning its back on
companies such as Shell and BP, it is turning its back on the skills
basis that the Minister said it will need to explore and produce its
resources. A worrying situation—it is not merely about the
geopolitical situation—is the internal economic failure in
Russia to deliver from its resources under the ground to meet its
obligations in the pipelines. That is not only a political failure but
a market failure. In a sense, that puts us at even greater risk. We can
work with political negotiations, but if there is a failure to take a
long-term vision and to see how Russia’s national interests, as
well as our common interests, can be delivered, there will be a serious
outcome.
What is the
Government’s view on gas storage? With the market distortions
and concerns about security, are they happy with the regime for gas
storage in the UK and the incentives for gas storage? Does the Minister
see the different gas quality standards in this country allowing a
truly flexible market between our two systems? With a different gas
quality standard on the mainland to that in the UK, the freedom to
trade easily between the two gas producing regimes becomes more
difficult.
The
Minister said that he will write to us on my next point. The documents
give specific EU plans for grid projects. That is an admission by the
EU that it will not deliver the open market as quickly and effectively
as will be needed to protect security of supply across the EU. He needs
to go back to the EU and reinforce that if it is intentionally stepping
back into the role of interfering in the market, it needs to redouble
its efforts to deliver on the open market. The research funding should
not be diverted from what we are planning for our economy.
On the customer charter, fuel
poverty has been a major concern. Obviously, liberalisation and the
early low prices were an easy hit in moving many people out of fuel
poverty, but some moved back in when the prices went up. The long-term
strategies for fuel poverty, as the Minister said, are often national
levers involving the income of the citizen and energy
conservation.
In this new
open market, it is important to move towards our energy companies
supplying heat and light rather than being direct sellers of energy. To
that end, the Government need to speed up the introduction of smart
metering, which is part of the toolkit that energy companies need to
deliver. As some companies have said to me, “We are doing more
trials in this country. Can we not look outside our borders?”
There have been trials in countries such as Italy. Can we not learn
from them and speed up the progress towards smart metering?
Smart
metering allows energy companies to charge differential tariffs for the
first units of electricity, which are set at a lower rate to deal with
fuel poverty, and then to charge at a higher rate for large users
because fuel poverty is no longer an issue and energy conservation
becomes more important. It allows companies to show users their energy
use and to deliver other EU policies on more energy efficient
equipment. There is still a major misunderstanding. People assume that
when they move from traditional televisions, which are old technology,
to new plasma screens, they are moving in the direction of a more
efficient, effective piece of technology, yet it is a far more energy
intensive way of viewing television signals. Providing that smart
background is extremely important.
On a constituency point, the
Minister knows that exploration for oil and gas and their production
are extremely important to my constituents—and to the UK
economy, as they not only deliver jobs and investment, but tax revenue
to the Chancellor. The Chancellor’s Budget deficit was in part
explained away by his concern that he would not get as much tax revenue
as he thought he would. That may be a lesson to him that he should be
more careful how he husbands that resource to maximise its
gain.
It is important
to understand our supply situation. Having improved our gas supply, we
must recognise that our indigenous supply in the North sea now often
comes from mixed oil and gas. As the Minister rightly said, the world
oil price is very high, but the UK gas price is very low. The
encouragement to invest in new production in the North sea is quite low
in terms of the overall hydrocarbon price.
I therefore again seek
reassurance that in respect of the security of supply, the European
Commission understands that there is a resource to be maximised on our
doorstep, and that when it comes to regulation and consideration of the
market, it will not do anything to interfere with maximising that
investment.
I appreciate
the fact that the Minister welcomed the ambitious target set by the
European Commission that by 2020 all new carbon-fuelled generation
should be fully carbon capture and storage. There is a pilot project
ready to go ahead in the north-east of Scotland, but now there is
another competition from the Government and more delay. Our worry is
that the window of opportunity for that project to be economically
viable is rapidly being lost.
The key message from the
Committee, probably from both Opposition parties, is that the
Government need to redouble pressure on the Commission and on the other
Heads of Government to deliver on the open market, which is the key to
unlocking a sustainable and secure future for energy in this
country.
5.32
pm
Mark
Pritchard:
I welcome the EU’s action plan from the
Council in March to liberalise Europe’s energy markets,
especially freeing up the distribution of energy throughout the EU. I
hope, as the Minister stated, that it will create a competitive
interconnected and EU-wide internal energy market. It is vital that the
EU improves the security of supply, as all hon. Members present have
agreed.
I welcome the
Council’s decision to separate network distribution, which will
improve competition over the energy networks. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Wealden said earlier, it will allow EU energy companies to
offer products and services to other European countries perhaps for the
first time, possibly on a more level playing field, albeit with a few
bumps in different parts of the pitch. I hope that the Council’s
views as set out in the proposal will be good for the EU’s
energy demands, for UK energy businesses and, as the hon. Member for
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said, for EU
consumers.
I want to
put on the record my view and that of my party on renewables and
efficiency. It is absolutely right that we should set ambitious targets
and, I hope, meet them. I was a little concerned by the
Minister’s back-sliding about the lack of a level playing field
for other European partners, while recognising that different countries
within the European Union have advanced, and less advanced, energy
markets and diversification of supply. However, we need to be careful
that we do not put British companies or the nation—UK
plc—in a straitjacket and restrict them to targets that others
will find easy excuses not to meet.
Sir
Robert Smith:
I reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s
concern. The history of the emissions trading scheme is that the nature
of those negotiations has to be carefully watched to see that other
countries do not go for an easy
option.
Mark
Pritchard:
That is absolutely right. I am glad that there
is consensus and I hope that the Minister will agree, too. It is right
for us to want a reduction in consumption and an increase in renewables
and right to set ambitious targets. We all want emissions to be reduced
and I am glad that at last carbon capture is, literally, getting some
industry from Government.
I digress slightly on carbon
capture and coal. It is right to look at that, but the Government
should not be setting out policies on open-cast mining, or even
deep-cast mining, where reserves are available without full and proper
public consultation in the House and outside. Any resurrection of
mining in this country would have a huge impact on areas that have been
regenerated and restored to areas of beauty that are used for walking
and so on. There should be full consultation before any deal is done
with UK Coal and other coal providers, and I have put that on the
record.
To return to my point about
diplomacy, I am not convinced that our diplomats around the world have
been given a brief by the Government to do far more to try to
strengthen commercial links with other countries and to help British
companies to secure energy contracts. I am thinking of central Asia in
particular. In Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and
Uzbekistan, we have a small diplomatic presence while our EU partners,
the Americans and the Russians are very busy. The Minister will know
that the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Ivanov, was in
Turkmenistan recently, and the relationship that the Russians are
building with their former Soviet bloc partners are important to
Russia, and should be important to the United Kingdom and our
diplomatic
corps.
Similarly,
the Minister touched on north Africa, and I mentioned liquefied natural
gas. The British diplomatic and commercial presence through the embassy
in Algeria, for example, which is a large potential market for LNG, is
again relatively small. The Minister, the DTI, the Foreign Office and
the Government generally should get together around a table and ask
whether we have the necessary Foreign Office diplomatic resource in
those missions to expedite not only British foreign policy and climate
change policy but, nearly as importantly as climate change, as the
Minister said, the whole issue of energy
security.
The former
Soviet Union has been touched on and, as we know, it relied on its
military machine for its geopolitical power. Now, it has transferred to
oil and gas to exercise geopolitical power. It is worrying that more
than half of the European Union’s gas imports come from Russia.
Oil can be bought elsewhere, although that market is diminishing. I
hope that the Government share my strategic concern that the EU is so
dependent on Russian gas. I am concerned that there is not the
joined-up thinking that the Minister suggested with EU partners. I
mentioned Germany and Russia signing up to the new pipeline under the
Baltic sea, but Hungary and Russia have just done a deal with the
Bluestream Group.
On
one hand, senior Ministers from EU countries go along to Councils and
summits, and say that we are all signed up, singing from the same hymn
sheet and going in a strategic direction on energy policy, but as soon
as they get back to their respective capitals they do deals that
undermine the very strategy that they say they have signed up to,
notwithstanding the bilateral points that the Minister rightly raised.
There is an inherent contradiction in the Councils’ own outputs
and subsequent statements, not only in other countries, but here in
London.
You
will be pleased to know, Mr. Benton, that I have just two
final comments to make on the security of supply. Buying energy from
Russia is nothing new. Some of us remember more readily than others the
old Soviet guard. We used to take energy from Russia even when the
Soviet Union was in place. The difference is that in those days the
energy supply was predictable, and it was run by people who lacked a
planned economy. Today, Russia is unstable and less predictable, and
oil companies and particularly gas companies are run by very wealthy
individuals whose sole aims, for the most part, are money and power.
There is a great deal of difference, and we should all be concerned
about it.
There is also
the issue of China. What if Russia decided to send all its gas to
China? We would be in serious trouble. One might say, “Well,
there is no infrastructure between Russia and China.” That is
absolutely right at the moment, but China is wealthy and desperate
enough to bring that sort of infrastructure on stream pretty quickly.
If that were the case, we would all be in desperate
trouble.
Energy
security is one of the most important and pressing geopolitical issues
of our day. Yes, climate change is important, but—to go
off-message from my party for a moment—I think that energy
security is more important. Although there are clear parallels and
synergies between those issues, they are not completely aligned. We
need a disaggregation of where they are and are not aligned. Distinct
policies must emerge from Government on the differences as well as the
commonalities.
One
day, of course, political concerns in Russia may override commercial
concerns, which would be of grave interest to our nation. If certain
individuals in Russia decided that they wanted to turn off the tap, we
would be in great difficulty. It could be said that it would not be in
those individuals’ or companies’ interests to do so, but
they might have found new markets by then, or be cutting off their nose
to spite their face. We know that conflicts and wars are not good for
most nations’ economies apart from shipbuilding and arms
manufacture—they might be, but not in the majority of cases.
Conflict around the world is damaging economies even as we speak. Yet
conflicts and wars continue. We cannot rely on people’s sense of
self-preservation to save us from being blackmailed over our energy
supplies.
I am also
concerned that certain companies—I hope that the Committee will
forgive me for touching on Russia again—are suggesting that
there should be some sort of gas OPEC. That would be bad for Britain
and bad for Europe. My concern is the United Kingdom of the next 20
years. Unless Europe gets its act together and, if there is another
Conservative Government, we get our act together—it is not a
party political issue—unfortunately, we will all be held over a
strategic
barrel.
5.42
pm
Malcolm
Wicks:
It has been a useful debate, and I am happy to
reply to the points raised, albeit briefly on this occasion, as we had
a good question and answer session. I am sorry that Opposition
Members’ energy ran out before my own, in terms of the number of
questions; it was a great disappointment to
me.
On
the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, our judgment is
that that is the preferred mechanism in the European Union. We can
argue about other mechanisms, and one should not get too ideological
about it—it is a question of choosing an appropriate
one—but the Government are determined to make the EU emissions
trading scheme work. Given that, we fully support the
Commission’s recent robust assessment of member state caps. It
is important for the credibility of the scheme that they are set at a
level that both delivers Kyoto commitments and ensures sufficient
scarcity to result in a genuine and functioning carbon market, which is
key to the scheme. We would like to see the scheme grow, so that it
could in time include aviation,
which is particularly challenging, as well as new technologies such as
carbon capture and storage. We have put a lot of emphasis on the ETS
for the
future.
Colleagues
have raised a number of points. I am sorry not to take them in any
particularly logical order. Gas storage is important. I heard what the
hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said. He is a great
expert on the North sea oil and gas industry, which remains a great
British industry. As the exploitation of gas and oil resources becomes
more difficult—as we start to work west of Shetland, for
example—the technological challenges of engineering and the rest
become even more important. I was offshore on three occasions and came
away with an immense regard for the work force and their skills and
entrepreneurship. We need more gas storage. With North sea oil gas in
decline—Britain’s historic national store, or at least
historic since the mid 1960s—we need more artificial storage
capacity, and we are working hard to deliver that with the industry,
with implications for planning and the
rest.
Points
were made about smart meters. We are trialling them, and we should not
apologise for that. This morning I signed off a parliamentary answer
saying that if we were to try to bring them in not quite overnight but
at least more quickly, the cost could be up to £5 billion. It is
not cheap to do that and, for efficiency, trialling the meters is the
appropriate response. I am happy to discuss the matter with the hon.
Gentleman on another
occasion.
I believe
that we are agreed about the European energy regulator: we do not see
the case for a cross-European regulator. We would much prefer the
member states to have effective regulation, as we do, through Ofgem, in
the United
Kingdom.
Transmission
failures were raised, and they relate to the point on which I am going
to write to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.
There is recognition that there are bottlenecks in the north-west
European transmission system, and I am advised that they are being
tackled. The European Regulators Group has started to make progress
towards a regional market, and the first step towards that was the
recent market coupling between Belgium and the Netherlands. The EU has
also agreed to more co-ordination of transmission system operators, so
that they have a European outlook. I shall say more about that in my
letter.
I listened
with great interest to the hon. Member for The Wrekin, who is clearly
expert and interested in the diplomacy of the matter. I believe that I
answered some of his points earlier. I shall not respond to what he
said about Russia, but as he talked about the passing of the old regime
to be replaced, in his words, by people whose sole interest was making
money and wealth, I am bound to say that I thought that the new
Conservative party had moved even further to the left by being upset
and tearful about the passing of communism and outraged by naked
capitalism. That is for him to respond to, not for me to comment
on.
When
I have visited our embassies and spoken to diplomats, I have been
impressed by the fact that energy security and other energy issues are
now a major priority for our busy diplomats abroad. The situation is
changing, quite rightly, but the hon. Gentleman is right to advise
us that it needs to be a focus of our foreign policy as well as of our
energy policy as defined more
narrowly.
We
have had a useful debate, and I thank colleagues for their advice on
these important issues. I shall not conclude by repeating what I said
in my introduction, but I thank you, Mr. Benton, for
chairing the
proceedings.
Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 5282/07,
Commission Communication “An energy policy for Europe”
and No. 5354/07, Commission Staff Working Document “EU energy
policy data”; further notes the Government's position on these
documents; and agrees that the Commission's Strategic Energy Review
represents a helpful staging post towards an energy policy that will
underpin our ambitions of addressing climate change, improving
sustainability, enhancing energy security and increasing EU
competitiveness.
Committee
rose at twelve minutes to Six
o’clock.
