Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) talked about prices and their impact on industry. We need to be careful when making comparisons, because they are quite complex. Indeed, available data suggest that for industry, gas prices for medium consumers were above the median in the UK, while prices for small and large consumers were below the median. Similarly,
in the case of electricity, some people are better off than in Europe and some are worse off. I shall happily send my hon. Friend the detailed data.
Of course, energy security cannot be seen in isolation but must be addressed in the context of the need to tackle climate change internationally. Global warming is, by definition, a global problem requiring global solutions. Domestically, and even individually, we need to tackle it by reducing demand and decarbonising our energy supply.
Let us be careful about European comparisons. We have heard a lot about feed-in tariffs, but I do not think that any of the Members who spoke acknowledged the very important fact that per capita CO2 emissions are higher in Germany than in the UK. We must also be aware of some siren voices that argue that, faced with rising energy prices, we cannot now afford to tackle global warming. I judge that that would be the wrong signal at precisely the wrong time. We must rather pursue the most economical and cost-effective climate measures. Those are among the greatest challenges that Governments around the world face, and although there is no doubt that the current high prices place a strain on households, motorists and businesses, the UK is in a fundamentally strong position for the following reasons.
First, I emphasise the policy strategy. Our policy of a diverse and increasingly low-carbon energy mix is surely the right way to ensure security of supply. I want to be absolutely clear about that, because one sometimes hears particular interests proclaim that one solution is the answer. Sometimes it is nuclear, sometimes it is renewables. Those voices are surely mistaken. Putting all our energy eggs in any one basket would seriously reduce our nations security.
Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
Malcolm Wicks: I beg the right hon. Gentlemans pardon; I do not have time. I heard his earlier comments, which were interesting. Turning our back on coal and encouraging a new dash for gas would be foolish and against diversity, and it would certainly not help our nations security.
Secondly, we have taken, and continue to take, the tough decisions required for the long term, including our decision in January in favour of new nuclear power stations and our proposals last week for a massive expansion of renewable generation by 2020. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who was passionate about the need for renewables, but not in his own constituency. That is surely the problem. I often meet Members who support renewables in the Chamber but are opposed to them when it comes to proposals in their own backyard.
Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?
Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman has already expressed that approach, and I cannot now give way to him.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) talked about the importance of biofuels, and I agree that they are important. The Gallagher review, which will examine the issue of sustainability, will be published very shortly. We have announced today proposals that will push forward carbon capture and storagea vital technology in the fight against climate change. Indeed,
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State noted that we have published today a consultation document on CCS. Although that consultation is ongoing, we intend to continue to process power station applications and take decisions under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. [Interruption.] I judge that there is an appetite for CCS, but along only with Norway and possibly the United States, we are one of the leading nations in the whole world on it. It is right to have had a proper competition to decide who should build the demonstration projects, but apparently some on the Opposition Benches say that we should have simply given the contract to one company that had a proposal. That would have been wrong, and it was absolutely right that we went for post-combustion technology because of its application to China.
Some interest was expressed in marine funding for wave and tidal power. We are interested in that, but I warn hon. Members that it is new technology and not an alternative to wind. We have spent a great deal of money on research and development and we hope that two projects will be funded through the marine deployment fund this year. It is a deployment fund, not a science fund, and when the technology is ready, we want to spend the money. However, it is clear that we cannot do that until the technology is ready for deployment.
We are making the tough decisions on renewables and nuclear. We need to do more about energy efficiency and we will. I repeat that I am proud that we are one of the leading nations in the world on carbon capture and storage. We take the nations security, and therefore energy security, most seriously. We are tackling the biggest challenges of allclimate change and global warming. We are mindful of the social aspects and the need to protect our most vulnerable citizens against rising prices. We have one of the most sophisticated social policies on tackling climate change.
I judge that the Opposition have an appetite to hear more from me and I am happy to comply. We need to be consistent about planning. The Opposition spokesman talked about gas storage. Our planning system is one of the barriers to gas storage and we therefore introduced the Planning Bill, which the Opposition opposed. One cannot talk about the ends without willing the means. The Planning Bill is the means and will enable us, while always taking account of public opinion, especially local public opinion, to make the necessary decisions speedily.
Let me deal with nuclearI am happy to discuss the subject of the debate all night.
Mr. Heald: The Minister criticised me for saying that it was wrong to put three wind turbines in a small valley in Hertfordshire with a domestic landscape. Is he aware that landscape is one of the most important aspects of the planning systems in Scotland and France? It is mentioned in their planning notes. Will he take note of what is done in Scotland and France when deciding where wind turbines should go?
Malcolm Wicks:
I take note of what happens all over the world. I cannot comment on the projects that the hon. Gentleman mentions because I do not know the details, but he may wish to listen because I gave way to him. Given that we have an hour or so of the debate to go, I shall give way to anyone who would like to
intervene. However, I was gently chiding the hon. Gentleman because he made a passionate plea about the importance of renewables and I believe that he was gently criticising the Government for our policy. However, he then got most passionate in saying that the projects should not be in his constituency. That is the problem.
Mr. Redwood: When does the Minister believe that the first new nuclear power station under the Governments plans will open? Will it be agreed under their new planning system? How long will it take, given that there is to be two more years delay before setting it up?
Malcolm Wicks: I recall how many power stations were built under the Administration of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member. I listen to the talk, but I also look at the record, and I find one more impressive than the other. On a cautious estimate, the first new nuclear power station should be up and producing clean and green energy by 2020some optimists say 2017-18.
Mr. Bone: The Minister did not deal with my earlier comments about his banging his head against the bedroom door and the European Unions failure to liberalise its energy policy. On many occasions, he has promised that the EU would liberalisewhen will it happen?
Malcolm Wicks: I do not know how up to date the hon. Gentleman is with the recent Luxembourg meeting of Energy Ministers that I attended, where legal unbundling was agreed. We did not get all the unbundling that we wanted, and we will continue to press for full liberalisation, but it was a significant step forward, of which we can be proud.
Mr. David Hamilton: There was a question earlier about nimbys in England. I assure my hon. Friend that there are as many nimbys in Scotland as in England, irrespective of the planning system in Scotland. Members of the Opposition parties are the very people who behave like that, yet they always profess to be in favour of renewable energy.
Malcolm Wicks: Let us be clear: when there are good environmental or other reasons for saying no to a projecta power station or a wind farmthe answer should be no. That is right and proper. However, we must say yes if we want energy security and if we wish to tackle global warming. That is why the not-in-my-backyard people need to be faced down.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con) rose
Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to give way to the eminent Whip.
Mr. Robathan rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |