| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Oct 2009 : Column 58WH—continued
The Minister will know, as will you, Sir Nicholas, that delay costs money, and we are painfully aware of the rising price of energy. Indeed, Ofgem-another quango-estimates that the price of power could almost double in order to pay for the investment in nuclear and renewables. That is a bitter price to pay for not making up our minds in time. It takes seven years to build a power station. Hinkley B is due to end its productive life in 2016 unless it gets another five-year extension. Even if the Government were to give Hinkley C the go-ahead
now, it would not be ready in time to replace the reactors that are going. I am afraid that the process of producing a national policy statement on nuclear power has "delay" written all over it.
The Government are bending over backwards to allow everybody a say-that is agreed-but the nation cannot afford a system that moves like a snail. The national policy statement has to be simpler. It is a device to stop people arguing about the merits of nuclear power. It needs to state: "We think nuclear power is clean, safe and obviously the way forward," but we are still waiting. Only in the planning, and when the Government have nailed their colours to the mast, can we really start to tackle the applications. In the meantime Sir Michael Pitt, the chairman of the IPC, is picking up £234,000 a year-more than double what the Prime Minister gets.
I am not convinced that, even when the national policy statement eventually comes along, the IPC will be able to sanction new power stations without a series of battles and still more delay. It could easily get bogged down in legal challenges from judicial reviews in the High Court to a challenge-I should like the Minister to clarify this-in the European Court of Justice. That is partly because the IPC is an untried quango and because its decisions do not have to be ratified by this place or by Members. I believe-dare I say it, given that I do not want delays?-that that is wholly wrong.
I endorse the determination of my party to try to sort out the IPC, and I urge the Government to consider the issue as well. We are not going to hang on to national policy statements, but we are committed to putting the decision-making power back where it belongs. Public inquiries are good, but they are not the whole answer. Accountable decisions must be made quickly and fairly. My message today on the national policy statement is very straightforward: let us get going and let us sort this out. Let us make sure that we get the statement and that the building of Hinkley C and D can be undertaken as soon as possible.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I call the Minister to reply to the debate. I think that I speak on behalf of all colleagues present in congratulating him on his much-merited promotion.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr. David Kidney): Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for those kind words. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing the debate. His clear enthusiasm for, and expertise and knowledge of, his subject is apparent; he is clearly keen to see progress on nuclear power. I take his lectures on how we must hurry up and speed along. It was not so long ago that his party's policy on nuclear power was to put off any decision and to make it a last resort, so I suggest that the right party is in power to take the decisions with which he would agree.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my saying that the Government's policy is a little broader than simply focusing on nuclear, but of course I shall
deal in some detail with his remarks on nuclear. We recognise the importance of having secure, reliable and affordable energy supplies for the UK. Alongside that challenge, we also face the challenge of tackling what could be cataclysmic climate change. It is important to us to have secure energy supplies and a just transition to a low-carbon future in which all our citizens have access to affordable energy sources.
Our strategy on ensuring a low-carbon Britain for the future is to encourage greater effort on energy efficiency. After all, what better way to reduce emissions than to reduce our consumption of energy? Reducing our need for energy would clearly support our desire for security of supply, and for those who have difficulty paying their bills, the more they can reduce those bills, the better. Alongside energy efficiency, there will be the trinity of more renewable energy, low-carbon nuclear and clean fossil fuels such as gas and coal.
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I should like to say a little about renewable energy and clean fossil fuels, although I will concentrate most of my remarks on nuclear power, as he has asked me to. Alongside the low-carbon transition plan that we published in July, we published strategies for low-carbon industry and transport and launched the UK's renewable energy strategy. We are aiming for an ambitious sevenfold increase in the amount of energy in this country that is provided by renewable sources by 2020, compared with 2008. That will be the largest proportional increase in Europe and is therefore very ambitious, but we are fully committed to meeting that target.
Such an increase could provide about £100 billion-worth of investment opportunities and up to 500,000 jobs in the renewable energy sector. This year's Budget announced £405 million to support the development of world-leading low-carbon energy and advanced green manufacturing in the UK, and we are starting to see progress already. The data from September 2009 show that on top of the 7 GW-worth of renewable electricity generation that is already in operation-to put that into context, all the onshore and offshore wind energy that was produced in this country last year provided power for 2 million UK homes-a further 2 GW-worth is under construction, another 9 GW-worth has planning permission and is awaiting construction, and more than 10 GW-worth more is going through the planning process. Those will all be connected to either the transmission or the distributed networks. The strategy relates not only to big electricity projects: over the summer we have been consulting on plans to introduce more support for small-scale electricity generation, which will provide financial rewards for people setting up renewable energy sources for their houses, businesses or community projects.
The hon. Gentleman passed by renewables, so I will leave out some comments that I would have liked to make about our support for research on the whole range of renewable energy sources, but I would not like him to think that our minds are closed to technologies for harnessing wave and tidal energy, hydrogen fuel cells or bioenergy. For the purpose of this debate, I will pass by those, but I remind him that, for the feed-in tariff for electricity support next year, we will be consulting towards the end of this year on a renewable heat incentive. That will be a big drive in the promotion of heat from renewable sources and for bioenergy and combined heat and power, and we hope to introduce that in April 2011.
I turn now to nuclear energy. Renewables alone will not meet our energy needs. Nuclear power is certainly a low-carbon, secure and reliable source of electricity generation, and our recent low-carbon transition plan outlines how nuclear power, alongside renewables and clean fossil fuels, has a crucial role to play in the UK's future energy supply. The Government remain absolutely committed to our policy on nuclear new build and want to achieve a nuclear market that is considered one of the best in the world for nuclear investment and for companies working in our nuclear supply chain. In our recent transition plan we stated how nuclear energy, alongside a tenfold increase in renewables and clean coal, has a crucial role to play in achieving a low-carbon future to secure our energy supplies, and we are doing everything we can to facilitate new build of the type the hon. Gentleman is calling for.
The increasing politicisation of energy supplies is creating global economic uncertainly, so ensuring that we have a diverse energy mix is important to both price stability and energy security. As we set out in the nuclear White Paper, the Office for Nuclear Development is taking the necessary steps to establish the right policy framework and create the right conditions in the UK for investment in new nuclear power stations. The office will act to enable investment in the UK from the earliest possible date, with no cap on the amount of new build.
To follow through on those commitments, we are about to publish the national policy statement that the hon. Gentleman is so impatient to see-I have seen the drafts of the document and can assure him that it will be with us shortly. That is a key plank in the new planning system and will be available for consultation shortly and, crucially, for parliamentary approval later. We have legislated to ensure that developers put money aside from day one for the eventual clean-up of new build and we are working to implement Dr. Tim Stone's recommendations on the nuclear regulatory environment.
All those steps are working. Energy companies have recently invested almost £13 billion, and EDF, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has invested by buying British Energy and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's sites for £387 million. All that investment shows the market's confidence in what is about to happen in this country. Taken together, the nuclear industry has so far announced plans for more than 12 GW of nuclear energy in the UK, which is more than currently exists. Our operators continue to estimate that electricity could be generated from new build by the end of 2017 or the beginning of 2018. Crucially, that time scale depends on every element being in place, not least the investment, but also the appropriate planning framework.
The hon. Gentleman has been critical in his remarks on the new Infrastructure Planning Commission, but I think that he is misguided to be so critical of a key plank in the system that will give investors the confidence to plan to build new plant in this country by the end of 2017. It is crucial that we get the planning environment right for those decisions. Our job is to work hard to create the right conditions for that investment, so we are well under way in taking steps to make new nuclear power stations a reality. We will publish the draft nuclear national policy statement for consultation. We have legislated to ensure developers put money aside from day one and are working to implement the
recommendations Dr. Tim Stone made in his nuclear regulatory review. With my noble Friend and ministerial colleague, Lord Hunt of King's Heath, we are looking at the proposed legislative restructuring of the regulatory framework. Those efforts are what will encourage investors to make those important decisions.
There are, after all, massive economic opportunities to be seized in this nuclear renaissance. The supply chain and skills base required to support a new build programme offers considerable opportunities for UK businesses and workers. The Government are working closely with the industry to raise awareness of those opportunities and to encourage investment. An expansion of nuclear energy in the UK will require thousands of people working in the sector. The challenge for the Government and the industry is to ensure that we have enough people with the right skills to build and operate new nuclear power stations.
As the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give us credit for, we are working closely with Cogent, the sector skills council, with the National Skills Academy for Nuclear and with the industry to ensure that we have a clear and jointly shared understanding of the key skills priorities for the nuclear sector and how skills demand can be met. I have been following the progress of the proposal for an energy college in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which I am delighted to hear him report has now come to fruition. I wish that project well, because it is vital for the future skills training of the enterprise. Bridgwater college in his constituency is playing its part as one of the most successful further education colleges in the country. It is an associate member of the National Skills Academy for Nuclear and, in association with the university of Central Lancashire, offers a very positive foundation degree course in nuclear decommissioning, which is a good step forward for the future of the sector.
On a similar point-I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman would mention this, as he has certainly been a great advocate of the relationship between local authorities and EDF in getting planning right at local level-I am advised that EDF and the local authorities have now signed a planning performance agreement in relation to EDF's potential planning application for a nominated site at Hinkley Point. That will help to ensure that both sides are clear on the advice and support required from a local authority and on when it will be delivered. That agreement does not pre-empt the decision by the IPC or the Government's consultation on the nuclear policy statement. I hope that that reassures him on the points he raised.
I want to mention the role of coal. Neither wind nor nuclear, or even the two together, can provide the flexibility required to handle fluctuating energy demand, so coal will continue to play an important part in the energy mix. Keeping coal-fired generation helps the Government to deliver secure, reliable and affordable energy to homes and industry. Coal, like gas, is more flexible than nuclear energy and so can react quickly to changing demand, such as when other generating sources fail. Coal-fired power stations supply a third of our electricity over an average year, and that is in addition to coal's role in providing energy for the manufacture of steel, chemicals, cement and for other industries. Nearly a third of the coal used for generation in the UK is locally produced, and UK coal producers believe that they can maintain
production at that level for the foreseeable future. It is therefore very important that we are able to retain that flexibility for the future, and that means a clear role for coal, with carbon capture and storage in our future electricity mix.
Our strategy for moving towards the deployment of carbon capture and storage needs to bring together energy security and our climate change objectives, so we consulted on a framework for clean coal, which closed on 9 September. Under consideration are proposals to support up to four CCS demonstration projects in the UK and a requirement that any new coal-fired power station must demonstrate CCS on a substantial proportion of its capacity and retrofit 100 per cent. of capacity when the technology is proven. Taken together, the Government's proposals for coal amount to the most environmentally ambitious of any country in the world.
The Government are committed to a market framework, regulated by Ofgem, that ensures that there is a good deal for consumers through a competitive market and that the significant investment needed across our whole energy infrastructure over the coming years is delivered.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am grateful to the Minister for bringing his reply to an end.
We move on to the last Westminster Hall debate today, which is initiated by the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). When I came into this House, I was honoured to serve alongside his father, who was a respected Member of this House.
Christopher Traynor
1.30 pm
Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) (Lab): Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for remembering my father. I did not realise that you were so old. [Interruption.] How to win friends and influence people.
A few days ago it was the 10th anniversary of the death of my beloved only son, Hugh. Sadly, a few months later, a mother who I did not know at the time lost her son, Christopher. Christopher and Hugh had some things in common. They were both 23 when they died, both had suffered mental stress and drug addiction problems, both were born in the last quarter of the 20th century and should have lived on to have a full and fulfilling life in the 21st century. Sadly and tragically, their fates were sealed in lonely bedsit flats away from families who loved them dearly and continue to do so today.
But the similarities end there. Hugh died in Glasgow, where his death was properly and thoroughly investigated and he and his family were treated with dignity and respect. Christopher died in Paris, France, where the investigation was scant and his body and family were treated with utter disrespect.
In the next 15 to 20 minutes, my parliamentary colleagues and I will set out a harrowing tale of an unexplained death in mysterious circumstances, and unanswered questions. Christopher's mother, Winnie, has campaigned courageously for nine years. She has refused to give up fighting to get to the truth of the circumstances of her beloved child's death, and has sought truth and justice for him. It is the last thing that a parent can do for their child. Winnie and her daughters Karen and Sharon are here with us today.
How could officials in France, including the police and others, who could be parents themselves, treat Christopher as if he was worthless and of no consequence? How could whatever happened to end his short life be of no interest to them? Christopher's death was a terrible tragedy, but what makes it so unbearable and unacceptable to Winnie is the tale of truth and justice denied by a system so insensitive that it could not even repatriate his remains with dignity and understanding. Instead, without permission, his body was probably used as a cadaver by medical authorities. It took his mother and family years to trace his withheld organs, including his brain and heart.
There was no serious police inquiry. It took just 55 minutes to investigate what could have been a murder and, in any event, was clearly a suspicious death. There was no interview of key French eye-witnesses, nor were witnesses traced or interviewed, with or without a French police caution.
The French said that the cause of death was alcohol poisoning, but the British say that it was not. Indeed, they said that Christopher would have passed a drink driving test in Britain. Then it was said that the cause of death could have been neglect, or pneumonia, but the French eye-witness, Alain Nesmon, said that it was murder and that he was there. Christopher's courageous and loving mother, Winnie, and his brothers and sisters want the truth, which they believe lies with Alain Nesmon.
Nine years on, Winnie simply wants the British Government to persuade their French counterparts seriously to investigate this tragic death, and finally to test the allegation made by the eye-witness that her son was murdered. She needs answers before that key witness dies of the cancer from which he is suffering.
But it is not only the family who are on Christopher's side in terms of securing justice and finding the simple truth behind his tragic death. The South Sefton coroner, Christopher Sumner, wrote a private letter to the Foreign Office in December 2003 in which he was scathing. He stated:
"I consider that the police investigation was cursory in the extreme. It gave the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the deceased, being a squatter, was of little significance."
"No forensic evidence appears to have been gathered. Little was done of an investigative nature."
In another letter, the coroner went even further. He simply does not believe that Christopher could have died from alcohol poisoning. On 10 September 2004, he wrote:
"The post mortem conclusion refers to acute alcoholic poisoning with the 'abundant ingestion of beer likely'. Such a conclusion is not borne out by the evidence."
He states that the pathologists' conclusions are based on
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |