| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord reassure the House that all the fugitives will have to present themselves to the courts before any question of release under licence or amnesty comes into consideration?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I must repeat what I said in my original Answer, which I think was clear—no conclusions have been reached.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not essential in this matter to distinguish between those terrorist offences that were committed before and those that were committed after the Belfast agreement? If it were thought right to afford some clemency to the latter type of offence, would it not be important to ensure the return of exiles to Northern Ireland and to achieve an end to intimidation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on the first matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I am happy to reassure him that the Weston Park agreement referred to offences that were committed before 10th April 1998. On his second point, which I know has been firmly pressed on a number of occasions by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, I share his views. It is not acceptable for people to be driven out of their homes. I promised, in my reply to the noble Baroness, to take matters forward. I have arranged a meeting—it will be very soon after Easter—with the Minister who has charge of that area.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, given the fact that there have been detailed reports in The Times and in the Irish Times, which naturally have not been denied by Sinn Fein, can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that no decision will be taken on any amnesty whatever to known murderers without the issue coming to Parliament for legislation? Surely, it is not an issue that can be dealt with by a quiet, private deal, particularly as, since the Weston Park agreement, we live in a different world. We have been required to put through Parliament a number of further terrorism Acts. In that context, the Americans cannot possibly take us seriously when we ask them to arrange for funding of the IRA to stop if at the same time we do this. I ask the noble and learned Lord to give the House an absolute assurance that there will be no action whatever on this matter that does not first come to Parliament.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have read the reports in The Times, in the Irish Times, and in other newspapers. All of them appear to be inconsistent, one with another. I simply do not know from where they acquired the material. I have to be as straightforward as possible with the House. I repeat that no conclusions have been reached. Therefore, I cannot
honourably give an affirmative answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness. However, I recognise the strength of the proposition that she puts forward, and I further recognise—I am happy to repeat that I recognise it—that what she has said would chime readily with a large number of noble Lords.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, as someone who was present at Weston Park, from where the confusion about amnesties and other matters appears to have arisen, perhaps I may indicate that there was no agreement to which we, in the Ulster Unionist Party—major contributors to that extended weekend—were party. Does the Minister recognise that an unacceptable anomaly would arise if those who have escaped justice for many years were to be treated as though murder was not murder, as though crime was not crime and as though terrorism was not terrorism? No constitutional party that was present at Weston Park gave assent in any way—I emphasise, in any way—to anything that would lead to confusion or to misunderstanding or to an anomaly in respect of this matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is quite right in what he says. At Weston Park, in July last year, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Ireland put forward certain proposals. This issue is dealt with in one of those proposals—paragraph 20. On 1st August the party leaders were sent a document signed by Dr Reid and the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland. So when the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, says that those present did not sign up to the agreement, historically he is quite accurate.
As to his other observations, I realise that they are sentiments that are held by a large number of people. Equally, other people take a different view and want to see some finality in relation to these matters. In regard to publishing the proposals when conclusions have been arrived at, I am bound to recognise that it is asking an enormous amount of people who have been grievously wounded one way or another over the past years in Northern Ireland.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, should we not look forward? Has the Leader of the House seen a report in The Times today that the retiring chief constable of the RUC, to whom Parliament owes so much, has predicted that,
- "it is only a matter of time before the Provisional IRA completes the process of destroying all its weapons and disbands"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can confirm that. I read the report shortly before coming into the Chamber. I hope that Sir Ronnie Flanagan is right. He says—I believe this is a fair paraphrase—that he hopes and is optimistic that the Provisional IRA will see that being an army is not consistent with political activity. He is in a better position to judge what the future holds
than I am. That is certainly a more optimistic note than one has heard recently from others in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister confirm—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am perfectly happy to answer the noble Baroness, but the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has a question.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord knows only too well my strength of feeling on this matter. I am delighted that he has told us that no conclusions have yet been reached. I ask him to inform his right honourable friend the Prime Minister of the strength of feeling in this House on the subject, and in particular that it is not beholden to a British Prime Minister to conduct deals of this kind, which bear no relationship whatever to the Good Friday agreement, with common terrorists.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness I said quite unambiguously—I repeat as plainly as I can—that I fully recognise the strength of feeling in the House. I also recognise the strength of feeling that is behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I further recognise that whatever the conclusion is, there will be significant distress among large sections of the population. That will not be overlooked. I am not sure that it can be entirely accommodated.
Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [HL]
11.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Public Trustee Act 1906 in respect of the liability and fees of the Public Trustee. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.
Renewables Obligation Order 2002
Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order puts in place the main plank of the Government's renewable energy policy, a 25-year obligation on licensed electricity suppliers to secure a rising proportion of their sales from eligible renewable sources. It will make an important contribution to the UK climate change programme, to our Kyoto target and to our domestic aim of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. It marks a step change in our
support for renewable energy and our proposals are the result of extensive consultation with industry, green groups, consumers and the public.The obligation will apply to all licensed suppliers supplying customers in England and Wales and requires them to obtain a percentage of their sales from renewable energy sources. That percentage will rise from 3 per cent in the year beginning 1st April this year, to 10.4 per cent in the year beginning 1st April 2010 and remain at that level until 31st March 2027.
Promotion of renewables in Scotland is a devolved matter but I am pleased to say that the Scottish Executive is introducing a similar obligation in Scotland from 1st April. I understand that that order has now been passed by the Scottish Parliament. Certificates issued under the Scottish order will be eligible under this order and vice versa. There will be a seamless join between the two obligations.
The provisions of the Electricity Act do not extend to Northern Ireland, but electricity generated in Northern Ireland will be eligible provided that it is supplied to customers in Great Britain in accordance with the requirements of the primary legislation.
The scope for this is likely to be limited in the early years, but I am pleased to say that the Northern Ireland Executive is considering legislation to introduce a similar certificate-based obligation there. We would warmly welcome development of a UK-wide certificate-trading scheme. As I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, were he still here today, we shall work with the Executive to that end.
The additional cost to consumers will be around £800 million a year by 2010. That will result in an average increase in electricity prices of around 4.5 per cent by 2010. Compared with 1999 levels, that is the equivalent of an increase of less than one-tenth of a percent on RPI over the decade.
We believe that this represents a worthwhile investment in our future. As a result, we expect to see the market for renewable electricity reach somewhere between £1.5 billion to £2 billion a year in 2010.
Some, including noble Lords, have suggested that the Government's target of securing 10 per cent of electricity sales from eligible renewables sources by 2010 is unrealistic or that the initial level of obligation is too high. I prefer to say that the target is tough. It must be tough if we are to respond effectively to the challenge of climate change. But we believe that it is achievable. That view is confirmed by the recently published overview of regional resource studies. We aim to make rapid progress towards meeting our earlier interim target of securing 5 per cent of our electricity from all renewable sources, although we accept that delays—particularly planning delays—in implementing projects supported under the earlier non-fossil fuel obligation scheme are likely to delay achievement of that target beyond 2003.
Planning, above all else, is seen as the main constraint to further, faster development of renewable energy projects, especially onshore windfarms. We will need more renewables energy projects in future and they must go somewhere. It is not good enough just to pay lip service to the environment and then oppose sensible action that can actually help to tackle the problem.
While the countryside will not be covered with wind turbines or any other type of renewable project—far from it—there is no point in pretending that there will be no impact either on the countryside. It is, of course, a question of balance.
The key is, in my opinion, to get public opinion on our side. Developers have a major job to do in making sure that they bring forward sensible and sensitive proposals and involve and inform local communities. In principle, the public at large is hugely supportive of renewable energy and that support has to be harnessed in practice.
Pricing under the renewables obligation should also allow projects to be sensitively sited while still being commercially attractive. For example, it should allow wind turbines to be sited off the highest hilltops, reducing their visual impact to some extent. It may also pave the way for smaller developments than we have seen in the past.
We are not providing separate bands within the obligation for different resources or technologies. Fragmenting the market in that way would undermine the competitive market for renewable energy that we are trying to create.
We are, however, providing additional grant support to help less well-developed technologies enter the market and reach the point at which they can compete on their own merits. Over the next three years the Government have set aside a package of support for renewables worth over £260 million, including an enhanced research and development programme, £74 million to encourage the early deployment of offshore wind projects and over £60 million towards the capital costs of early bio-energy projects.
We looked carefully at exempting all combined heat and power generation from the obligation but reluctantly concluded that that is outside our powers under the Electricity Act. The obligation does not, however, apply to licence-exempt supply, such as the on-site use of electricity generated by combined heat and power. This will give a small but important boost to the market value of such licence-exempt supplies.
We also considered whether the obligation could be used to promote the capture and use of coal mine methane—a powerful greenhouse gas that seeps from disused coal mines—but again concluded that that lies outside the powers available. Under current legislation, coal mine methane cannot be promoted as "renewable" and therefore is ineligible for the renewables obligation. But we are exploring other mechanisms to provide assistance that is both timely and cost-effective.
If otherwise eligible, the output from stations built under both current and expired non-fossil fuel obligation and Scottish renewable obligation contracts will be eligible for the obligation.
The proceeds from the sale of contracted non-fossil fuel obligation output will, however, be used to offset the cost to consumers of those original contracts through the fossil fuel levy.
We have also amended the arrangements governing non-fossil fuel obligation contracts in order to allow those not yet commissioned to relocate, subject of course to normal planning requirements. The industry estimates that over the next few years that could bring forward up to 100 stalled projects. That would help to ensure that a significant volume of certificates is available in the market and it would provide liquidity in the early years of the obligation.
I am confident that, coupled with the other measures we are taking, the obligation will deliver the 10 per cent target we have set for 2010; contribute an additional 2.5 million tonnes a year of carbon reductions to our Kyoto target; and stimulate the development of a new and thriving industry in the United Kingdom.
I confirm that, in my view, the provisions of the draft order are compatible with the Convention rights as defined in Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
11.45 a.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the manufacturers will be extremely grateful to the Government that at last this renewed non-fossil fuel obligation is to be legislated on. There has been a hiatus in plans for new green electricity projects. I suppose that that is inevitable when one moves from one scheme to another.
I understood from the phraseology used by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that he had almost certainly read the report on this subject which emanated from Sub-Committee B of your Lordships' EU Committee. One finding of that report was that planning has been the biggest bugbear.
However, we have recently discovered another problem. Can the noble Lord when winding up say something about the proposed windfarm in the far western Hebrides which apparently is on the site of a European Union declared area for wildlife? It looks, on the face of it, as though the kibosh is being put on the whole plan. It would be the biggest semi-offshore windfarm anywhere in Europe.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page