| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend presents a cheering line about the light-hearted approach to renewables. That is not exactly the view of the Danish Government with regard to renewables; they have invested substantially in offshore wind generation. Of course he is absolutely right that any one group of turbines will be subject to intermittency because of the wind factor, but the proposal is that the wind turbines will be spread very widely across the United Kingdom. Most parts of the United Kingdom, for most of the year, have a fairly significant wind factor. It is also the case that we need additional research to ensure that from wind turbines energy can be stored more effectively than at present. However, I assure my noble friend that wind turbine technology is not quite at the primitive and insecure level that he suggests.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the wind factor is infinitely variable? All Governments should be aware of that.
The Minister's reference to some decades ahead was very welcome. But so far as the DTI is concerned, are not those decades a vacuum, altogether lacking in any long-term policy?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think that that is fair, given that there is a clear series of dates for the decommissioning of individual nuclear power stations, for example. That process could of course be subject to reverse, given that one of the power stations we are talking about will not be decommissioned until 2035. The process can be adjusted against a background of changes in energy supply if necessary.
However, there are very significant developments in potential energy provision to this country—the stupendous investment that is being made across the world. The development of liquid natural gas and of major pipelines which will serve the whole of Europe—and Britain will play its part here—is guaranteed to meet the energy needs of a continent, not just the United Kingdom.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, if the Minister is giving figures, will he make them quite clear? He said that we had 4.2 gigawatts of new capacity coming on stream in the next three years, or the potential for that. Is that a net figure or does it make an allowance for the decommissioning that will take place?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Question was asked about new plants being developed, and I replied on those plants that have obtained planning permission and will be constructed and will therefore be contributing to the grid along the lines of the figures that I mentioned in my initial Answer.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, would the Minister mind if I reminded him that in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, he quoted the Denmark experience? Perhaps he has forgotten that at the moment Denmark has stopped all that. I would have thought that that was quite significant.
I bring the Minister back to the first reply that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, about new generating capacity. What is likely to be the amount of generating capacity during that same period, if there is decommissioning for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, gave, relating to the closure of nuclear and coal-fired power plants?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not have those precise figures to hand. The reason why I have not is straightforward. I was asked a Question about new plant, in which we would invest and on which money would be spent in this country over the next three years, in terms of the committee's report and surveillance of the availability of energy to meet our needs for generation. That is kept under regular review.
I have sought to indicate to the House that it is of course not the case that Britain relies totally upon self-sufficiency as regards energy. That will certainly not be the case five years from now, because of the reduction
of North Sea products. It is against that background that into the equation must come the question of energy sources from elsewhere, to which I referred in my previous answer.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that replacing the Magnox stations with new nuclear stations might be a better alternative than extending the life of stations that have pretty well passed their useful life? Does he further accept that all that needs to be set against the background that we shall be increasingly dependent on imported gas from politically volatile regions? Therefore, we do not have the security of supply that we have traditionally had.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we do not currently have that security of supply in terms of indigenous resources. We certainly cannot foresee, in the fairly near future, anything that obviates the need to import, in exactly the same way as every other country in the European Community will be a net importer of energy. There is no solution to the situation in the way indicated by my noble friend.
As for the question of whether new nuclear power stations would be superior to the old, that is a market decision. It is not the Government who build nuclear power stations; that issue will be decided by the market and whether the generation of nuclear power becomes more economic than it has been in the recent past, which has led to the fact that nuclear-powered electricity has been so expensive.
Special Advisers and Civil Servants
2.53 p.m.
Lord Sheldon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What action they are taking to produce a clear delineation of roles and lines of accountability between special advisers and permanent civil servants.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in their response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government proposed an amendment to the code of conduct for special advisers to provide a clarification of the relationships between special advisers and permanent civil servants. Since then, the Government have agreed to remove the reference to special advisers relaying ministerial instructions to officials from the amendment.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that the recommendation of the Wicks Committee on Standards in Public Life called for a clear statement of what special advisers cannot do, which is to be set out in primary legislation? Will the draft legislation do that, and what assurances can he give that following the Government's draft
legislation in this Session, in the next Session a Civil Service Act will reach the statute book in Parliament to be implemented in due course?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can confirm that during the current parliamentary Session, a draft Bill will be published. However, what I cannot do—and it would be improper for me to do this—would be to give a commitment to legislation being in the following parliamentary Session, as is the usual convention. I am sure that the matters that the noble Lord raises in this context are the sort of issues that will be covered in the draft legislation. They have been extensively discussed and, of course, we recognise the importance of the issue.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that over the past 30 years the system of political advisers, properly structured, has given excellent advice to successive governments? Would he further agree that, unless there is a clear delineation of roles and lines of accountability, there is a very real danger that political appointments will chair committees that they should not chair and that civil servants who are supposed to be giving neutral advice will find that subconsciously that advice is influenced by a political input?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for confessing to a former life, in a roundabout fashion. It is right that we have clear guidance and guidelines on these matters. It is worth reminding your Lordships' House that this Government were the first to introduce a model contract and code of conduct for special advisers. That transparency did not exist in previous administrations, so our Government have a very good track record in ensuring that that transparency and clarity is there and understood.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House why the numbers of special advisers and the costs of running the Government's media operation have increased so much since 1997? Is it that civil servants are so much worse or spin so much more important?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, each government must decide what they require in terms of special advisers. It is true that the number of special advisers has increased with the current Government. However, it is worth quoting the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, when as Cabinet Secretary he gave evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. He said:
- "I do not think the senior civil service of 3,700 people is in danger of being swamped by 70 special advisers. That is not what is happening and I do not see it as creeping politicisation".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, would the Minister agree with me that it is a very long time since
the Cook-Maclennan agreement between my party and his party agreed on the need for Civil Service legislation? Would he also agree that there is a pressing public need to create a proper constitutional framework and to ban special advisers, such as I was, from exercising any executive power?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |