---

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

I am grateful for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the annual report, which I hope the Government accept that they should produce, they would have to demonstrate the amount of energy consumed in the previous calendar year in the UK produced by nuclear energy. I hope that as part of that they would tell us what percentage of electricity consumed came from nuclear energy generated outside the UK. I used to represent Southampton, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) does now, where Pirelli produced the pipeline that transfers energy between France and the UK, and vice versa. That is an important means of ensuring that we obtain electricity for our grid. If the policy of the Government and the chief scientist is that global warming is the most catastrophic prospect that we face, and even greater than the threat posed by terrorism, we should welcome the chance to assess the electricity consumed in the previous year that emanated from nuclear energy. We should assess the energy generated within the UK and the nuclear energy that was generated in that great country where we have so many friends—France. That information would be useful for the public debate. Sometimes people are concerned only about their home patch, but if we are to be honest with ourselves and accept that the fuel balance and the amount of energy produced need to have a mixture from various sources, surely we should not run down our own nuclear generating capacity only to ““impose a burden””, in the eyes of the opponents of nuclear energy, on the people of France to produce more nuclear energy so that we can consume it and feel happy in our skins when we leave the television on standby at night. The issue of nuclear energy and where it comes from is important. The Prime Minister talks about having a big debate. Indeed, he referred to the subject in Prime Minister’s questions this week. That big debate needs to be based on hard facts relating to actual consumption of energy in this country and the contribution made by the different methods of generation. When those figures are produced and, I hope, publicised, they will enable people to realise that a cosy talk about microgeneration cannot be a substitute for nuclear energy. The consequence of putting our heads in the sand about that will mean that we have to rely much more on fossil fuels, which is covered in proposed new paragraph (c). The new clause speaks for itself. If it is introduced, I hope that it will enable the Bill to be slightly more balanced, instead of relying on or talking about renewables and microgeneration. I am not against microgeneration. Everybody should have the freedom to generate things for themselves if they want to, as long as they comply with the planning conditions and do not impose a burden on their neighbours. To put my cards fairly and squarely on the table, however, I am much less sure about whether we should subsidise people to enter into microgenerative production of energy so that it can be sold at a subsidised rate to the national grid. Most of all, I am keen that we should have this big debate. Even today, the article in The Spectator by my noble Friend Lord Lawson of Blaby—