---

Energy: Electricity Supply

My Lords, as usual, we have had a stimulating and wide-ranging debate, and I want to pick up one or two points that particularly seem to call for comment. First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, for her contribution and I congratulate her on her antecedents, which are of course impeccable, just like mine. I also take the opportunity, as she did, to commend Ofgem for its recent performance. It has become very good. In the past, that has not been the case; for example, it introduced NETA and almost bankrupted several generators in the process, and it also created a wholly artificial nuclear crisis by doing so. But it has been getting better. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I shall be very quick in going through the various points. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to Lord Peyton, as I should have done, and I take this opportunity to associate myself with his comments. Lord Peyton was a constant and useful contributor to these debates and he is greatly missed. I also associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and other noble Lords who are concerned with CO2 cost-predictability—an important point. One structural problem that we had was that we do this in common with the EU, which generally tendsto play all games better than we do, as do the Australians. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised the difficulty of getting planning permission for windmills, whereas the country is strewn with transmission towers. His comments reminded me of an occasion in Scotland when I had to meet the government adviser on the environment, as I was required to do once a year. This gentleman, an architect, said that he did not really object to having transmission lines; it was the wires in between that irritated him. I replied that, frankly, we were not clever enough to manage without the wires but, if we could, I wondered how long it would be before someone came along and asked for a unifying motif. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also mentioned hot rocks. I had some experience of very hot rocks in a geothermal station in New Zealand, which I was responsible for building. I am not sure that the opportunity even exists in this country; perhaps that is just as well. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was a little puzzled by my comments on this being the end of this series of debates. I did not mean to suggest that I was giving up the baton, simply that the question of strategy in the electricity industry has now beenfully ventilated. The Government have had every opportunity of taking up the sensible arguments that have been made but have chosen not to do so. I therefore see no point in continuing it. I hope, as I am sure other noble Lords do, that the visit of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to Russia is a brief one. If he persists in criticising them to the extent that he has today, it may not be. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, embarked on our customary argument—which ultimately always comes down to nuclear power. I do not know where his figure of 13 per cent losses on the grid came from. I speak from wide experience when I assure him that that is quite wrong; it is much too high. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, again mentioned Ofgem. Ofgem is doing a useful job but it is not able to do other than deal with current market forces. It is neither equipped nor able to take a long view beyond current market requirements. That need remains, and the Government’s pretence or belief that a statutory body is not necessary is very hollow. There is a strategy of a kind in the Government but it is not significant. The Government will remind Russia about the need for the agreements we have. I welcome that and hope that it will reinforce consumers when they lose their supplies. I thank noble Lords for taking part in this debate and for their support in previous years. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers. Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.