---

Energy White Paper

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the Statement. The White Paper and the Statement accompanying it are characterised by one thing: confusion. The Government say that certain things must be done but their policy, at best, says only that they might be done. The current Prime Minister says that the replacement of nuclear power stations is back on the agenda with a vengeance. The future Prime Minister says that a new generation of nuclear power stations will be built across the country. Yet the most that the Minister has promised today is that nuclear plants could be part of the future energy mix and that it is for the private sector to take decisions over new power stations. However it is dressed up, nothing in the White Paper guarantees that a single nuclear power station will ever be built. Where has the Prime Minister’s ““back with a vengeance”” gone in relation to nuclear power? It is certainly not here. Are the Government saying that the nuclear new build will definitely happen or not? How many new nuclear power stations will definitely be built as a result of this White Paper? Does the Minister have a plan B if Scotland rejects nuclear power and, if not, how does he expect the Government to deliver a UK-wide energy policy? If the SNP has rejected both nuclear in principle and wind in practice, can the Government acknowledge that the policy is anything other than lunacy? Business will of course invest in nuclear power only if it knows what it costs. Without certainty about carbon, decommissioning and waste, it is almost impossible for businesses to take a realistic interest. The Government have given absolutely no greater clarity on those issues today, so what happens if no one comes forward to invest? Over a year ago, the Prime Minister said of new nuclear build: "““If we don’t take these long-term decisions now, we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty””." Today in the Times, he just says that we must ““consider”” it. But can the Minister tell noble Lords exactly what decisions have been taken today to address this dereliction? Last July, we in the Conservative Party set out our objectives. We called for a cap and trade scheme for C02 based on auctioned rights, for site and type licensing and for reform of the renewables obligation and climate change levy. In addition, we said that there must be long-term certainty for investors. As we, as a party, have said again and again on environmental issues, if that could lead to broad agreement between us and the Government, that would be very good for Britain. Today’s announcement contained detailed proposals for banding the renewables obligation, but those will not overcome its central flaws. On what basis, therefore, has the Minister assessed and chosen to reject the considered alternative put forward by Ofgem? Hidden in this Statement is bad news about carbon capture. Will the Minister confirm that the failure of this Government to agree a pilot project for it means that any prospect of its happening has already been seriously delayed—or should I say postponed? Is not the real truth that, far from being on the edge of happening, carbon capture is about to be deferred and endangered? I wonder how on Earth CCS will ever get off the ground if it is still constrained by the climate change levy. When will the Government remove the perversity of keeping a dirty tax on a clean process? On strategic infrastructure projects, we welcome site and type licensing and the streamlining of the planning process. However, I have grave concerns about entrusting that to an unaccountable quango. The Conservative Party policy statement last July called for greater use of carbon trading. A broad and rational regime for carbon trading is, in our view, crucial for incentivising low-carbon technologies. The Government’s announcement that they will broaden the scope of carbon trading to cover a greater number of businesses is, therefore, welcome. It is our view that permits should be auctioned. Will the Secretary of State tell us how and when they will be? Climate change is the greatest threat that we face. That is why the Government had the support of the Conservative Party in signing up to tough EU targets on emissions and renewables in March. At present, we get just 2 per cent of our total energy from renewables. Raising that to 20 per cent was always going to be challenging. Is it not true to say that today’s plans will at best get us only about half way to that target? Is it not also the case that, despite the clear wish expressed in the White Paper to encourage local and decentralised energy, there is almost nothing that amounts to a robust policy that will really make it happen? Again and again, this White Paper wills the ends but not the means. In households, smart metering could greatly increase energy efficiency and help customers to export electricity back to the grid. But the Government are putting their support behind the limited clip-on visual electricity displays. Does that intervention not pull the rug from under the real smart meter market? Why are the Government going for the most basic option, when real smart meters would help to stimulate the microgeneration industry? Today’s announcement has already been twice delayed. It is Labour’s third White Paper, following dozens of consultations, and the product of their third energy review, under their ninth energy Minister. It is yet another symptom of a wasted 10 years—10 years that have rendered the next 10 years a Herculean challenge for whoever has to take it on. The White Paper offers nothing definite on nuclear or anything else. It heralds the collapse of carbon capture, while continuing an irrational regime for carbon penalties and incentives. It provides little or no prospect of hitting renewables targets and it does not offer the security that the country so urgently needs. The Government have had 10 years to think about their energy policy, and 10 months since the energy review to get it right, but what we are left with is not a carbon-free future, but a content-free promise.