Proceeding contribution from Charles Hendry (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 16 October 2008. It occurred during Topical debate on Energy Providers.
Energy Providers
The Minister could have addressed some of those issues in his own contribution. On winter fuel payments, we will make our position on financial matters clear as we move towards the election. That is not likely to happen for 18 months, and we expect to be able to make our spending commitments clear at that time. However, given that we have no idea of the extent of the mess that this Government will leave us with, we cannot give that clarity at the moment. I refer the Minister to the comments made by the previous Secretary of State with responsibility for nuclear power. He thanked the Conservative party for the constructive way in which we engaged with him and his officials to try to provide a secure platform for nuclear investors. We have said that we will work with the Government to provide security and a stable investment scenario. If the Minister had talked to his officials before making those comments in the House, he would have been better informed. However, the Government have rejected some of the proposals that would have helped them to deal better with the problem of fuel poverty. In the Energy Bill that is going through Parliament, we proposed that the Secretary of State should have powers to set social tariffs. That would mean that he would not have to consult, let Ofgem consult and then consult again: the necessary powers could have been included on the face of the Bill, so that he would be able to act if he decided that that was necessary. Without those powers, he will need to have primary legislation before he can act, and this winter will be over before he has that ability. It is a shame that our proposals were not accepted. The Government have abolished Energywatch and now, under pressure from other Governments, there are moves afoot to allow the European Commission to slip off the hook of tackling liberalisation. At the heart of this debate about energy providers is the issue of energy security. How can we keep the lights on in 2014-15, by which time most of our nuclear power stations and one third of our coal-powered stations will be out of commission? The Government have failed to establish a framework to bring forward investment in new energy generating capacities. As a result, we are seeing higher prices in this country, especially for business users. The prices are now above the European average. Critically, the Government have also failed to address the issue of gas storage. We have 14 days of gas storage in this country compared with 100 in Germany and 120 in France. In the cold period at the end of 2006, when we desperately needed gas to be imported through the interconnector with France, France was unable to provide it because it had legal requirements to keep gas storage facilities topped up. We need a real determination from the Government to push forward gas storage. That will be fundamental to our energy security. In spite of what the Minister says, the Government have been timid on the issue of carbon capture and storage. Even when they were telling us that the economy was doing well and the coffers were flush, they did not invest in more than one pilot project. They said that they would fund three projects from the receipts from the EU emissions trading scheme. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State intervenes from a sedentary position. However, two potential technologies have been ruled out. Far from our being in a position to export expertise to China, China has opened its pilot project while we are still deciding who might win ours and it is determined to export its technology to us. We could have shown true global leadership and established a tremendous lead in a vital new sector, but the Government have allowed the opportunity to slip away. The Government should also be looking to show leadership by following our approach to emissions performance standards. We looked at the matter carefully. Initially, we had a concern about it; we have been persuaded that it is the right way forward. We need to be clear that it is not an anti-coal policy, but it is crucial for future investment that a clear framework be established.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 480 c960-1
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Costs Coal Investment Electricity generation Energy supply Financial markets Oil Prices Renewable energy Taxation Regional electricity companies Social tariffs
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:11:38 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500544
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500544
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500544