---

Energy Security

I refer the House to my declaration of interest. I very much take on board the Secretary of State's remark that we want the facts and a robust analysis. That is why I start by repeating what I said earlier—that I congratulate him on changing the way we look at these things compared with the 10 years that preceded the last White Paper. The trouble was that we were working on the basis of a White Paper without any figures—nearly all the dates and targets had been removed, with only the 50-year one left. We therefore had a situation in which nobody could have their feet held to the fire because nobody had a target that was serious and could be kept to. I honour the right hon. Gentleman very much—this may be embarrassing for him—because he has changed the whole atmosphere and we can now have a proper debate about energy in a way that was not possible for a long period. He is suffering for that, and so are the rest of us. Starting on a personal level, I recently had a problem in my constituency that arose because somebody on the Army base did not fill a tank, which meant that a lot of my constituents did not have any gas. That was nothing to do with a national problem or any of the arguments that we have heard today, but simply a local problem. When we talk about energy security, let us realise that there are some local issues, as well as national ones, and that they are very serious for people. How do we organise ourselves so that there is the diversity that we need, not only in terms of supply but as between the various forms of generation? I worry that we have had too much emphasis on process and far too little on outcomes. I am a great believer in renewable energy; I do not think anybody could criticise me on that score. Ultimately, however, we should be aiming to have the most cost-effective way of getting energy security and lowering our emissions. It may be better to provide more support for low-carbon generation than to put all our eggs in the basket of renewables. I say that not because I want fewer renewables but because we have to get there quickly. I would like to see a greater emphasis on outcomes than on process. For example, people in the British wind energy industry often argue on the basis of how wonderful wind is. I want to have the lowest carbon production of energy that we can have—I do not mind how we do it. Tomorrow the mix will be different from what it is today, but let us ensure that we do not miss the important issue, which is how we get the energy we need. That leads me to say that I am terribly disappointed with the Liberal Democrats, but I suppose I should expect that. It is no good their sitting there saying, "We are against nuclear power", when in fact it is an essential part of any delivery. In my constituency we are very keen on having it, but I say to the Secretary of State that he is wrong about the planning arrangements. He is right about the first bit, which we all agree on—making the national decision about safety and need—but it is essential that there be a small local inquiry by somebody who is not one of his people but an independent person who can listen to the local issues. That is not going to happen. We are to have another lot of apparatchiks under another lot of quangoists, who will come around looking at us sniffily. Dame Deirdre Hutton will be around again, telling everybody what to do. My constituents want an opportunity to say in public what they want in relation to the dualling of the bypass and the other issues that affect them. They want to know that they will be listened to by an independent person who then advises the Government, not by some Government-appointed apparatchik. We must also reduce demand. I am a great enthusiast for a lot of the things that the Secretary of State is doing, but many of the details are not right yet. I was appalled to discover that the carbon commitment arrangements will exclude very large numbers of very big users because of the peculiar decision that if they do not have a half-hour meter arrangement, it does not matter how much they produce. That means that a large chain of small shops could use exactly the same total amount of energy as a smaller chain with larger shops, but one will pay and the other will not. The effect will be serious, and it is a stupid thing to have happened. I am sure that he had nothing to do with it, but I merely say to him that it can be changed rapidly. Although charming, the explanation that I received is not really very effective. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that those of us who have largely supported his activities will have to be, to use his word, robust in sometimes saying to him, "This is just not right." If we are going to win this battle, we all have to be prepared to speak out and speak clearly. That leads to the fundamental question of how we can reduce our use of energy and produce it efficiently so that our national security position is improved. That requires a much faster move towards smart metering and smart grids. He has done us a great favour by getting on with it, but we need to get on with it very much faster. There are various ways to do that, and I hope he will be open to some dramatically different suggestions as to how to achieve that aim. We also have to do more to ensure that when we have opportunities to reduce our energy use, we take them. I am not sure that we are doing that fast enough, and I want to press the urgency of the matter on him. I wish to say something to my Front-Bench colleagues. We will not achieve what we need to unless we use every single possible weapon. There is a way of increasing our efficiency in Europe that will make a very big difference if we are only prepared to work with our colleagues in the European Union. We have to be tough about that, because we really must use the EU as effectively as possible to deliver that end. I say to the Government that they should move faster and accept that they are behindhand because of what has happened so far. I say to members of my own party that we have to use every mechanism possible. I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is not acceptable to go on with a theological position that is intolerable, intolerant and unacceptable—but they are, after all, Liberal Democrats, so we expect that from them. They will pay a big price for it at the next election, when people realise that the real opponents of combating climate change are Liberal Democrats.