---

Finance (No. 3) Bill

That is an important point. Although there is concern about the carbon emissions of energy-intensive industries, in cases such as my hon. Friend has outlined they are actively working on measures to reduce carbon emissions. It is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and prevent that type of green investment. The carbon price support rate will actually provide an effective subsidy to the nuclear industry, as the Economic Secretary has confirmed in a written answer. In fact, it will benefit nuclear power twice as much as the renewables sector, with an average value of £50 million a year for nuclear between 2013 and 2030, compared with just £25 million a year for renewables. We support building new nuclear power stations as part of the UK's energy mix, but the problem is that the Government explicitly promised voters that they would not grant nuclear power stations a public subsidy. In fact, there is meant to be cross-party agreement that we are against nuclear subsidies. The Conservative party said in its manifesto that it intended"““clearing the way for new nuclear power stations—provided they receive no public subsidy””." The coalition agreement stated that the Conservative party was"““committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations…provided that they receive no public subsidy.””" The Prime Minister himself said in the House in March:"““What we should not be doing is having unfair subsidies.””—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 950.]" Then there are Liberal Democrat Members, who were elected on a manifesto that opposed nuclear power entirely. At their party conference last year, a resolution was passed stating that"““any changes in the carbon price””" should not"““result in windfall benefits to the operators of existing nuclear power stations””." When we delve deeper, it turns out that this is not the only nuclear subsidy by stealth that the Government are trying to sneak past the House. When I say ““subsidy by stealth””, I am of course borrowing a phrase from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the Chair of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change. Writing about the Government's wider package of electricity market reforms, he has warned that they"““must not impose a one-size-fits-all reform on all low-carbon generation in order to avoid singling out nuclear for support.””" He said that the Government's proposed design for feed-in tariffs"““seems to be more about concealing the fact that it is providing financial support for nuclear power than it is about coming up with the best approach.””" Even if the Government do support public subsidy for new nuclear build, they need to explain why they want to subsidise existing nuclear stations—and, for that matter, existing renewable power stations. Calling the carbon price support rate a green tax surely implies that it is intended to provide an incentive for future green behaviour. However, the Economic Secretary said to the Public Bill Committee:"““We are clear that ensuring that a tax is structured to drive positive environmental behaviour is one thing; ensuring that that can happen on the ground, and that people can change their decisions of the future is another.””––[Official Report, Finance (No. 3) Public Bill Committee, 19 May 2011; c. 242.]" A public subsidy for existing power stations, whether renewable or nuclear, is not behaviour-changing. We should remind ourselves exactly where the subsidy comes from. The Economic Secretary may argue that it is not a public subsidy per se, because it does not involve taxing and spending. In fact it has a much more direct impact on every electricity bill payer, whether they are working families or manufacturing firms, and it is still a public subsidy in every sense. The hon. Member for South Suffolk says that the Government"““needs to be upfront about its financial support for nuclear energy””," and I agree with him. That is why we have tabled the amendment. The Government are using money taken from people and from energy-intensive industries to subsidise nuclear power stations, which they explicitly promised voters they would not do. They are also using that money to subsidise existing power stations, which makes no sense. We have tabled the amendment to give them an opportunity to explain why they have done that. If they are still sticking to their policy that there should not be a subsidy, I want to know how they will put that right.