- ENVIRONMENT HOME
- NEWS
- POLICY
- PARLIAMENT
- Teverson: Government must not buy its way out of emissions commitments
- Peers press for a stronger Climate Change Bill
- Lib Dems press for stronger carbon emissions targets
- Energy Bill
- Renewables not nuclear is needed for the UK to reach its energy targets
- View All
- FEATURE
- ISSUES
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS
22 January 2008
Steve Webb speaks at
Second Reading of the Energy Bill
Speaking in the debate, Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary Steve Webb said the policy on renewable energy sources contained in the Bill needed to be addressed. The issue of new nuclear power and areas omitted from the Bill were also raised.
Mr Webb said:
“On the subject of renewables, I am glad that the Secretary of State is still present, because it means that I can give him another chance to answer the question he declined to answer when I intervened on him. Why is the United Kingdom 22nd out of the EU countries on renewables? It is a simple question, but we have no answer. I would be happy to give way; I would be happy for the Secretary of State to interrupt my flow and tell the House why we are so poor. We have had 10 years of a Labour Government, who could have done something about this. What we hear from Ministers is the “jam tomorrow” renewables strategy: “It’s going to be great, and there’ll be a bright new dawn.” We should have seen the evidence of that by now, but we simply have not seen it.”
“As the Secretary of State said, the delay in getting renewables moving is partly caused by the delay in getting grid connections. Interconnection with the grid is an important issue. Feed-in mechanisms are a good idea if we can get connection into the grid working. However, the Secretary of State sounded like a passive onlooker - “Oh, there’s a bit of a problem with renewables, in getting connection to the grid.” Well, who has been in charge for the past 10 years? Who could have done something about that, if there had been the political will and commitment to do it? Yet he stands up today, after 10 years in power, and says, “Oh, we’ve got a bit of a problem getting connections into the grid.” Whose fault is that? Is he not responsible?”
“Our strategy is for a breadth of input, including renewables, energy conservation, energy efficiency, and carbon capture and storage for gas and coal. Such a breadth of strategies would be much more effective in reducing CO2 emissions than waiting for new nuclear power to come on stream in 15 years’ time. Those are things we could be doing tomorrow, rather than waiting for jam tomorrow, which is the Government’s strategy.”
“New nuclear power is a one-way track. We cannot decide in 10 or 15 years’ time that it was a bad idea and we do not want it, because the companies that are now being asked to invest expect guarantees. They will not invest their money unless they know for certain that they will get a return, and if in 10 or 15 years’ time that is not the right part of the required mix strategy, we will be lumbered - we will be stuck. They will expect a return over 40 or 50 years, so we will be buying into a technology that will give us no flexibility.”
“Finally, I want to touch on a few things that should have been included in the Bill. Earlier, I mentioned home energy efficiency and conservation. We are told that in a decade all new homes will be zero carbon, yet three quarters of the houses that we will be living in in 2050 have been built already. The Bill was a chance to do something about energy efficiency, but what real action in that regard does it promote? A quarter of our country’s CO2 emissions come from housing. The figure for Sweden is 5 per cent., yet that country is a lot colder than ours. Why are we in this situation? It is because these things have been neglected time and time again by the energy Department, which is not the environment Department.”
“A second important omission from the Bill is anything on fuel poverty and social tariffs. One of the most shameful things that the Government have done is not only failing to meet their targets on fuel poverty, but going in the wrong direction, with fuel poverty soaring. The Bill could have made sure that energy companies provided social tariffs to low-income customers.”
“There can be a forward-looking and diverse energy policy of the sort that I have described, but, regrettably, it is not in the Bill."
David Heath focused on renewables and the potential for microgeneration of energy.
Martin Horwood also spoke, saying that the Bill was a missed opportunity because it “increased nuclear liabilities and botched plans for carbon capture and storage, and has failed to promote renewable energy adequately at national, household or community level.”
The Liberal Democrats opposed the Second Reading but it was passed by 274 votes to 85.
Speaking in the debate, Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary Steve Webb said the policy on renewable energy sources contained in the Bill needed to be addressed. The issue of new nuclear power and areas omitted from the Bill were also raised.
Mr Webb said:
“On the subject of renewables, I am glad that the Secretary of State is still present, because it means that I can give him another chance to answer the question he declined to answer when I intervened on him. Why is the United Kingdom 22nd out of the EU countries on renewables? It is a simple question, but we have no answer. I would be happy to give way; I would be happy for the Secretary of State to interrupt my flow and tell the House why we are so poor. We have had 10 years of a Labour Government, who could have done something about this. What we hear from Ministers is the “jam tomorrow” renewables strategy: “It’s going to be great, and there’ll be a bright new dawn.” We should have seen the evidence of that by now, but we simply have not seen it.”
“As the Secretary of State said, the delay in getting renewables moving is partly caused by the delay in getting grid connections. Interconnection with the grid is an important issue. Feed-in mechanisms are a good idea if we can get connection into the grid working. However, the Secretary of State sounded like a passive onlooker - “Oh, there’s a bit of a problem with renewables, in getting connection to the grid.” Well, who has been in charge for the past 10 years? Who could have done something about that, if there had been the political will and commitment to do it? Yet he stands up today, after 10 years in power, and says, “Oh, we’ve got a bit of a problem getting connections into the grid.” Whose fault is that? Is he not responsible?”
“Our strategy is for a breadth of input, including renewables, energy conservation, energy efficiency, and carbon capture and storage for gas and coal. Such a breadth of strategies would be much more effective in reducing CO2 emissions than waiting for new nuclear power to come on stream in 15 years’ time. Those are things we could be doing tomorrow, rather than waiting for jam tomorrow, which is the Government’s strategy.”
“New nuclear power is a one-way track. We cannot decide in 10 or 15 years’ time that it was a bad idea and we do not want it, because the companies that are now being asked to invest expect guarantees. They will not invest their money unless they know for certain that they will get a return, and if in 10 or 15 years’ time that is not the right part of the required mix strategy, we will be lumbered - we will be stuck. They will expect a return over 40 or 50 years, so we will be buying into a technology that will give us no flexibility.”
“Finally, I want to touch on a few things that should have been included in the Bill. Earlier, I mentioned home energy efficiency and conservation. We are told that in a decade all new homes will be zero carbon, yet three quarters of the houses that we will be living in in 2050 have been built already. The Bill was a chance to do something about energy efficiency, but what real action in that regard does it promote? A quarter of our country’s CO2 emissions come from housing. The figure for Sweden is 5 per cent., yet that country is a lot colder than ours. Why are we in this situation? It is because these things have been neglected time and time again by the energy Department, which is not the environment Department.”
“A second important omission from the Bill is anything on fuel poverty and social tariffs. One of the most shameful things that the Government have done is not only failing to meet their targets on fuel poverty, but going in the wrong direction, with fuel poverty soaring. The Bill could have made sure that energy companies provided social tariffs to low-income customers.”
“There can be a forward-looking and diverse energy policy of the sort that I have described, but, regrettably, it is not in the Bill."
David Heath focused on renewables and the potential for microgeneration of energy.
Martin Horwood also spoke, saying that the Bill was a missed opportunity because it “increased nuclear liabilities and botched plans for carbon capture and storage, and has failed to promote renewable energy adequately at national, household or community level.”
The Liberal Democrats opposed the Second Reading but it was passed by 274 votes to 85.
Applicability: this item refers to the UK.
