Thomas Docherty
Main Page: Thomas Docherty (Labour - Dunfermline and West Fife)(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Martin Horwood
I am sure the hon. Lady is right to emphasise the importance of communication. I was going to go on to pay tribute to the outgoing Administration, and in particular to the right hon. Members for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and for Lewisham, Deptford, who towards the end of the Labour Government brought some urgency to the issue and improved things. However, it is true that at times they were tempted to take credit for things that were the result of larger factors, and that, given the number of consultations and pilots in which they indulged, they did not get round to implementing some of the schemes that they had contemplated. It now falls to the coalition to increase the pace of change, and the early signs are good.
The need is urgent. If we are to achieve throughout Europe a target of 30% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, which I believe should be the target for the whole European Union, we will have to make those radical step changes in policy. Indeed, we need to do so if we are to have any chance of reducing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm or lower, which I believe is absolutely necessary. If we do not do that, the chance of global warming increasing by more than two degrees above pre-industrial levels rises, threatening food production, conflict and, ultimately, the economies on which we depend to finance public sector and Government programmes.
In that respect, energy efficiency is no panacea. Not long ago, I visited a company near my constituency called Messier-Dowty, which provides world-class aircraft parts, particularly undercarriage. I remember having a conversation with its staff, in which they extolled the virtues of those parts and the aircraft industry’s efforts to make aircraft more efficient and lighter, and use less energy as they flew. However, I pointed out that eventually the industry would have to adjust to a world in which people learned to fly less and used alternative means of travel and communications. The same analogy is true for the whole economy. Energy efficiency is the first and most cost-effective area to address, but it is no substitute for the wholesale decarbonisation of our economy, which we also need to work on.
I shall focus on three areas of energy efficiency: first, energy efficiency in buildings, especially the skills needed to deliver it; secondly, smart metering; and finally, energy markets and pricing. In the first area, it is right that we concentrate on buildings. Throughout Europe, apparently 90% of our time is spent indoors and 30% of our energy consumption is devoted to heating and lighting buildings, so the green deal is an important step in trying to address that scale of energy use. However, there are traps ahead, and I have spoken to training suppliers in the further education sector and those hoping to run apprenticeships in architecture and building trades in and around my constituency. They point out a severe lack of skills in those new building technologies, particularly the skills needed not just in isolated instances, such as the installation of renewable technologies or the provision of insulation, but in new building materials, in the different approach that we need to take in the building trades and in architecture, and in constructing and retrofitting buildings. Such skills must be fundamental to training in those sectors.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I am slightly confused. Given that the hon. Gentleman supports deep and savage cuts to the training budgets of our colleges, how does he expect them to produce those vast numbers of desperately needed skilled workers in order to bring about that step change that we all want?
Martin Horwood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. One answer is clearly the green deal, which will incentivise private companies to invest in such training themselves. Apprenticeships might be part of the solution, too. However, when I asked Gloucester college, a forward-looking and innovative FE college based partly in my constituency and partly in Gloucester, what was the single biggest step that could be taken, the answer was not to fund extra courses. It suggested allowing FE colleges that provide such training to accredit their own courses, rather than having to defer constantly to universities. I commend that recommendation to Ministers and their colleagues in other Departments. The college believed that that would enable it to respond much faster to market situations and to design courses much more flexibly, and that it was the single most important change that could be made. I hope that provides an answer to the hon. Gentleman.
On new buildings at least, the other possible pitfall is the rather prescriptive and increasingly complex code for sustainable homes. I welcomed the code when the previous Government introduced it, and generally, as an instrument of policy, it is a welcome development. However, it has been painfully slow at raising energy efficiency levels in new buildings, and it risks becoming so over-prescriptive that it defeats our objectives.
I know the Secretary of State well, and he is no friend of over-prescription; he prefers the creation of the right market environment, which would avoid the need for such complexity and enable the process to move faster. Instead of having standards of such complex design, perhaps we should reinforce one or two simple measures—for instance, a measure of kilowatt-hours per square metre for every building, old or new. To follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), that would be easy to communicate to the public and easy for estate agents, politicians and everybody else to understand. It might become a powerful measure of energy efficiency, with no need to prescribe such complex details as we find in the current code.
This morning there was a round-table discussion hosted by The House Magazine, and one point repeatedly came up. Examples were mentioned of earlier civilisations—even the Romans—that were very good at preserving openness and light in buildings and making them energy-efficient through the communal use of heat; the renewable heat issue has already been mentioned. More traditional wooden buildings within the Arctic circle still seem to require less energy to heat than many buildings in this country. I know from my own experience of villages in India where buildings made basically out of mud were beautifully cool in summer and beautifully warm in winter. They were very energy-efficient, but used materials that would probably not be allowed under current building regulations. Incidentally, I am not suggesting that we should all start living in yurts or anything like that; that would be a bit too Liberal.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to welcome you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to your new elected role? I look forward to serving in this House under your guidance. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who gave a very thoughtful and considered speech on the various aspects of her constituency. I am delighted to have been here for that.
In March the Conservatives proposed a
“radical overhaul of Britain’s energy policy”.
The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) was not above taking a sideswipe at what he called
“a succession of eleven energy Ministers and eight Secretaries of State”
in the 13 years under Labour, so I welcome the fact that, less than 13 weeks since that document was published, the Prime Minister has already appointed a new Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency, and a new Secretary of State.
However, it was not only the Energy Ministers who got a radical overhaul; Conservative energy policy did as well. The House will recall that in the Prime Minister’s “husky days”, when he went to Greenland to hug glaciers, we were told that nuclear power would be the Conservatives’ “energy of last resort”. Even so, in March they talked about fast-tracking the process of building new nuclear plant. Fast-tracking their energy of last resort?
That, of course, was Conservative policy BC—before Chris. The new Secretary of State was obviously keen to recycle the old policy—some might say that he would rather have composted it—as his views on nuclear energy are well known. As long ago as 5 November 2007 he set out his position on his website, as follows:
“Ministers must stop the side-show of new nuclear power stations now. Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology and the Government must stop putting time, effort and subsidies into reviving this outdated industry.”
No wonder it is called a coalition Government: some of them like coal, the rest of them prefer nuclear fission. It is a coal-ission—or perhaps it is more of a coll-ision.
The fact is that by 2020 the following nuclear stations will have closed: Wylfa, Oldbury, Hinkley Point B, Hunterston B, Heysham 1, Hartlepool and Dungeness B. The stations at Torness and Heysham 2 will follow soon thereafter. That is approximately 18% of the UK’s power generation that we will have to source elsewhere, just to maintain our current level of consumption. However, that description fails to account for any increase in population or consumption patterns, and it also means that a huge effort will be needed just to maintain an unsustainable status quo—a perfect description of Conservatism in general.
Thomas Docherty
Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of coal power stations are also going to close? The Scottish Power station at East Lothian is one of many examples, so the Government will have an even bigger gap to close.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend is entirely right, and the example that he gives illustrates the extent of the gap opening up between our generation capacity and our predicted levels of consumption. I hope that he will pursue that point, perhaps in his own remarks later this afternoon.
Of course, the best way to manage this shortfall in supply is to engineer a corresponding shortfall in demand. That is where energy efficiency is critical, and I was delighted that the Minister of State with responsibility for energy efficiency visited the Mark Group’s home energy efficiency academy earlier this month to welcome their 1,000th graduate—Shaun, I believe his name was. The academy is exactly the sort of resource that we need if we are to make sure that our small and medium-sized construction enterprises have the skills that they need to retrofit insulation to all the UK’s housing stock.
I trust that the Minister will acknowledge the fact that the Mark Group academy was set up in November 2007 as part of the Labour Government’s green homes initiative. In fact, Bill Rumble, the Mark Group director, said at the time:
“We welcome the Prime Minister’s”—
that is our Prime Minister, not the Conservative party’s Prime Minister—
“environment plans as a real step in the right direction in the task of arresting climate change and reducing the UK’s carbon emissions.
The Mark Group agrees with Gordon Brown’s assertion that the UK can take a global lead in tackling climate change and in doing so generating thousands of jobs.”
I do not wish to detract from the Government’s green deal; indeed, I applaud it. We need to accelerate the work of insulating the millions of homes without adequate loft insulation, and the millions of homes without cavity wall insulation. However, I would simply make two points. It is all very well to celebrate the 1,000th graduate trainee, but it sits uneasily with the abolition of the Train to Gain programme, which helped small construction and other companies to acquire precisely such skills, and to equip themselves and their workers for the green jobs of the future.
The second point is that it makes no sense to ask householders to improve the energy efficiency of their homes at the same time as increasing the cost of doing so by 2.5%. I challenge the Secretary of State to show that deep inside his new Teflon Tory exterior there is still a limp Liberal longing to get out—to show us that the Liberal pledge before the election not to raise VAT was more than just the point scoring that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has claimed it was. I ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to speak to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The latter is another Liberal, and is, I think, the Member with the longest constituency name—Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. After yesterday’s oration to the House, he is also the Member with the shortest political credibility. They should agree to reduce VAT on the materials and labour used for increasing the energy efficiency of domestic properties. That would make a real difference. If the VAT on such work was 5% instead of 20%, that would go a tremendous way towards incentivising householders and other property owners to make sure that they do the necessary work.
If the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will not do that, rolling out smart meters in every home; piloting pay-as-you-save and ways to make homes greener; introducing clean energy cashback schemes; and making the UK a centre of green industry—all that—is just so much recycling of the stated policy of the last Government, as set out in the “The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan”, published in July last year. The truth is that approximately 90% of what Ministers have announced in their green deal comes from that document. No wonder earlier this month the Department issued a YouTube video entitled “Chris Huhne launches Wind Week”.
Today, the Committee on Climate Change released its second annual report on progress towards a low-carbon economy. The committee makes it clear that we can deliver on our commitment to reduce emissions by at least 34% by 2020, but only if we accelerate our roll-out of renewables and effect a step change in domestic energy efficiency. So let me welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks today, in which he said:
“we mustn’t rely on economic recession to cut emissions.”
I agree. He continued:
“There has to be an enduring shift to low carbon…locked into the fabric of our economy in good times and bad.”
I commend to him “A Woodfuel Strategy for England”. After a very modest investment of about £16 million—million, not billion—a year for only seven years, it would show net benefits of approximately £30 million a year in energy cost savings, and would save 400,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions. More than that, it would improve the biodiversity of our woodland heritage by cropping, lopping and clearing deadwood from under-managed woodland. The equivalent of 250,000 homes could be heated for a net £30 million benefit per annum, and the reinvigoration of our broadleaf woodlands—a truly efficient ecosystem-based solution. I hope the Minister will speak to his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and implement this strategy as part of his green deal.
Neil Carmichael
I concur with everything that my hon. Friend has said. We need to plan ahead and recognise that even if we start building a new power station tomorrow, we would still be getting less electricity from nuclear power for some time to come because of the decommissioning process, so we need to take action and get on with it. However, there are some key points to be made, and one of them must be this: nuclear power has to be cost-effective. It is important that we recognise that. The second most important thing—this is especially important for me, as I have a nuclear power station in my constituency that is being decommissioned—is that the cost of the clean-up must be included in the cost of the overall nuclear bill. We cannot go on mopping up afterwards. We have to be sure that the cost of building and running a nuclear power station includes the cost of clean-up.
Thomas Docherty
I used to work at Berkeley power station a few years ago, so I am familiar with it, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman of the deep affection in which nuclear power is held in his constituency, as I am sure he knows. One thing that would perhaps concern me about the coalition’s plans for cuts is the effect on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. One point that I hope he will be raising with the Minister is that when the NDA’s budget is set for the next five to 10 years, the important thing will be getting the right decommissioning strategy, not keeping his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer happy.
Neil Carmichael
I certainly recognise the public expenditure pressures on the decommissioning costs at Berkeley, because I was there when a reduction was made in the spending round towards the tail-end of the previous Government, so I tend to agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am pleased that he was at Berkeley and I hope that he enjoyed it there. It is in a beautiful part of my constituency, notwithstanding the fact that the power station is still there in its concrete form. The rest of the area is absolutely beautiful, and it is a perfectly safe place to be. I have been there several times myself, so if the hon. Gentleman still has any friends there, I will pass on his greetings.
That is what I wanted to say about nuclear power—that it has to be cost-effective and include the cost of clean-up—but I agree that we need a plan to ensure that we know where the next power stations are going to be.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I have detected that in recent contributions we seem to be falling into something of a nuclear idyll, so I want to try to pour a little cooling water, shall we say, on that particular idyll. We need to recognise that nuclear power and its consequences—irrespective of whether they are loved by local citizens or built in the Corby constituency—are some way away. There will in all probability be no nuclear power coming on stream until the early 2020s. If and when it comes on stream, assuming that new nuclear power stations are built at no public expense, they will be relatively small in output over the early years.
This emphasises that nuclear power is not coming over the hill tomorrow to save us all as far as low-carbon energy is concerned. The targets on carbon emissions reduction and, indeed, the replacement of something like 40% of our generation and transmission capacity by the early 2020s will have to be achieved without nuclear power by means relating to renewable energy, the building of conventional power plants—I trust with carbon capture technology—and, of course, a very substantial step forward in energy efficiency.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend has not mentioned the issue of life extensions to existing nuclear power stations such as Hunterston B and Torness, which would certainly take us through the gap period.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend raises the interesting point of the possible life expectancy of nuclear power plants. I recognise that there is something of a dilemma in respect of old and new nuclear power stations and predictions of extensions, and that there are issues such as core cracking and whether extensions can be safely undertaken. He makes a fair point, however, that some extensions might be undertaken to bridge the gap. The key point, however, is that one of the best ways to ensure our energy supplies are secure over the coming period and that the generation meets the demand is to ensure that there is less demand for energy, and that the energy we do use is used much more efficiently.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
“Vote blue, go green” was one of our lasting slogans from the general election, so I welcome the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), to his Front-Bench position. I am pleased that we are having a debate on energy efficiency so early in the calendar, as the subject is so important in this day and age.
Before I go any further, I congratulate my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Lorraine Fullbrook), on their astounding maiden speeches. My hon. Friend, and close friend, the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), spoke passionately about the beauty of Dorset. As we in Bournemouth are sort of part of Dorset, although we have a unitary authority, I fully concur with him on that, and I wish him well in hosting the Olympics events that are to be held in that neck of the woods. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who spoke passionately about her constituency. She represents the Liberal Democrats, and ousted our good friend David Heathcoat-Amory. It is sad to see him go, but I must welcome her, because we are now all friends in this coalition.
As we are the custodians of the environment, such debates are important. We would like to think that the speeches that we make here will stand the test of time, but in fact, although it is horrible to think it, they may be forgotten in the long term. What will not be forgotten are the actions that we take to protect the environment for future generations. That is why I am pleased to participate in the debate.
When we look at what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, we can see how fragile our environment is. If we do not take care of it we ruin it, not only for our own generation but for future generations, and they will not thank us.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Gulf of Mexico. Does he accept that when the Government talk about cutting regulation, that is exactly the type of disaster that could come about, and must not be allowed to happen?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but there is a distinction between the regulations that are expected to be adhered to during drilling in deep sea conditions using state of the art technology, and the bureaucracy and red tape that has stifled British business and which is quite separate from the safety regulations out at sea.
I had the pleasure of growing up in a number of countries, but mostly in Vienna, in Austria. It was interesting that in the 1980s measures such as insulation for new buildings, double glazing, and recycling using different wheelie bins were the norm there, yet it was only three years ago that such things were introduced in Bournemouth and the rest of the country, when our local authorities began to recognise the importance of recycling, energy saving and looking after our environment. As a nation, we are catching up with countries in Europe late in the day. That is why it is so critical for us to move forward on energy efficiency.
To me, the three principal elements of energy efficiency are how we supply and store energy, how efficiently we use that energy, and the lifestyle choices that we make by shifting away from energy-dependent activities—for example, how we use energy for heating, transport and electricity. I welcome some of the initiatives proposed in the coalition document, such as the establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters.
It seems wrong that as we have looked to provide more efficient ways of charging for electricity, the people who have been punished most are the very poor, because of the charging systems and the meter systems, which have taken so long to provide them with the same benefits and deals that were available online to those of us who were able to use credit cards and standing orders.
I welcome the establishment of feed-in tariff systems for electricity. It makes sense that those who generate their own electricity can pump back any surplus electricity into the national grid and be paid for it. The creation of a green investment bank and home energy improvements paid for with the savings from lower energy bills provide an incentive to change attitudes and lifestyles.
I also welcome measures to encourage marine energy. I recently visited Felixstowe and saw some of the initiatives taken there and in other parts of Britain. It is sad that with one of the longest shorelines in the world, we have still failed to harness marine capability. We are starting to do that, placing wind turbines at sea. As a note specifically to Bournemouth, I visited Blackpool not long ago—
Mr Ellwood
I am having flashbacks here. I recall the hon. Lady making the same point during the debate. The point is that I never want to be in that position again, and to see contracts being threatened in this way. She may argue that those were the contracts that had been signed, but we as a nation do not want to be in a position whereby any business is threatened in that way.
The more immediate problem has been the fact that we are now a net importer of oil, gas and coal. The Government spent 13 years watching the dials on all those sources go down towards empty.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a second bite of the cherry. He mentions that we now import coal. Perhaps he has forgotten who it was who closed all the coal mines in our country.
Mr Ellwood
Then we have to ask whether we are a charity to keep the unions going, or are we—[Interruption.] Opposition Members chortle; no doubt they are all signed-up members of some union that makes sure that they look after their comrades. The point is that the coal mines were inefficient. We could not keep them open. Today’s debate is about energy efficiency—having efficient means of getting energy. Using those coal mines when they were running out was inefficient, which is why they were closed. My point today is that one third of our coal is imported from Russia, of all places. That is not a secure place to import from, and it is certainly not clean coal.
Mr Ellwood
On that I stop agreeing with the hon. Lady. We are not talking about a technology that may or may not work. We know that it can work; it is a matter of harnessing it. Experiments have already been done. To park the issue, or put it on the back burner—that is probably the wrong phrase—would be wrong. If we can harness the technology we can roll it out, not only in Britain but in other countries, particularly developing countries that are thinking of using nuclear fission. We could say to Iran, “Here is nuclear fusion.” An atomic bomb cannot be made out of a nuclear fusion reactor. This therefore makes sense in the long term, and generations will thank us for it. Given the position we are in, I am afraid that we cannot survive over the next 20 years without investing, reluctantly though it will be, in nuclear power. I think that there is agreement on that in all parts of the House.
Let me spend a few moments explaining why nuclear fusion is so important and useful. It is the fusion of hydrogen atoms to form helium, and an awful lot of energy. It is a safe process whereby there are no nasty by-products. Of course, hydrogen is found in water, so fusion power is a potentially limitless source of energy. In fact, it is recognised that in 100 years’ time nuclear fission will be in the past, and everything will be powered by nuclear fusion. That may sound scatty, too advanced or too romantic, but it is the case. However, I am afraid that we will slow down that harnessing of power unless we are able to ensure that we join with other countries to guarantee that money is not wasted or taken away to be spent on other important related products, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) passionately said.
The main focus of my speech is not nuclear fusion or carbon capture and storage, but the subject of my intervention at the beginning of the debate. It is about a very simple way of reducing carbon emissions, saving the Government money, and creating a feel-good factor—that is, moving our clocks one hour forward.
Mr Ellwood
If the hon. Gentleman could hold on for a second and let me make a bit of progress, I will be delighted to give way. I have not even begun the argument yet—I have only announced the subject matter—and he is already having a pop.
Let me take hon. Members back to last March and how people felt on the day before the clocks changed and on the day after. There is a natural feel-good factor for people when that lighter evening comes in, but it goes beyond that: there is also a financial benefit and an effect on the environment. Electricity prices would go down because we would be naturally aligning the time spent at our workplace during the day with the time when the sun, the last form of free energy, is in the sky. There is a natural recognition of how we could better use that time. When the sun is in the sky and we are all in bed, that is wasted energy.
Before I make further progress, I will give way to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), as I promised.
Thomas Docherty
Let me gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that slightly north of Bournemouth there is great opposition to the idea of changing the clock. In Scotland and elsewhere, there are serious and genuine safety concerns about what that would mean. His own colleagues in Government have made it absolutely clear that they will not support that proposal for that very reason.
Mr Ellwood
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s final point, as I spent much of last year doing a study on this very subject. The point he raises about the far north of England and Scotland is relevant, however, and I will come to it in due course, when, no doubt, he will want to jump up and have another go.
According to Cambridge university, this change to our clocks would mean that electricity prices for the whole of the United Kingdom would reduce by about 5%. Moreover, the UK’s carbon footprint would be reduced by about 500,000 tonnes of CO2. People should wake up and see that that figure is relevant. That was not even a consideration in the 1970s, when, as hon. Members might recall, there was a three-year pilot project to test this idea; some people enjoyed it, and others did not. It turned out that the voices who spoke most strongly against it were those of the farmers—and rightly, because the business that they operated meant that they had to make best use of the daylight, and it conflicted with their routine. However, the National Farmers Union, and indeed NFU Scotland, no longer object to the idea. When NFU Scotland is asked if it is the first thing it wants, of course it says no—it is not on its agenda at all—but it has withdrawn its objections to it, and that makes sense, because farming is now a 24-hour industry.
The experiment was very positive, and it saw a reduction in fatalities and injuries across the UK. You might be interested to learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, however, that the reason why the experiment was flipped back was that farmers told all the Conservative MPs who were in power at the time that they would be denied the poster sites that are so important during a general election were it to continue. That was why they said, “Okay, fine, we will get rid of this”. However, reading the Hansard makes it clear that the argument for dropping it was weak.
I have mentioned the reduction in the UK’s carbon footprint, but there would also be an important boost to British tourism, an industry that Parliament almost neglects. It is our fifth-biggest industry and brings in more than £90 billion a year. According to the Tourism Alliance, daylight saving would boost the industry by about £2 billion, which is worth considering. We are the sixth most visited place in the world, and if we can find other means to encourage people to come here and take advantage of British tourist attractions, particularly those outdoors, it is worth looking into.
Safer roads, which I believe have been mentioned, are another aspect of daylight saving. As I have said, when the experiment last took place there was a reduction in deaths. I agree that more deaths took place in the morning, but the net change was a decrease. That was because in the morning, people tend to make a journey from A to B, with A being their home and B being somewhere they know, such as work or school. In the evenings they tend to make a journey from A to C, with C being somewhere they have not been before. That means that they are not so familiar with the roads, which leads to accidents. Shifting the time so that it is lighter in the evenings rather than the mornings reduces the number of accidents that take place.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating all Members who have made their maiden speeches today. They have been fantastic, and after hearing some of them, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), I suspect that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury could soon simply scrap all the tourist boards in this country, such is the eloquence of the case that hon. Members have made for their constituencies.
This has been a fantastic debate. There has been some good knockabout, but hon. Members have also made some serious points. I am slightly curious when I hear coalition Members talk about fuel poverty and the fact that they will square the circle by voting to freeze child benefit and cut housing benefit. We have not really teased out exactly how that will tackle fuel poverty.
I should like to put the subject of energy efficiency into the context of the wider energy debate. As part of my leisure reading I often have a glance at DUKES—the digest of UK energy statistics—a thoroughly interesting document that I get from the Department’s website. I had a glance at it this morning and it contains some interesting statistics about our consumption as a nation over the past 40 years—since 1970. We have seen a 60% increase in the amount of electricity we consume as a nation. However, manufacturing and industrial consumption has remained steady at some 14,000 GWh, and it has largely been domestic consumption that has driven up the figures, plus some transportation. One thing that brings a wry smile to my face is hon. Members talking of the need for more railways and electric cars. Those are admirable suggestions, and I support them, but it is never explained where we will get the energy to power those new electric trains and cars.
If we compare our consumption statistics with our supply statistics, the result is worrying. At its peak in 1998, the nuclear industry provided approximately 90,000 GWh. In 2008, the latest year for which figures are available, that had fallen to 48,000 GWh, although it has risen again slightly since then. At the same time, many of our coal-powered stations are coming to the end of their lives. By the end of the coming decade, all our Magnox nuclear power stations will have closed, as will almost all of the advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear power stations and many of our coal-powered stations—either because of new European regulations on carbon emissions, which both sides of the House would support, or because they have simply come to the end of their lives. I suggest that we need to understand that, although the aim of being more efficient in our energy consumption is laudable, we face a massive energy gap that needs to be addressed. We have seen some consensus break out this afternoon on how we can achieve that.
I have a constituency interest in power generation, in Longannet power station—one of the two sites bidding for the Minister’s money under the carbon capture and storage scheme. I notice that his colleague, when asked about carbon capture, gave us some warm words about the coalition’s general support for it, but—I assume that it was an oversight on his part—did not give a guarantee that DECC will meet the previous Government’s target of a decision by October. I would be delighted if the Minister could give the House that guarantee when he winds up.
The hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) is unfortunately no longer in her place, but she made an excellent maiden speech. I suggest to her that, if we are to have a surge in the volume of renewables, especially those that come from offshore and elsewhere, we cannot simply say that we do not want improvements to the national grid. I suggest that the Liberal Democrats are in their usual situation of saying one thing in the House and doing something else outside. I look forward to seeing how the hon. Lady squares that circle with her constituents.
The wider issue is how we close the gap between our desire for a low carbon British economy and our need for energy. I suggest that we will do that through three forms of generation. I accept the role of renewables, although I am on the record as being slightly more sceptical than some of my colleagues about the size and scale of that. For example, biomass, which was seen until recently as the great white hope of renewable energy, has now, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) knows, run into serious difficulties with how quickly it is gobbling up forestry in the UK. It is now suggested that several schemes in Scotland proposed by Forth Ports will have to import wood from around the world.
Barry Gardiner
I would be delighted to expand on the question of imported biomass. It can play no sensible role in a model of energy efficiency; the transportation costs make it ludicrous to think we are being energy efficient in doing so. However, there are 4 million tonnes of biomass within not the forests but simply the under-managed broadleaf woodlands in England alone. That could be used to generate twice the amount of energy—
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, it is fair to say, is an expert on this issue. He is entirely right that biomass has a role to play, but it must be UK-produced fuel, and he is right to give examples. Stevens Croft in Dumfriesshire has been doing an excellent job of taking cast-off from the timber industry. That is an excellent example. As I mentioned, however, we should not be importing fuel from Europe or further afield.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
On the renewable obligations certificate in relation to biomass, the effect of the subsidy introduced by the previous Government is that a variety of companies are effectively being underwritten for the work they are doing. Consequently, the taxpayer is paying for energy companies to do biomass. That cannot be right. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree?
Thomas Docherty
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful intervention, but I do not agree with him. I believe that Government have an important role to play in supporting the market, although I suspect that he does not see it that way. One reason why the gap is going to grow over the next few years is that the Conservative Members and their predecessors over-liberalised the market, and there was no incentive for companies to make long-term financial commitments to building new generating sources, whether nuclear, coal, gas or other base load suppliers. Only through Government support will that go ahead; so I think the Government should play an important role in the marketplace.
There are, however, some flaws in how the market works, and I want to touch on one that concerns my constituency and other parts of Scotland: the way in which the transmission charges work. Obviously, if we have a vast expansion of offshore renewables, it will almost certainly be around the Scottish coastline. If we are to build a new carbon capture and storage plant in my constituency, and if we are to have these nuclear power stations, the new plants will be penalised under the current transmission charges scheme. I hope therefore that the Minister will find room in his diary to meet me and other colleagues to consider how we can build a cross-party consensus on making it a more equitable system, while retaining the principle that those who use the grid pay a sum of money.
I was slightly astonished by the comments of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) about coal mining. I gently point out to him that, as my hon. Friends have said, there are 300 years of reserves within our borders. However, that too will require Government support, which the Government will have to consider, because if we are to have energy sources that are free from carbon emissions at generation, we need to have that mix.
Mr Ellwood
I am trying to recall what I said, but I went on a bit and I am not sure that I remember everything, but I do not recall saying that I do not support coal mining in the UK. I sat on the Committee that debated the Energy Bill, which dealt with carbon capture and storage. We had extra thoughts, tabling about 90 amendments—I am thinking about my hon. Friend the Minister—and, although not a single one was accepted, we did not vote against the Bill, because we very much support coal mining in the UK. However, it has to be clean. My concern was that we are importing one third of our coal from Russia—coal that is not clean and certainly not from a secure source of supply.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying his position, but his Ministers will have to come up with some cash to reopen those mines. It is simply not feasible for, say, Scottish Coal to go back in and take on a huge financial risk without some Government underwriting. I would agree that there are some things that it is best for the Government to stay out of, but our major utilities are not one of those.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman seems to be indicating that without Government intervention there will be no further coal mining, but that cannot be right. For example, there are open-cast mines aplenty throughout Northumberland and my constituency, but all that mining is done without any Government support whatever.
Thomas Docherty
Just so that we are absolutely clear, we are talking about deep coal mining. That is where vast reserves lie. Without going into the techie details, the point is that quite a lot of the coal from open-cast mining is not suitable for burning in our power stations without doing serious work to it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can shake his head all he wants, but the reality is that in mining communities we are familiar with the different types of coal.
The Government have a vital role to play in providing homes and businesses with secure, safe electricity. I suspect that one of the great tensions to emerge in the coalition will focus not just on the vexed question of nuclear fission, but on the role of state intervention. I would be curious to discover to what extent the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg)—the Deputy Prime Minister—bought into the idea of yanking £60 million away from Forgemasters, which seems to be a ludicrous and short-term decision.
Mr Ellwood
We hear almost daily about this money that was supposed to go to places such as Sheffield Forgemasters, but it did not exist. We are talking about election sweeteners, peddled by Labour just before the general election and designed to win seats. There was no money in the till and the previous Government knew it. Their promises could not be kept; they were just trying to win seats. So please let us stop peddling this myth.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention, because it allows me yet again to remind him that we are talking about a loan that the Government were providing. It was not a gift or a bung; it was a loan. It is astonishing to hear Government Members—[Interruption.]
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Sheffield, Hallam is not even a Labour marginal.
Thomas Docherty
Indeed, Sheffield, Hallam is not a Labour marginal; however, given the cuts that this Government are introducing, I suspect that it will be by the next election.
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman said that the money was a loan, but there was only an offer of a loan—an offer that the previous Government did not have the money to honour. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) was making.
Thomas Docherty
Perhaps we will just have to say that I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on this one. The reality of the coalition is that there are lots of warm words, as we saw from the Minister’s eloquent opening statement, but when it comes to the substance and the detail of how money will be levered in, they are doing things on a wing and a prayer, with their fingers crossed.
Guy Opperman
You make this point about Forgemasters, but why did you sell Westinghouse?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I can assure hon. Members that I did not sell Westinghouse.
Barry Gardiner
I did sell Westinghouse. I was the Minister responsible at the time, and I remember being told by officials that we would be lucky if we got £1.5 billion for it. I said that I did not believe them for a moment, and we got £5.4 billion for it in the end. The reason we did so was that we had to take the liability off the balance books and we had an opportunity at that moment to sell it because it had the first place on an order in China, which made it extremely valuable. The Government benefited, and the British public benefited much more than the officials ever believed we would.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful for that intervention, as it sums up entirely the correct decision taken on the basis of getting good value for the taxpayer because of the amount of revenue raised.
That leads me to my next point—that there is a myth about how long it would take to build new nuclear power stations. It does not actually take 10 or 15 years to build nuclear power stations. Westinghouse has an excellent model on the shelf, which they can take off it. It would take only three to four years; the problem comes in the planning process. I gently suggest to the Minister that I hope he will ensure, as part of the energy drive, that carbon capture and nuclear plants are not slowed down by the planning system, so that we can get them up and running as quickly as we possibly can.
Caroline Lucas
I am sorry, but I cannot hear all this talk about nuclear power without feeling the urge to leap up—so I have leapt. Will the hon. Gentleman please list those nuclear power stations that have been built, first, on time, and secondly, to budget?
Thomas Docherty
I suspect that if the hon. Lady looked at the number of wind farms built on time and on budget she would find that that list would be about the same length as for nuclear power stations.
I am very clear, as a champion of both the nuclear and clean coal industries—I have been throughout my whole time in politics—that there is no source of electricity that does not have some challenges and liabilities around it. The ones on nuclear are well documented, and I accept that some Conservative Members have raised some genuine points about clean-coal technology and the importing of coal. The problems surrounding both onshore and offshore wind farms are also well documented, as are problems with tidal power, which does not always work, so there are challenges to be overcome.
That brings me back to the central point that the previous Government were absolutely correct to promote a balanced energy. They said that we needed an element of nuclear power, an element of renewables, an element of coal and, indeed, an element of gas. It is quite surprising that we have heard so little in this debate about the role of gas in our energy mix. Again, I gently suggest to Government Members that the 3,000 mile pipeline presents an issue that we might need to look at.
We have had a fantastic debate. I very much welcome the Ministers to their new posts and I look forward to their perhaps providing some reassurance to my constituents when they sum up.
David Morris
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and they are good comments, but we are talking about energy efficiency. Nuclear power is very efficient; it has a low carbon footprint.
One subject that has not been addressed is how we in this country use energy. I use card meters in my domestic home. When I bought my house, an old gentleman had lived in it beforehand, and he used card meters so I carried on using them. When my family was growing up, I was one of those dads who was always saying, “Switch the lights off.” Using card meters started to make us change our habits and how we used energy in our home. The Government might want to consider that. Perhaps we could top up through the internet as we might with a T-Mobile phone—excuse me for unintentionally plugging a particular company. We might usefully consider how we obtain our energy.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point—education—so does he agree that our schools have a key role to play in teaching our children how vital energy efficiency is?
David Morris
I totally agree. What the public need to be educated in is how nuclear power can benefit this and other nations in solving their energy problems. I urge the House and the Minister to consider seriously where we will be going in 10 years’ time. I think that nuclear power is the way forward. There is a place for wind farms and renewable energy, but two nuclear power stations in my constituency power more or less 10% of this national grid and if they are taken out of commission, the lights will go off.