Debate on the Address

First, let me make it clear—we do not want there to be any danger of people misunderstanding the Government’s policy—Government policy is not to partition Iraq into three; that would be quite disastrous and the Foreign Secretary certainly did not say that. Secondly, let me just tell the hon. Gentleman that although he may regard removing Saddam Hussein as an error, I do not. In relation to climate change, the Stern review removed any lingering doubts about the threat that we face. It also added a new dimension: the costs of not intervening now vastly outweigh the costs of action. But we know that the only solution is, ultimately, through international action. That is why the G8 plus five initiative begun at Gleneagles is so pivotal in getting a strong and effective post-2012, post-Kyoto agreement soon. It is why the European trading system and co-operation in the European Union is also essential. The groundbreaking agreement that the United Kingdom has recently pioneered with the state of California shows that around the world—particularly, indeed, in the United States—the mood is shifting towards more radical action. It is right that we reflect that shift here. We are one of the few countries in the world to meet—in fact, to double—our Kyoto targets, and our leadership position on the issue is clear. We must retain it, but I have to say to the right hon. Member for Witney that we need to retain it whilst acting sensibly. After all, the UK is responsible for only 2 per cent. of total global emissions. If we shut down the whole of the UK’s emissions—shut off all our electricity tomorrow—the growth in just China’s emissions would eliminate the effect in less then two years. Without an international agreement, we will never make proper progress on this issue. The Bill that we propose will put in legislation a long-term UK target for emissions and it will establish, as we have said, an independent body, the carbon Committee, to work with the Government, and it will take further powers to implement the energy review. It will also include interim targets, but not annual targets. Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman why we are against the prospect of annual targets, but that is not the only reason why it is important. It is important because climate change is not the only issue shaping energy policy. We also need energy security and for Britain in future, that will be essential. In 15 years we will move from a position of being about 80 or 90 per cent. self-supportive and not reliant on imports on account of our own self-sufficiency in oil and gas, to one in which we are importing 80 or 90 per cent. In those circumstances, and when we also lose about 15 per cent. of our electricity capability through the phasing out of nuclear power stations, I must tell the House that, in common with countries around the world, we need to put nuclear power back on the agenda and at least replace the nuclear energy that we will lose. Without it, we will not be able to meet either our objectives on climate change or our objectives on energy security. These are difficult and controversial decisions, but they are absolutely necessary. I have looked carefully at what the right hon. Member for Witney and his team have been suggesting on this issue. First, they suggested that we needed 3 per cent. annual targets. The shadow energy Minister said:"““If the climate change Bill is to have teeth and be workable, it must be measurable. Unless we say that we want to achieve a 3 per cent. reduction in emissions year on year, the outcome will not be measurable.””—[Official Report, 30 October 2006; Vol. 451, c. 76.]" Then the right hon. Member for Witney walked away from that and his shadow environment spokesman is apparently saying that what he actually wants is a ““rolling programme of targets””, which"““would be adjusted mathematically according to the progress or otherwise we make””." Let me explain it to the right hon. Gentleman. If we end up with an annual target—let us say of 3 per cent.—we could have a colder than usual winter, which would mean that emissions would go up. We would then be in a position where we simply could not meet the target, yet the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the target should have statutory authority so that the Government are obliged to carry it out. Let us suppose that the fuel price actually fell and that we had an increase in emissions as a result. Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we put back on the fuel duty escalator and raise the fuel duty? I doubt it. Let me go through the various positions that the right hon. Member for Witney has adopted on nuclear power. His industry spokesman said that from about ““the age of 12””, he had an ““instinctive hostility”” to ““nuclear power””. His shadow Chancellor said that he would be"““happy to see nuclear power””." The right hon. Gentleman himself said:"““I’m neither dogmatically in favour of nuclear power, nor dogmatically against””." [Interruption.] What is my position? I am in favour of it. Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of it? The right hon. Member for Witney asks me what my position is and I have said that I am in favour of it. What, then, is the right hon. Gentleman’s position? [Interruption.] It actually gets better. Let me read his position, which he gave just the other day in an interview in Green Futures. He said:"““I want to give every opportunity for green sources of energy to come through. If they do, well and good, if they don’t, and we have to keep the lights on, then nuclear might come into the picture.””" So what is he going to do? He is the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary comes in and says, ““I am afraid the renewables haven’t generated as much as we want. I am afraid we won’t be able to keep the lights on.”” So what is the right hon. Gentleman going to say—““Rustle me up a nuclear power station””?