I am grateful to the Minister for that. I see a balance, too, but I believe that nuclear could play a bigger part and help us in conserving our wildlife. That was why I raised the matter in the committee when we had the opportunity to talk to Ministers about it. It seemed to me then, as a mere Back-Bencher, that we have one department doing one thing and another doing another thing, and then this Bill comes through. Clearly, if we can have a concerted effort, we can have better solutions. Personally, I do not rule out a barrage, but I think that it brings problems with it. On the construction side, there is clearly a climate change/emissions balance; whatever construction goes ahead, one is clearly looking for such a balance. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that I was not suggesting that the nuclear station should be down at Hinkley, when other sites not in sensitive areas would not fall within the remit of these discussions. We recognise the serious future demands for us to produce enough energy, particularly from renewables. However, when I was listening to what was going on in the committee, it seemed that nuclear was not included, when I felt that it could, perhaps, contribute quite well.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Byford
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 January 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c325 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 21:26:25 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523975
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523975
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_523975