Energy and Climate Change and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The short answer is yes. We need to have that requirement for commercial storage—my guess is that the Government would want to explore the legalities around that, given the single market and so forth—which would be perfectly acceptable in my judgment; but if that is not possible for legal or other reasons, we need strategic gas storage, which is very expensive—much more expensive, I am advised, than strategic oil storage. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's strong interest in this subject. Some may think it a grey area of debate, but given our current dependency on gas, it is a very important one. In my judgment, import dependency is going to grow in significance. I want to mention two other areas. I do not need to say much about renewables, as we have already discussed the importance and huge potential of renewable energy from the sun—even in Britain now—the seas, the wind and from biomass. We also know about the importance of hydro. It may not be as important here as in Sweden or Norway, but we are able to explore it on a smaller scale in imaginative ways. I, too, am excited about the potential of marine, wave and tidal energy, but I need to caution that this is very new technology. Yes, British companies are very good at it, and we could truly become a world leader as a result of our technological, engineering and entrepreneurial flair and the natural habitat in which we live as an island people. As I say, however, this is new technology and we should not exaggerate its contribution over the next 10 years. The 15 per cent. target for renewables is absolutely crucial. When I say that it is demanding, this is not a code for saying that we will not do it, but I put it to the House that this is a tough one and we will need to stretch every sinew to move there. Finally—I am sorry for having spoken so long, but there were interventions; I will blame them, anyway!—I come on to nuclear, which I know is controversial. I respect the position of the Liberal Democrats—they are wrong, but I respect their position. I believe public opinion has moved more in the direction of nuclear. I was privileged to lead the review on energy policy—Tony Blair asked me to do it some years ago now—which said yes, the Government would support and, where possible, facilitate the development of new nuclear. I believe it is important for climate reasons—some environmentalists still cannot quite make up their minds whether they hate nuclear more than they hate global warming, although some are changing their position, which I welcome. In my judgment, as well as being crucial for climate change reasons, nuclear is also crucial—I am almost saying equally crucial, but I am not sure that that is scientifically valid—in terms of energy security. In future, faced with import dependency, we need to do two things. We need to be as smart as possible in our foreign policy on import dependency so that we are not over-dependent on any one country, any one company, any one region—or any one fuel, which is why I support clean coal. The other side of the coin is that we need to build up our own indigenous sources of energy—energy that we can produce for ourselves, hence my commitment to both nuclear and renewables. I go rather further in my report than perhaps this Government and this Parliament are prepared to go by saying that if by around 2030 we could have 35 to 40 per cent. of our electricity coming from nuclear, that would be a sensible place for Britain to be.