UK Parliament / Open data

Energy Bill

Proceeding contribution from Joan Ruddock (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 24 February 2010. It occurred during Debate on bills on Energy Bill.
At the moment, I cannot answer that question, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, in devising the scheme, we have taken proper account of where the balance of interests lies. It is in the interests of all our consumers to have security of supply. We believe that coal must remain in the mix, and that the incentive could ensure that. As always, we will consult at length about how the levy is framed. When the proposal is put out for consultation, the impact assessment will make clear what the effect will be, but we do not envisage that a disproportionate burden will fall on consumers in this country. We all know that we have to move to low carbon, and that everyone has to make a contribution. It is the Government's policy to try to protect those consumers with the least means to pay their energy bills. I was setting out the elements of our plan for CCS. Far from being a laggard, as is often suggested by the Opposition, Britain is leading the world on this agenda, as is widely acknowledged by other countries. The new reporting requirement in new clause 8 guarantees that Parliament has the opportunity to challenge the Government on delivery of this programme to monitor our wider decarbonisation of the electricity sector, and to consider whether an emissions performance standard might be needed in the future. The introduction of an EPS now, as required by new clauses 6, 15 and 25—all of which are supported by some Labour Back Benchers, as well as by the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties—would not lead to greater emissions reductions than those delivered by the framework that I have just set out and the EU ETS.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
506 c336 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Legislation
Energy Bill 2009-10
Back to top