Energy Bill

It is a great shame that Tim Webb did not check the story with us before he wrote it, as we could have told him that it was without foundation. I am not aware of a single colleague who has said that they want to be away tonight because this issue is inconvenient to them. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may have heard of them, in which case he may wish to name them. As far as we are concerned, some people will be away doing other business that was planned a significant time ago, but the story in The Guardian is without foundation. I wish to address some of arguments the Minister used in the letter that she sent to her Labour colleagues. She wrote that an EPS""could mean no investment in new coal at all thus making the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology impossible in the UK."" That is absolute nonsense. The levy will pay for the demonstration projects and there is scope for it to pay for retrofitting 100 per cent. of the plant's capacity, so that all those bidding under the CCS competitions would know that all their extra costs would be covered. The Minister paints a picture of what the EPS would do that takes no account of the level at which it might be set after further consultation. She writes:""There is no EPS anywhere in the world that operates along the lines of NC6."" However, the important new clause is new clause 15, which addresses the concerns by highlighting the range of different issues that would be taken into account in deciding the level at which the EPS would be set. I am afraid that the Minister is rather partial in the quotations that she uses. She has undoubtedly used the truth, but I am not sure that it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Her letter quotes the CCC as stating that it""does not yet have a view on which measures would best tackle the risks."" She leaves out the section in which the CCC states that it""believes that all should be seriously considered in the near term"," which must include an EPS.