Energy Bill

I would love to say what I think should be in this Bill, but I think that you would prevent me from doing so, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall have to contain myself. We can at least agree, in the spirit of consensus, that the great advantage of a Bill that does not contain much is that it provides little with which to disagree—and that is the position this evening. As the Secretary of State says, on energy-related issues more than most there is an imperative for the Government and the Opposition parties to maximise the scope for long-term agreement. I am glad to say that the Bill has occasioned some agreement across party lines, although that has not always necessarily involved the Front-Bench teams. Our most recent discussions have shown that the argument was won by my Conservative colleagues, and by the hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Angus (Mr. Weir), even if the majority that the Government enjoy allowed them to push their proposal through. I hope that Ministers will reflect on that expression, which clearly portrayed the feeling of the House in that very good debate. May I wholeheartedly join the Secretary of State in thanking all those who have worked on the Bill during its passage? I wish to express my particular thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry). As shadow Energy Minister he has outlasted several of his opposite numbers, and his knowledge and experience have clearly shone through, both today and in his work on the Public Bill Committee. I pay tribute to all members of the Committee, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and for St. Albans (Anne Main), who took the often technical subject matter to heart and gave their all. I am sure that we can look forward to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden for many Parliaments to come, but I am conscious also of the contribution made to the passage of this Bill by Members of the House who are stepping down at the forthcoming general election. The issues at stake in this Bill are of long-term importance and I wish to pay tribute to those retiring Members who served with distinction during the passage of the Bill. When future generations look back on this era and ask what our generation did about the energy and climate change crises of the 21st century, they will judge the record not only of Governments but of Parliaments. The judgment of history on us all will be the kinder for the contribution made by outstanding parliamentarians such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). I also recognise the consistent dedication of Members from all parties, in particular the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), whose contribution today showed that he is the most vertebrate—I use his description—of Members of this House, the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen), who is also stepping down and who has made a contribution to these debates, and the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who is also retiring as Chair of a Select Committee. Their presence will be much missed in the House, but I trust that they will continue to enrich public life in other ways. With their work in mind, I wish that this Bill presented a more substantial legacy, but it is not entirely without substance. As the Secretary of State says, it provides a long-overdue framework for the demonstration of carbon capture and storage. Although we have lost ground to other countries, it is not too late for Britain to establish a leading position in this emerging global industry. If the Bill is passed, a Conservative Government would certainly not hesitate to use its provisions wherever that would be of help to the UK CCS industry. The second main area of provision in the Bill concerns the role of Ofgem. Any clarification in that regard is welcome, because as things stand it is not clear who is responsible for what in UK energy policy. In particular, we have seen Ofgem take an increasingly high-profile role in shaping policy at the strategic level, especially through the Project Discovery exercise. It is, of course, better to have some part of the machinery of government taking a comprehensive view of our future energy needs than to have no part doing so, but that part ought to be in the Department, in support of Ministers who are democratically accountable to Parliament. The third and final leg of the Bill deals with the introduction of schemes for the reduction of fuel poverty, including mandatory social price support. It is ironic that we should be legislating on this matter in the year that fuel poverty was due to be eliminated, according to some of the Government's targets: well, there we are. Some useful powers are included in this leg. The measures in the Bill to protect the most vulnerable customers are welcome as a last line of defence, but they do not constitute the cost minimisation strategy that should underpin energy policy. We would have liked the Bill to contain more on energy efficiency. In our view, energy policy should have four main objectives: security, sustainability, economy and opportunity. Achieving all four will require an approach to policy that is both timely and comprehensive. The Bill is not timely but overdue, and it is not comprehensive but partial—yet every journey begins with a single step. This Bill takes more than a single step in the right direction. That is why, as it proceeds to another place, it does so with our support.