We will continue to have these debates: I just point the noble Baroness to the fact that we are spending £3.4 billion over the next few years on precisely the schemes that she mentions. By all means, argue that we should be spending even more, but it is just not true to say that we are not spending anything at all. We will continue to have these debates.
Going back to the points by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, I think we are in danger of violently agreeing here. Of course, there has to be a transition and we have to reduce our reliance over time, but my point is and will remain that in the meantime, we still require unabated gas-fired generation unless she is proposing to turn the lights out, which I know she is not. Therefore, we are effectively agreeing. We could have a long and detailed debate about the scale of the transition and how we should progress the transition, but in essence we are saying the same things.
7.30 pm
I argue that we also need nuclear generation, which is why we will certainly consider a Bill on nuclear. No doubt we will have further discussions about the merits of that when it comes, but in terms of baseload capacity, the only option that faces us in the absence of fossil fuels, given the unreliability and intermittency of renewables, is baseload nuclear generation for much of our generation capacity. It is not a matter for this Bill; we will have that debate separately, no doubt.
Finally, I turn to comments in the debate on Clause 51, as called for by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. This clause establishes that subsidies and subsidy schemes for nuclear projects are not required to be assessed against the additional principles for energy and environmental subsidies set out in Schedule 2. Subsidies or subsidy schemes for nuclear energy will be required to be assessed against the main subsidy control principles in Schedule 1. Nuclear projects are, of course, also subject to numerous already-existing regulatory obligations and requirements beyond those set out in the Bill. These are stringent and world leading in their rigour and ensure that nuclear projects in the UK both meet the highest standards of environmental protection and, crucially, support the UK’s net-zero commitments.
Removing this clause would have the effect of requiring these projects to be assessed against the additional energy and environmental subsidy control principles. This could render the UK nuclear industry less attractive for nuclear investment relative to EU member states, since the Government’s interpretation of the relevant provisions on energy within the trade and co-operation agreement is that nuclear energy projects are not included in them, as per long-standing European Union practice and convention.
To summarise, I am entirely in agreement with noble Lords who have tabled these interesting amendments to the Bill. Of course, we agree on the importance of the net-zero agenda, although I cannot agree with all the views expressed on fossil fuels and nuclear power.