| Sustainable Energy Bill
|
|
Mr. Wilson: It has been drawn to my attention by my ever-vigilant Parliamentary Private Secretary that I am the only Member not to have said what a pleasure it is to be in Committee under your Chairmanship, Mr. Illsley, but I shall remedy that. The first Committee that we both served on considered the poll tax legislation. The Chairman: Sixteen years ago today. Mr. Wilson: Sixteen years ago today—a lot has changed. At one point in that Committee, the Chairman, Sir Michael Shaw, noticed that three Column Number: 022 Tory MPs, who were of course under a vow of silence, were reading books, which is not allowed. I raised a point of order indicating that that was unfair to the then hon. Member for Crawley because he was colouring his in. It has been so exciting today that no one has had to resort to other literature.I reiterate my remarks about how my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has handled the Bill. There is a shared desire to get his Bill on to the statute book because it is worth while, because it will deliver a solid outcome and because it will make a real contribution to the Government's energy agenda and environmental obligations. The overriding priority is to get a worthwhile Bill. As discussions progress, we should keep our perspective between the wood and the trees. I noticed that everybody who spoke, with the exception of myself, took the same point of view. Let us see what we can agree on: first, the White Paper is unambiguous in its targets; secondly, no one is reneging on them. I reaffirm all the targets, goals and aspirations set out in the White Paper; the Government are firmly and publicly wedded to them. Thirdly, we have an obligation to report on many fronts, and that is now to be enshrined in the Bill. The Opposition spokesman made a very good point when he said that it is inconceivable that we would report in a way that does not draw attention to, and reflect on, the progress that has been made towards those publicly stated targets. Frankly, if we tried to report in a way that did not measure our achievements against the targets, others would promptly do it for us. Perhaps I come from an odd direction on the issue, because I recognise what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said about the setting of targets. I am slightly allergic to them because I believe that there is a real danger that targets could become a form of substitution therapy, in that one sets a target, feels good about it and thinks that the job is done, when, conspicuously, it is not.
3.15 pmOur target of generating 10 per cent. of energy from renewables by 2010 is extremely challenging. Unless many things are done by the Government and beyond—my Devon point was not trite but described a very real problem—and unless many people play a role, it will be very difficult to achieve such targets. When I speak publicly, I do not retreat behind targets or say, ''Haven't we done well in setting targets?'' Instead, I say publicly that we have set them, but that is the easy bit. Let no one think that setting targets is in itself an achievement worthy of the name. I certainly am not hiding behind targets or hiding from the responsibility to report on progress towards achieving them. We are discussing a very narrow point: whether targets that are publicly known, to which the Government subscribe and on which they are inescapably hooked, should be in the Bill. If hon. Members are reasonable and step back a little, they will realise that there are real problems with including targets in a Bill; those stem not from a lack of Column Number: 023 commitment to, or a desire to avoid responsibility for, targets but from wider considerations.Targets inevitably change in light of experience. They may go up, or they may—I had better watch what I say. I am not suggesting for a moment that they will go down, but they might be widened or acquire a different time scale. That would be a very public process. We cannot keep going back to amend what I hope will become an Act of Parliament in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. I return to the point that the matter is extremely important and is recognised as such in the White Paper, in which it is one of four pillars. If a different selection of Committee members were discussing different legislation, some would certainly consider fuel poverty to be just as important as environmental obligations. There are certainly Members in the House who view economic competitiveness as extremely important. There would be disagreement from Opposition Members and, I suspect, Government Members, to the idea that we should just willy-nilly, at any cost, pursue environmental targets without any regard to what that would do to energy costs. In addition, security of supply, which is probably the most fundamental political responsibility of all, may be impinged upon by a statutory commitment to very specific targets. No Government would put themselves in such a position. The pillar of the White Paper that matters to the Committee—the one on the environment and meeting the targets—is extremely important to me, but so are the other three. It would be out of proportion to enshrine in a Bill as a target the one that related to our environmental ambitions. I reaffirm all the goals, aims and targets in the White Paper and the commitment in it to an annual report on progress, implementing all aspects of it. I will table an amendment that commits us to reporting our energy policy goals. The target that we have discussed most today—the 10 per cent. target for renewables—is not only synonymous with what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve; it is already enshrined in legislation. I refer to SI 2002/914, otherwise known as the Renewables Column Number: 024 Obligation Order 2002. It has been approved by the House, and Ofgem is obliged to report annually on the obligation, so it is already in statute.Mr. Robathan: I did not know that, but does it not undermine the Minister's case that he does not want to put the targets in statute? Mr. Wilson: No, it does not, as I want to explain. In that case not only the target but the mechanism is embedded in statute. The process that we went through before the target was incorporated in the order—I would describe it as an obligation rather than a target—is instructive, because none of what was done in that case is being proposed in this case. Before enshrining that target in legislation, we consulted extensively on the end and the means, and we carefully assessed the costs and benefits. We undertook to review progress in 2005–06 and then to elaborate a strategy for the decade to 2020. I do not want to impose another target on the industry and its customers, many of whom are in fuel poverty, before completing a thorough review. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East suggest, for all the right reasons, the outcomes that he seeks, but they do not propose that proper approach, which must be the basis on which any such commitments are enshrined in legislation. I hope that I have answered some of the points. I repeat that we are not retreating on targets. We support the principles and aims of the Bill, and the major target is enshrined in legislation. A report will be made on progress which, for the reasons that have been given, is bound constantly to cross-refer to the publicly stated targets, but we do not want targets in the Bill. Brian White: Given what the Minister has said, I am happy for the debate to be adjourned. The Chairman: May I just say that I had no idea how good my chairmanship was? Debate adjourned.—[Brian White.] Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Three until Wednesday 18 June at five minutes to Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
|
| |
| Prepared 11 June 2003 | |
