---

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I shall have to examine that lengthy Answer with care, just to see whether there was anything new in it—but I have the impression that we have heard most of it before.

I do not suppose that the noble Lord would agree with me, but am I right in thinking that perhaps the two right honourable ladies with whom he is acquainted, who are responsible for electricity supply, have become slightly unnerved by the prospect of a general election, with the result that they have not—for the moment, at any rate—the courage to tell the British people the truth that long, vulnerable pipelines and wind are neither safer nor more secure than nuclear would be? It is time that we got on with that option.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, when the noble Lord asks a new question, I shall give him a new answer. I do not believe that my right honourable friends are unnerved. They have set out a clear strategy for the future. As I said, we will review the matter as we go along. If at any time it is necessary to change that strategy, we will do so.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, what have the Government learnt that is new from the publication of the report on the methods of disposal of nuclear waste? Am I growing old and cynical in thinking that this is just yet another delaying tactic from a government who are afraid to do what is right because they think that it might be unpopular?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is a constant source of amazement to me that noble Lords who belong to a party that singularly failed to resolve the issue when it was in government and whose policy was, essentially, "Decide, announce and defend—and then back off when the heat rises" should deplore a strategy that states that this time we will consult properly and wisely with all the parties to see whether we can reach consensus.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned research, but does he not agree that retaining the design teams is equally important? Like many people, I believe that at some time in the future we shall have to return to the nuclear option.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is an important question. It is not necessarily the case that a company wanting to go forward with a nuclear power station and looking for the most advanced design would choose a British design. However, we can be fairly confident that this country has the capacity to assess, build and operate such a plant.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the fact that CO
levels are rising in this country and abroad, despite all
 
4 Apr 2005 : Column 476
 
efforts, is it not of urgent concern that various options that are being kept open to deal with those levels should now be closed? That applies not only to the nuclear option but to clean coal technology, a proven technology with which we should go ahead. If we carry on as we are, we may lose the battle against carbon dioxide emissions.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that we should keep open the option of clean coal technology; we are doing so. In energy policy, it is essential to keep all the options open. It is disappointing that we saw CO
emissions up by 2.2 per cent between 2002 and 2003. That was caused by an increased use of coal in the production of electricity and a fall in electricity imports from the continent. We recognise that we need to do more to meet our challenging domestic goals of getting a 20 per cent reduction of CO
emissions by 2010. The current review of the climate change programme will provide an opportunity to examine the scope for further emission reductions.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord complained to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the Conservatives did nothing about the matter when they were in office. He and his colleagues have been in office for eight years. If by some mischance they win the forthcoming election, how much longer will they need?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is a matter of public record that we have the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Originally, we asked the committee to report by the end of 2005, but it now looks as though it will report by the middle of 2006.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that keeping the nuclear option open involves looking at the issue from a world-wide point of view? Does my noble friend further agree that 15 nuclear power stations are under construction and that many more are planned? Is not that a way in which the nuclear option is being kept open?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is being kept open. Work on it continues, as does the design of nuclear power stations throughout the world. We are ensuring that we in this country have the knowledge to take advantage of that development work, so that we can encourage nuclear generators to come forward.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is not the problem of disposal becoming urgent as the Magnox stations approach decommissioning? Am I not right in thinking that the four favoured options for disposal involve burial underground? Would it not be advisable to select all four and try them out?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we need to have an agreed best solution to this problem. Once we have made that decision and gained consensus on it, we should go forward on that basis. It is not a case for trial and error.
 
4 Apr 2005 : Column 477
 

British Summer Time

3.24 p.m.

Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether during the United Kingdom's forthcoming presidency of the European Union they will secure agreement from other European states (both within and outside the European Union) to alter the date for the start of Summer Time from the last Sunday in March each year to the third Sunday so that clocks are not put forward on Easter Sunday.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as from 11 March 2002, the dates for the start and end of Summer Time were set for the last Sundays in March and October respectively. Business and individuals welcomed this change as it gives certainty to the Summer Time dates and aids the business planning process. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to change these arrangements.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that rather predictable reply. Is he aware that it is not only those who celebrate Easter in church who would like the start of Summer Time to revert to the third Sunday in March, but everyone who looks forward to lighter evenings after the gloom of winter?

Is he further aware that the 1972 Summer Time Act, which fixed the start date at the third Sunday in March, was not opposed in any way by the then Labour opposition, nor by the Liberal Party, because it was clearly highly popular with the British electorate? A subsequent European directive forced the start date to be postponed by an average of 10 days.

Would the noble Lord agree that if in July this year the British Government, whoever it may be headed by, were to succeed in getting the directive amended, they would earn the gratitude not only of the British people but of most of those on the continent as well?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this might be an issue, but we have received no complaints about it. This appears to be an EU harmonisation act which, if not universally accepted, is not significantly opposed. In those circumstances, it seems unnecessary to start a process of trying to change it.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does not the present date accord not only with the European Union but with many other countries such as Australia and Africa? As most countries of the world change times on the last Sunday in March, would not things be thrown out if the European Union changed? The EU is not in the same timeframe as us—there is one hour's difference—but the problem goes wider than Britain, to the rest of the world.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not certain about the situation in Australia, but I agree that it seems unnecessary to try to change the procedure when we have an agreement which seems eminently practical and sensible.
 
4 Apr 2005 : Column 478
 

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not the case that it would be far more logical for the Churches to operate the agreement which has been in force for a long time and fix a logical date for Easter?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Council of Nicea in 325 AD decided that issue. There have been attempts to review it, but, given the time it has lasted, there are other things it may be more profitable to try to change.

---