Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and we are looking at that technology, but I stress what I just said about deployment at scale. We need something that can be deployed at scale to provide the bulk of our electricity when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. We are always open-minded on other new technologies, but the most important thing is what can be deployed at scale. The measures in this Bill are critical for ensuring we have the option to bring forward further nuclear capacity.

Twelve of the UK’s 13 current nuclear reactors, representing approximately 85% of our nuclear capacity, are scheduled to close by 2030. Although Hinkley Point C is under construction, additional nuclear is likely to be needed in a low-cost 2050 electricity system. That is why we have committed to bring at least one further large-scale nuclear project to final investment decision by the end of this Parliament, subject to value for money and all relevant approvals.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does that not mean much more nuclear is needed if it is the preferred means of backing up wind? The new nuclear the Minister is talking about will not even replace the nuclear that is closing.

[Greg Hands]

I have good news for my right hon. Friend, which is that the regulated asset base model that we are introducing here can be used for further nuclear power plants, including small modular reactors and other key nuclear innovations. He will also know that, in the net zero review, we launched a £120 million fund for new nuclear innovations, which will allow us to increase our nuclear commitments and capabilities beyond the existing commitment to one new plant having its investment case in this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Labour believes that new nuclear has an important supporting role to play in the energy mix, alongside the decisive shift to renewables that we need to deliver the climate transition and secure our energy security. As set out by the Climate Change Committee, we need all the low-carbon power sources at our disposal to deliver the rapid and fair transition that is required.

I am sorry that the Minister, in presenting the Bill, has chosen the partisan knockabout route, rather than giving it the serious consideration that it deserves. If we want to go down that path, we can reflect on the decade of dither and delay on the Government’s part, with mixed messages from the Conservative Government on new nuclear. The result is that, after 10 years, we have one half-finished nuclear plant, which is funded by a mechanism that, as the Minister himself accepts, is quite disastrous in terms of future prices. The record of this Conservative Government on new nuclear is frankly very poor. At last we have a Bill that might rectify some of that poor performance over the last 10 years. We need to support the need to finance new nuclear. We will scrutinise this Bill to guarantee fairness for bill payers, including protecting consumers against any potential cost overruns, protecting the poorest households, and scrutinising the balance between public spending and bill payers.

It is welcome that at long last we are coming to the key issue in nuclear power, which is how we build the power stations that we seek to place in the mix of low-carbon energy for the future. We know how not to do it, as I mentioned. We have already seen from the passage of building Hinkley C, and the disappearance of many nuclear projects and programmes, that the model that the Government have long stood for—that power stations should be built entirely by the private sector, and that private-sector security can be bought by price mechanisms that grossly inflate the cost of energy to the customer in the end—is highly flawed.

We are facing a last-chance saloon for new nuclear build that requires us to throw away those principles and start again, because most of the programme of new nuclear power stations that the Government have been envisaging over the past 10 years has been washed away. As late as 2018, there were possibly three consortia actively pursuing an interest in building five new nuclear power stations. These have progressively fallen by the wayside. Consortia have fallen apart, companies with an interest in financing projects have pulled out, and we are now left with one proto-consortium—effectively just EDF—building Hinkley C and with active plans to build a new power station at Sizewell. It is not only an active interest. Sizewell is designed to be effectively a clone of the plant that is currently being built so that it can start to build as Hinkley completes its construction phase and the workforce currently undertaking construction at Hinkley can transfer to the building of its clone at Sizewell.

We ought to add two other factors that will have a substantial bearing on how we proceed with building plants—or in this instance, a plant, because that is all we have under consideration right now. First, the consortium proposing to build Sizewell is not exactly champing at the bit to finance it. EDF has effectively mortgaged itself to the hilt in financing 65% of Hinkley C and has stated unequivocally that it is not about to do the same with Sizewell C. Secondly, we still have the arrangement in place concluded by the then Chancellor George Osborne to arrange a fast track into the heart of our nuclear programme for the China National Nuclear Corporation via a Secretary of State’s investment agreement to help fund Hinkley C power station to the tune of 35% of the upfront capital; 20% of the second in the EDF consortium’s programme, Sizewell C; and the big prize for the Chinese—control of the financing, build and running of a third nuclear power station at Bradwell in Essex, which is now unlikely, to the point of impossible, to happen.

It is likely that the Chinese will not be able to get their hands on a real nuclear power station all of their own and they will not be investing into 20% of Sizewell—indeed, the Government seem to have set aside £1.7 billion in the Budget to buy out their interest in Sizewell C. Labour has long warned that the Government are playing a dangerous game when they outsource the funding of critical national infrastructure to foreign Governments. We are now seeing the results of a decade of Conservative Governments doing exactly that, and mostly failing to get anywhere. There we have it in terms of the UK’s nuclear programme for the foreseeable future—only one plant in prospect for a start before the late 2020s.

[John Redwood]

The shadow Minister is very thoughtful on these matters. How much standby capacity does he think we need to back up the wind and solar that will be the majority of our generation in due course?

[Dr Whitehead]

Interestingly, the Climate Change Committee, which has looked into this matter in great depth, considers that in the overall long-term future make-up of our energy mix, about 8 to 10 gigawatts of standby power—therm power—is likely to be required in the shape of new or existing nuclear power stations. That is about the size of the difference with an overwhelmingly renewable but variable economy, with elements of firm power backing it up.

I have mentioned that one plant only that would be included in the suggested 8 GW to 10 GW is in prospect for a start before the late 2020s, because every other proposal has fallen away. However, it is not financed and is probably not financeable by private capital. It is only part financeable by a state financer, with which we do not now want to do business. Let us be clear before we go any further: this Bill is about finding a formula to fund and build Sizewell C power station. Whatever its generic pretensions, that is the issue we should be concentrating on. Even so, getting that plant going would cover most of what the Climate Change Committee considers is the presence in the mix needed.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

Amendment 10 is also about transparency, this time in the event of a nuclear company becoming insolvent. It is only right that the taxpayer understands the liabilities the Government are willing to pick up in the event of insolvency. Compelling a report on the costs of getting a plant operational again, what its remaining lifespan is and any other liabilities that might not be covered any more due to insolvency, such as decommissioning, might at least focus minds on the merits of continuing to operate a plant or not. Otherwise, we remain in the position where the Secretary of State could be writing blank cheques that Parliament is unaware of.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is raising some important questions about cost and reliability. What is his recommendation as to what the Government should do to make the position better?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Actually, as far back as 2015, Steve Halliday, the then chief executive of National Grid, said that baseload was an “outdated” concept and a false argument, so I agree with that. This goes back to my point that nuclear is too inflexible because it is either on or off, and it is actually nuclear that leads to wind turbines being turned off so often. The bizarre thing is that nuclear has hidden costs because of the energy constraint payments that are made.

To return to the amendments, our amendment 10 relates to clause 32, as does Labour’s amendment 5. I would point out, as I stated in Committee, that I do not support the Labour amendment because I believe that compelling the Government to take over a plant confirmed to have been economically unviable would be throwing good money after bad, which is the polar opposite of the rationale behind our amendment 10. However, to be fair, I certainly support all the other Labour amendments, particularly those about foreign ownership, and I will be happy to support them if they are pushed to a vote.

Finally—people will be glad to know—I turn to new clause 1. This is another attempt at transparency in what could otherwise be the Secretary of State committing huge sums of money via the special administration route. Again, I do not think it too onerous for the Secretary of State to have to report to Parliament on the likely costs of a bail-out of an insolvent company.

In Committee, the Minister argued that it would hamper the process, but given that the SAR process is only being implemented for the first time through Bulb going bust, it is unclear to me why a report to Parliament would unduly delay the anyway complicated process of going through the courts. The Minister stated that the court process would provide enough transparency, but also that the reporting requirement might have commercial implications and affect the Secretary of State’s ability to bring the administration to an end. Both aspects of that cannot be true: there is enough transparency or there is not. It seems to me that reporting to Parliament should not hinder the transparency process, and it should not have commercial implications, so this new clause has been put forward to ensure clear reporting of information to Parliament.

In conclusion, I have made it clear from the outset that this Bill lacks transparency. Clauses 2 and 3 give way too much power to the Secretary of State to assess what he or she believes to be a value-for-money nuclear project and then commit bill payers to paying for it. While I am opposed to the Bill, I have not even proposed wrecking amendments because the amendments today are all designed to ensure that, first, parliamentarians and, secondly, bill payers know exactly what money is being committed and for what reasons.

If the Government have faith in their arguments that nuclear energy is required and that it represents true value for money, it seems to me that they should willingly accept these amendments and new clause 1. If the amendments get defeated in votes, we will know that it is all about continued backroom deals that they fear will not stand up to scrutiny if they were to report on the actual sums.

[John Redwood]

I welcome proposals that will create more generating capacity in the United Kingdom. As the Minister knows, I am extremely worried that we are already typically 10% dependent on imported electricity and that the current plans envisage our becoming more import dependent, with the preferred route for electricity provision being the construction of more interconnectors. I am worried about this on security grounds, because we link ourselves at our peril into an energy-short system on the continent of Europe that is far too dependent on Mr Putin and Russian gas. I also worry about it because we are short of electricity and gas at the moment, and we see the price pressures that that creates. I think we should be doing more to expand the supply of both electricity and domestic gas.

I think the Scottish National party has made some important points, although it comes at nuclear power from a different perspective from that of the Government. While we could usefully enjoy more nuclear power, it is very important that those projects are timely and cost-controlled, with technologies that will deliver reliable power on a sustainable basis. Does the Minister agree that nothing in this legislation, and nothing that he can now do, can prevent the proportion of our electricity that is generated by nuclear from declining for the whole of this decade? As I understand it, these projects take a long time to get type approval and financing, and a long time in construction. As I also understand it, all but one of our current nuclear power stations is scheduled to close by 2030, and although one large new nuclear power station should come on stream during that period, it will not offset all the capacity that is taken out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

The purpose of small modular nuclear reactors—we are going to be building 10 or 15 of them—is to enable us to bring the price down. Is my right hon. Friend also concerned that 18 major projects in oil and gas exploration have seemingly been put on hold, given that we need those projects and those fields to come online now?

[John Redwood]

Yes. I fear I may be wandering a little from the actual Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, but given the general context of energy shortage and the crucial role that gas has been playing in recent months in generating electricity, because we are short of nuclear power and short of wind power when the wind does not blow, I would strongly recommend that we get on with exploiting our own gas reserves. That is greener and cheaper than relying on gas being brought halfway round the world in a liquefied natural gas tanker or on Mr Putin’s gas routed via the continent. That is probably an argument for another day, but I am grateful to the Deputy Speaker for allowing me to answer my hon. Friend’s very good point.

In conclusion, I would like the Minister to set out a little bit more of the context of when nuclear might start contributing to our electricity demand and need, and how he sees the balance of that developing between small nuclear being rolled out at greater scale and the one or two large nuclear projects that might still be around. Also, given the hugely radical electrical revolution that the Government wish to encourage, with switching home heating from predominantly gas to electricity and switching much transport from predominantly diesel and petrol to electricity, we are going to need a massive expansion of total capacity. Would he agree, however, that we are starting from a position where we do not have enough capacity for our current levels of demand and where the nuclear element of that capacity will contract quite a lot over this decade?

[Wera Hobhouse]

As a lifelong anti-nuclear power campaigner, I could not fail to speak in this debate or to represent the views of the many Bath constituents who have written to me over the last weeks and months about voting and speaking against this Bill. We need to get to net zero by 2050 at the latest, but do we need nuclear power to get there, and is nuclear energy a fair deal for our consumers? While nuclear power is not a carbon fuel, it is enormously expensive, costing twice as much as generation from renewables. In answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I believe that we just need to roll out renewable energy. We have the capacity. Britain is a country surrounded by sea, and there is a lot of wind further out. Projects such as floating wind are out there—I speak to that industry a lot. If only the Government had the political will to make that renewable energy revolution happen.

[John Redwood]

What difference would it have made if we had had double our wind capacity in recent weeks when it was supplying only 2% of our total electricity because there was no wind?

[Wera Hobhouse]

As I said, there is the potential for offshore wind, particularly further out where the wind blows all the time—the right hon. Member needs only to talk to the industry about that—if only the Government were prepared to invest much more in that and not just rely on the small projects that we currently have.

Yes, we doubled our offshore wind capacity thanks to the Liberal Democrats in government—some time ago now—but there is still no level playing field for the renewable energy sector. We speak of this again and again. If only the Government were prepared to set a regulatory level playing field, we could see a lot more renewable energy to cover our energy costs.

Let me repeat that while nuclear power is not a carbon fuel, it is enormously expensive, costing twice as much as generation from renewables, and in the end that cost will fall on the consumer. We have seen the disasters of that in recent weeks. Quite apart from the long-term costs of decommissioning, disposal and storage of waste, nuclear is an unusual technology that sees costs rise instead of fall over time. In other words, it has a high need for Government subsidy.

The Government say that the Bill is about saving consumers money by removing barriers to private investment in the nuclear sector, but that is misleading. Their proposed regulated asset base funding model provides no protection for consumers; instead, evidence shows that costs under this model for abandoned nuclear power stations have still been passed on to consumers.

Let us look at what happened in the United States, where a version of the regulated asset base model—early cost recovery—was introduced more than 10 years ago. As in Britain, ECR was sold to policy makers as a way of lowering the cost of capital, thereby making nuclear power more competitive with other sources of generation. However, the lower capital cost was not a true saving. The nuclear renaissance’s 2009 peak consisted of applications to build 31 units pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Of those, 29 have been cancelled, and despite expenditure exceeding $20 billion, no new US nuclear plants have gone into service. In South Carolina, ratepayers are having to pay $2.3 billion for a cancelled nuclear plant. While US electricity customers are exposed to paying more than $10 billion for cancelled nuclear plants and another $13.5 billion in cost overruns, no reactors have come online as a result of the US shift to early cost recovery. Florida and South Carolina have repealed the laws allowing early cost recovery, and no states have enacted such laws in the last decade, so why on earth are the Tory Government introducing a failed financial model from the US?

In contrast, the cost of renewables is falling globally. Renewables are significantly undercutting fossil fuels as the cheapest form of energy as the cost of renewable technologies falls. According to the International Energy Agency, the world’s best solar power schemes offer the “cheapest…electricity in history.”

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Wera Hobhouse]

I will not give way again.

Renewable energy is the future, and we in the UK are ideally placed to take advantage of the wind and wave power all around us. When UK tidal wave projects were cancelled in the past, that was always on a cost basis. Why do we not look at those projects again? They are truly renewable and truly the future. We could be an exporter of renewables. Onshore wind is now the cheapest form of electricity generation in the UK—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) first and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

We may be straying a bit from the subject and scope, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will try to come back to the road of virtue as quickly as I can, but the hon. Member raises interesting points about what structure of ownership is required to develop nuclear power stations effectively. To be honest, it was his party that decided to sell—to privatise—British Energy. I think it is too late to try to row back on that and recreate that situation, unless he is proposing an interesting new Anglo-French argument over nationalising EDF Energy in the UK. We have to accept that things have moved on, and we must focus on the amendments proposed today.

[John Redwood]

The burden of the argument with the SNP, my hon. Friend and the rest of us is, as I understand it, transparency over the costs and terms of putative contracts. If those are to be private sector contracts, there are issues about commercial confidentiality, but if there is to be a lot of state exposure, there needs to be a very clear definition of its limits and what it will be, and I am sure that is what the Minister has in mind. Does my hon. Friend agree that we expect to see a very clear and honest statement of any state liabilities, but that commercial private contracts are not as appropriate for that kind of transparency?

[Richard Graham]

Yes, that is a very good way of defining the difference between the confidentiality of commercial agreements and the state’s obligation to be transparent in what is clearly a model that has elements of both. There is an element of hybrid in it, as Members have alluded to.

To bring my contribution to a close fairly swiftly, fundamentally we need to get on, as other colleagues have said, with the business of building more nuclear capacity as quickly as possible. The Bill is an opportunity to move that forward fast, with the safeguards offered by the Government within it, and to get on with a new way of funding through the regulated asset base mechanism. It will provide cheaper costs of financing and ultimately bring down the costs to consumers. Clearly, the Labour party is supporting us today in principle, and perhaps the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will give his support to the Bill from the Opposition Front Bench. The SNP is not supporting it.

From the Government Benches, I want to reiterate my support as the MP for Gloucester for what the nuclear operational headquarters in Barnwood has successfully achieved for a very long period, and I hope that the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), will accept an invite to visit Gloucester to look at the operational headquarters and what it is doing and to discuss ways to ensure that that expertise can be used most effectively in the development of nuclear capacity in the future, as well as now.

I am afraid none of the amendments will have my support. I have mentioned that amendment 2 is ironic and inappropriate, and I think all the SNP amendments are designed to try to ensure as far as possible that today’s Bill does not go any further. Bearing in mind that we are celebrating the 46-year role of nuclear in providing electricity to every home in Scotland, that seems rather ironic and, frankly, a bit disappointing. Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I very much hope the Bill goes through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

It would not be irresponsible to support the Bill on Third Reading, but it would be responsible of the Government to take a little more notice of these particular problems with the RAB process and possibly, as we move forward with its development, bring in mechanisms that can protect the bill-paying public in a rather better way than is suggested at the moment. That is essentially what the amendments do.

The arrangement for the RAB to be put into place is that a series of considerations are entered into to give an agreed expenditure cap for what is considered to be the proper use of the collection fund that will provide assistance to the company producing the new nuclear power plant. It can properly draw on that, up to a certain ceiling, from the general public. That is if everything goes well with the nuclear power plant, but of course that may not necessarily be the case. Of 176 nuclear power plants across the world, 175 went substantially over time and over budget, so we need to be very clear that we should not commit the general public to fund these proposals completely open-endedly. We are saying in these amendments that should there be a cost overrun or a time overrun, the Secretary of State should seek an increase in the agreed revenue ceiling without further recourse to customer funds. That may be by producing bonds or it may be by further state funding if that is the choice the Government wish to make, but they should not increase the ceiling for customers to pay exponentially at the same time.

These are very simple and straightforward amendments saying that, should there be such cost overruns or time overruns and there is a suggested further call on customer bills through RAB, the Secretary of State will have to think of something else to fund the system. Let us be clear that, with the RAB arrangements at the moment, it is suggested, I think very optimistically, there will be an increase of about £10 to £20 in customer bills. That is a really current topic at the moment, but a cost overrun would substantially increase such a levy on customer bills, and we just think that should not be part of the RAB arrangements for the future.

The third set of changes we wish to put in place are to part 3 of the Bill, which sets out what should happen and what arrangements should be in place if a company, despite all the investment from the public in the construction of a nuclear power plant, essentially goes bust. In this part, the Government have in effect lifted the provision in the Energy Act 2011 for a special administration regime. Again, that is rather current because it is precisely such a special administration regime that was used to rescue Bulb Energy when it went bust a little way ago. It was placed in such a regime under the 2011 Act—the wording is identical to that in this Bill—to allow it to continue trading for the time being, subject to the company being disposed of.

However, I would suggest that a nuclear power plant the size of Sizewell C, for example, is not remotely the same as an energy company the size of Bulb. It would be quite possible to dispose of Bulb or disperse its customers according to the special administration regime, but that would not be the case for a large nuclear power station. We are saying in amendment 5 that there should be an additional backstop so that, in the circumstances of a special administration regime, it would not be possible to pass the company on—to sell it on or to reintroduce it as a going concern through allocation to a subsidiary—and that the Government should have a plan to introduce a public company to take it over, provided it is working as a nuclear power station. That would not be the case—some Members may think the amendment means this—if the power station could not continue because the reactor head had exploded or the power plant was otherwise non-operational. If it is an operational power plant, we think that such a backstop should be available.

Hon. Members have mentioned what I think is the salutary case of the North Carolina energy plant that was conceived under RAB arrangements, or something very similar. Some $9 billion of customer money went into that plant, but the plant went bust, not because it was not operational, but because it was unfinanceable. Customers lost $9 billion of money, and there is no power station at the moment.

[John Redwood]

Is it not the case that, if the Government in power are faced with a big financial disaster from a very large project going horribly wrong and the company going bust, they will need flexibility to make the best decisions they can in the interests of the taxpayers and customers at the time, and it is quite difficult for us to pre-think that and embed it clearly in law?

[Dr Whitehead]

That is precisely why we wish to put in the Bill that there should be a direction in which the Government should go. Of course they should have flexibility in how they work, but we think this is an important backstop that will ensure customers do not lose their shirts in a company that goes bust after they have invested large amounts of money in its operation.

We will seek to divide the House on amendments 2 and 3 in the absence of any clear further Government commitments today in relation to. We may well be minded to support amendment 9, tabled by the SNP, should that also be put to a Division. However, I emphasise that we are happy to support the Bill overall. We want it to go through Third Reading, but we would like it to be strengthened as much as it can be by the addition of the amendments we have put forward today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. The House will know that she and I worked very closely in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and she was one of the first in the new Parliament to realise the key importance of nuclear. I pay tribute to the work that she, among others, did to drive this agenda. Clearly, this Bill is timely because, as she said, we cannot reach net zero without a substantial commitment to nuclear.

[John Redwood]

Will the Secretary of State give some indication of how long it might take to prove and put into a working model the small nuclear technology, if all went well?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the small modular reactors cannot be brought onstream in the next few months, but with the right investment and the right incentives, all this technology can be brought onstream very quickly. I cannot say that it will be five years or 10 years, but it will be brought onstream and will help us to reach the decarbonising targets that we have set ourselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I wish the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Bill every success. I think we might call this Secretary of State brave, because experience tells us that it is extremely difficult to land one of these really big projects and keep it to time and budget, and it is extremely difficult to get agreement to cheaper power. I am delighted that Ministers are motivated by the wish to have both more reliable generating capacity and more affordable power. Those are two excellent objectives of energy policy.

However, I fear that what I have learned from this debate, and from previous debates like it, are these things. First, we are going to have less nuclear power in 2030 than we have today, whatever Ministers do—they are prisoners of their inheritance. Secondly, it will be difficult signing up big projects in particular, or getting smaller projects that are available and working in good time so that there is more nuclear, rather than less, in the decade that follows, and it will be difficult securing that at prices that customers think are good.

In the meantime, we have the problem that, on a typical day, we are already 10% import dependent for our electricity—I think it should all be generated in the UK—and that we are very dependent on the sun shining and the wind blowing, but the wind not blowing too much. When those things did not happen towards the end of last year, we had to reopen three old coal plants. People would rather not have to burn coal, but coal stations were reliable and actually worked when the wind did not blow and the sun did not shine. If the plan is to close them down and make them unavailable in future before we have anything else as a good stand-by, we will be trying the patience of the international community and trying our own luck rather too far.

I urge the Secretary of State, on the back of this Bill, to consider ways of increasing reliable power for this coming decade—the decade that we are living in and that we will be battling over in immediate elections to come—because that is what will matter to our voters. We should have in mind security of supply, availability of supply and affordability as the crucial things that we need to take care of so that we do not have a self-imposed energy crisis. Linking us into the European system is not a secure thing to do, because those countries are chronically short of reliable green power. Poland and Germany are in the middle of trying to phase out coal and lignite. Germany is in the middle of phasing out nuclear altogether. France needs to think about replacements for its ageing nuclear fleet and it is chronically short of gas, which is a sensible transition fuel, so it needs to rely on Putin and Russia.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We talk again and again in this House about Britain being a global leader. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Britain could be a global leader in renewable energy? We are not making the most of the areas in which we could be a global leader, which are renewable energy from tidal, wave and offshore and onshore wind power.

[John Redwood]

I would be delighted to see a mixture of renewables, so that the reliability issue is taken care of. The problem with wind is that it is erratic. In the industrial revolution, people tended to prefer water power over wind power because it was a bit more reliable. The hon. Lady must understand that, like me, she is answerable to constituents who will expect the lights to stay on throughout this decade and will expect electricity and gas and other main energy sources to be affordable and available. The danger is that, if we do not do more to expand our capacity of the transition fuels as well as working on improving and increasing renewables, we will not be able to guarantee the crucial features of a good energy policy: availability and affordability. So, yes, fine to the Bill, but it is about the 2030s. We need also to think about the 2020s.

[Mark Jenkinson]

We have heard a lot today about offshore wind and how it could be the saviour of our energy system. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the levelised cost of energy of our largest offshore wind farm last year was £140 per megawatt-hour, which is twice the price of nuclear energy, if not more?

[John Redwood]

I have learned enough about energy to know that people produce figures that suit their case. I agree with my hon. Friend that we can say that wind energy is a lot dearer than its advocates suggest. It depends on whether we cost out the back-up power and the back-up arrangements. Obviously, once the windmills are turning they deliver very cheap power, but there is a lot of sunk cost to take care of, and we do need to account somehow for the cost of the alternative when the wind does not blow. We would need to do quite a lot of homework, and probably not in a Third Reading debate, to crack what exactly is the true cost of wind power.

I urge Ministers to think again about availability and affordability now as well as their nuclear ideas.