| Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Hammond: On a point of clarification, is the Minister saying, given his reference to the Parliamentary year, that it is not essential to have the Bill by 31 March? Mr. Battle: It would be good to have the Bill by 31 March; I shall spell out why when I get to that point. There is no reason why we cannot meet that date, as it is a month away and we are well within the timetable. The Bill does not have to pass through the House of Lords, as others do, because it started its parliamentary life there. Let me emphasise what the Bill does. It is not a brand new piece of legislation dealing with a whole new area of policy, but is related to the Electricity Act 1989. One or two Conservative Members were members of the Government who passed that Act, and some Labour Members served on the Committee that considered it. We are, as it were, tidying up some of the previous Administration's over-spilling and remaining in-tray. We have the problem of 31 March precisely because of the contracts that were set up for the nuclear industry under the last lot, which is why we have to act now. Some Conservative Members may not have been elected to the House at the time, and I say to them that we are simply amending that piece of legislation. I can recall why it was important. Members of Parliament said why it was vital to keep sections 32 and 33 separate and why the levy-raising power had to be kept separate from the spending power. We went through that argument then, and I am happy to go through it again if necessary. Conservative Members spoke about timing. We are well within the timetable, but I am more than happy to spend long hours in this place, and so are my hon. Friends. That is the business of Parliament, and I am used to it. I have probably spent more hours and nights than most Conservative Members discussing this very Bill. I am happy to go through it again; if we need the time, the time will be available to ensure that the Bill is properly considered. There has been no attempt to push it through the House. Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister allow me to intervene very briefly with a point that I did not raise earlier? Do the Government have any plans to amend section 32 in a separate Bill? Mr. Battle: At present, we are looking at the whole question of renewable energy and how this relates to other Bills being proposed elsewhere. However, this is a separate Bill and a separate issue. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was so worried about the power to extend the scope of the levy that he thought that we should adjourn the Committee. It is a limited and well-defined power. It would extend the levy only to electricity from renewables that fall outside the NFFO. It would not affect the way in which the levy is spent. I should express the matter in technical terms--I do not mean that pejoratively. Bills are sorted out through the whole parliamentary process. The House of Lords Select Committee on Deregulation Orders and Delegated Powers has agreed with the way in which the power is framed. The Bill will amend section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989, which makes provision in relation to fossil fuel levies. Mr. Hammond: I may have misunderstood the Minister. He says that the power is strictly limited, and that it relates to the extension of the Electricity Act to cover renewables outside the NFFO mechanism. As I understand it, no electricity generation will not be subject to the levy. How strictly limited is the power? Mr. Battle: The power is limited, and I shall spell out exactly how. I may have some difficulty in doing so during debate on the sittings motion, as the matter concerns the content of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me answer him. The Committee should get past debating sittings and on to debating amendments, the first group of which concern what the levy applies to, and the second group of which concerns the limits of the levy. We may debate the relevance of the powers under those amendments. It would be more appropriate to debate the matters then, rather than to run the whole Bill in at the beginning. The noble Lord Ezra published his Bill on 19 February. I cannot recall today's date, but I do not think that many days have passed since. The appropriateness of the Bill obviously has to be considered by the Clerks. As hon. Members know, the noble Lord raised the matter in the House of Lords, and the Clerks ruled the changing of the short title of the Bill to be out of order. The Government are more than sympathetic to supporting clean coal, and some Labour Members have said that they remember clean-coal work at Grimethorpe colliery, which took place when the industry was under public ownership. They recall that the Government of the day let that research go, to put it politely. Mrs. Gillan: The Minister says that the noble Lord Ezra introduced his Bill only on 19 February. That is correct. Will he explain, however, why he has not replied to the letter sent to him by the noble Lord on 4 February? Is the noble Lord's view that the Minister was reported to have responded positively to the Bill correct? The date of the Bill's introduction into the House of Lords is irrelevant. The preceding correspondence and attention of the Minister are important and pertinent to the debate. Mr. Battle: I have corresponded with the noble Lord Ezra. I have met him, and my colleagues in the House of Lords have met him on the Government's behalf to discuss the Bill. The Government are responding as positively as we can to his support of clean-coal technology. The letter that the noble Lord sent to me related, if I remember rightly, to difficult conflicts in European Commission's policy on state aids to the coal industry. The matter has to be clarified before the Government can respond to his Bill. It clashes under the rules of the European coal and steel community, which are built into the European Commission. The Government wish to ensure that the matter is sorted out so that Lord Ezra can receive a proper response. Mrs. Gillan: The Minister is most generous to give way, and I am not being devious in pressing the point, which is one of great concern to the Opposition, as we have said. The noble Lord Ezra wrote to the Minister saying that they had been in touch for some time about the possible widening of the non-fossil fuel obligation. He did not mention the difficulties regarding the European Commission or Europe. He pleaded for a response to be given within the next fortnight, as from 4 February, because he did not want to wait too much longer before submitting the Bill. He was forced into doing so without having obtained a response from the Minister. The Minister has still not satisfactorily explained why he ignored the noble Lord Ezra's letter, perhaps inadvertently. I should be delighted to know the real reason. If he has forgotten the letter, or inadvertently put it to one side, the Opposition would understand.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1998 | Prepared 24 February 1998 |
