| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Triesman: My Lords, if we get to the point of having two fully independent states capable of living in harmony together, I would expect them to sign a number of bilateral arrangements that would wholly normalise the politics of the region and, I believe, secure the support of the wider region and the other nations in it. We have some way to go. Not least, people on both sides must accept that Israel has the right to exist. It cannot be a debate between two nations when one of them is denied that right.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the diversion of aid away from the Palestinian Authority has seriously divided the Palestinian people and has made the Authority under Abu Mazen especially vulnerable to attack from Hamas?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the Palestinian people, as their election showed—whatever its result—are widely divided. One party argues for the peace process and for the recognition of the right of Israel; the other says that that right should not exist. I do not think that that argument will be overcome rapidly or readily, but it has to be overcome. The whole peace process is dependent on a mutual recognition of the right of the other to statehood and all the things that accompany it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I follow on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson: how can it aid and abet peace in Palestine and Israel for the new Israeli Government to announce increased settlement building round the east Jerusalem area? Also, how can it aid and abet the peace process to dismantle the outlying settlements, which are indefensible, and to relocate the 60,000 or so settlers in the West Bank in extended settlements, in respect of which there are no signs of any dismantling, contrary to the road map and to international law?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have said from this Dispatch Box on a good few occasions that we regard the route of the barrier and the building of settlements
23 May 2006 : Column 696
on lands that would be in a fully integrated Palestinian state as illegal acts. We have pressed that argument strenuously on the Israeli Government. The art of this, if there is an art in diplomacy, is that both sides must recognise their obligations to a peaceful route, and, as the noble Lord said, there are obligations on both sides.
Baroness Tonge: My Lords, while the Minister is looking into electricity supplies in the Gaza Strip, can he also look into water supplies in the whole of the Occupied Territories? It is well known that Israel has control over much of the water in that area. Is there not a danger not just for the Palestinians but for the whole peace of the Middle East if one country has control of water?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I accept that control of water is a vital issue. It is a cause of great instability in many areas in the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and so on. I am clear that we need to resolve all the bilateral issues relating to the control of all the utilities, and that will be one of the most dynamic achievements—if it can be achieved—in enhancing the economic prospects and the stake that everyone has in a peaceful future.
Energy Review
2.57 pm
Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
In light of the Prime Minister's statement to the Confederation of British Industry on 16 May, when the results of the consultation on the energy review are likely to be published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the Government published a consultation document on 23 January this year. The document, Our Energy Challenge, invited responses on the important energy policy issues facing the country to be considered in the current energy review. Some 5,300 responses were received from members of the public, business, academia, NGOs and others. A summary of the responses to the consultation exercise will be published alongside the Government's energy policy statement.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, did not the Prime Minister's statement appear to anticipate the outcome of the consultation on the energy review? In particular, did his statement not seem to rule out other low-carbon technologies, apart from nuclear, to which specific reference was made in the consultation document? I refer in particular to clean coal technology, on which much progress has recently been made, and to decentralised electricity generation, including microgeneration, which can be twice as efficient as the centralised stations. Can we be assured that these and other possible low-carbon technology solutions will be considered in the report?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that the Prime Minister's statement anticipated what
23 May 2006 : Column 697
was in the energy review at all. He simply pointed to three incontrovertible facts: if we do nothing, there will be a dramatic gap in our targets to reduce CO2 emissions; we will become heavily dependent on gas; and, at the same time, we will move from being 80 to 90 per cent self-reliant on gas to 80 to 90 per cent dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, Africa and Russia. Those are simple statements of fact with which no one in the House would quarrel. He then went on to say that,
"the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step-change on energy efficiency",
were therefore clearly very much on the agenda. All that is indisputable; it does not anticipate the energy review. All the other technologies that the noble Lord mentioned will of course be considered in that energy review.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Prime Minister said that nuclear power would be,
Was there not clear guidance from the No. 10 press office, which reported the speech to the CBI, that that was to be regarded as the major policy statement? It was the lead headline in all the newspapers the next day. How does that square with what the Select Committee was told last March by the Minister of State for Energy? When he referred to the publication of the results of the review, he said:
"after we have discussed it in the normal way with the Prime Minister and Cabinet Committee and, no doubt, it going to Cabinet".
Can we assume that the Prime Minister's remarks about nuclear power were approved by the Cabinet?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, what the Prime Minister said in his recent speech to the CBI was what he said to the CBI at its autumn conference. It was no different. He said:
"These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step-change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance".
That does not anticipate a policy change; it is saying that the issues have to be very seriously considered.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Prime Minister would have been open to even more criticism had he gone to the CBI dinner and not mentioned the nuclear issue, given the current debate? What is more, earlier records of Select Committees and suchlike show that, when the Prime Minister spoke to the Liaison Committee of the House of Commons in the summer of 2003, he made it abundantly clear that he was not ruling out the nuclear option. In the intervening period, everything has been pushed up the agenda with the vengeance to which he referred.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that for the Prime Minister to go to the CBI and say
23 May 2006 : Column 698
nothing about energy would have been ridiculous in view of the importance of the issue to industry. As I said, he was repeating what he had said before.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it has been reported that the President of the United States has agreed that daylight saving shall operate in all states of the United States from next year? Has daylight saving been included in the terms of reference of the energy review?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am beginning to lose the will to live. I have answered that question at least four times in recent months. The basic proposition is wrong: daylight saving does not save energy.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister said that the Prime Minister was talking about replacement of nuclear power stations and that that would stop our reliance on gas. If we just replace our nuclear power stations, we will still be dependent to a large degree on imported gas. Is the Prime Minister saying that he is going one step further and that we are not just replacing nuclear power stations but significantly increasing the number of nuclear power stations to be built?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |