Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Clause 2 stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment No. 39, in

clause 194, page 149, line 41, after 'section', insert

'and section [amendment of Sustainable Energy Act 2003]'.

Government new clause 7—Reports under section 1 of Sustainable Energy Act 2003—and amendment (a) thereto:

after ''clean coal technology;'' insert '(aa) coal mine methane;'.

New clause 8—Environmental targets—

'(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent lay before each House of Parliament a report, prepared in consultation with the devolved administrations, on renewable energy and that report shall include—

(a) a set target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, with individual targets for each area covered by devolved administrations as agreed between the Secretary of State and the relevant devolved administrations for the following ten year period,

(b) a set target for the percentage of electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources, with individual targets for each area covered by devolved administrations as agreed between the Secretary of State and the relevant devolved administrations for the following ten year period,

(c) the amount of electricity being generated by each method of renewable energy, and

(d) a strategy for meeting the targets set out in paragraphs (a) and (b).

(2) In each year thereafter the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out—

(a) progress made towards the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target,

(b) progress made towards the renewable energy target,

(c) the amount of electricity being generated by each method of renewable energy, and

(d) strategy for meeting the continuing targets for both greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy with proposals for any changes necessary for meeting the targets set in subsection (1)(a) and (b).

(3) At the end of the initial ten year period, and every ten years thereafter, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the measures specified in

subsection (1) for the following ten year period and in every year thereafter lay before each House of Parliament the report specified in subsection (2).'.

New clause 9—Report on sustainable energy policy commitments—

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to publish in such form as he sees fit an annual report on all the Government's energy policy commitments.

(2) In this section the term ''energy policy commitments'' means all those commitments so specified on the Government sustainable energy policy network website for the time being.'.

New clause 10—Amendment of Sustainable Energy Act 2003—

After section 2 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 there is inserted—

''2A Energy efficiency of business and public sector buildings: Secretary of State

(1) The Secretary of State must within one week beginning with the coming into force of this section designate under this subsection at least one energy efficiency aim.

(2) For the purposes of this section an ''energy efficiency aim'' is an aim which—

(a) is contained in a published document;

(b) relates to the energy efficiency of business and public sector buildings;

(c) specifies the amount of carbon dioxide to be saved from business and public sector buildings; and

(d) is compatible with European Union obligations and any other international obligations of the United Kingdom.

(3) The Secretary of State may, at any time after designation under subsection (1), designate under this subsection a further energy efficiency aim or aims.

(4) Where an energy efficiency aim is for the time being designated under this section, the Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to achieve the aim.

(5) In deciding which steps to take for the purposes of subsection (4), the Secretary of State must consider steps relating to the heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting and insulation of business and public sector buildings.

(6) A designation under this section may be withdrawn, but not if its withdrawal would result in there being no energy efficiency aim designated under this section.

(7) If an energy efficiency aim designated under this section ceases to meet the condition in subsection (2)(d) it ceases to be designated under this section, but if this results in there being no energy efficiency aim so designated the Secretary of State must without delay designate a new energy efficiency aim.

(8) A designation of an aim under this section, or a withdrawal or cessation of such a designation, must be published in such a way as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(9) A designation may be contained in the same published document as the aim itself.

(10) In this section ''business and public sector buildings'' means buildings specified under any enactments or otherwise as business or public sector buildings.

(11) This section shall come into force on 1st January 2005.''.'.

New clause 12—Duty relating to energy provision and use—

'The Secretary of State shall have a duty to promote the efficient provision and use of energy [gas and electricity], and to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.'.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I welcome you back to chairing our deliberations, Mr. Sayeed, and I welcome back all members of the Committee following our weekend break. We had a good discussion on Thursday on this group of amendments. I thought that in responding I would start with my proposal to delete

clause 3 and replace it with Government new clause 7 because much of the discussion focused on that last week.

There are two elements to this proposal. First, should there be a Government commitment to a figure for carbon savings from household energy? As it might be unclear from the record, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Government believe that there should be such a commitment. We have a mechanism for providing it in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, which came on to the statute book as a result of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). The Government proposal uses that mechanism so as to be consistent with the work that has been done in Parliament on this, rather than to cut across it, as clause 3 would, by putting a figure in the Bill, with all the drawbacks that that entails. There is complete agreement across the Committee about the rightness of there being a clear commitment.

Secondly—this is an issue on which much of the discussion on Thursday focused—what should that figure be? In the White Paper we suggested that it should be around 5 million tonnes of carbon savings. The figure that has been published is 4.2 million; if one takes the reasonable view that around five means more than four and less than six, the figure is consistent. The announcement made the other week sits alongside the increased commitment on energy efficiency for business. Total carbon savings from energy efficiency across both sectors will be appreciably more than the numbers set out in the White Paper. It is important that we deliver carbon savings.

I understand the concerns that were forcefully expressed in our debate on Thursday. I listened carefully to all the points that were made. I agree that we should be aiming high in this area. We should be aspirational. The figure of 4.2 million tonnes is the minimum that I would expect to be achieved. I am also concerned about the industry's sense that there has not been a good dialogue with the Government in this process. That also needs to be addressed. Together with my noble Friend Lord Whitty, who leads on this matter, I will arrange to meet representatives of the industry and those who are particularly concerned about the household energy efficiency aims. We will do that before Report.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

The Sustainable Energy Act allows for a review of that figure. Will my hon. Friend the Minister undertake to consider using that review mechanism once Ministers have met industry representatives and if they convince Ministers of the need to increase the figure to provide security for investment?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

There is a review mechanism and, as I understand it, the efficiency commitment is due to be reviewed in 2007. I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's point. I believe that the commitment that has been made will lead to a substantial stepping up of activity in this area, compared with what we have seen

in the past, so it is a big step forward. The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South, recently launched the Newcastle warm zone, and there is a warm zone in my constituency. There is a great deal of activity on this issue. Because of the commitment that has been published, we will see much more in the future than we have in the past.

Mr Paddy Tipping (Sherwood, Labour)

Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the purpose of the meeting with outside bodies is to reinforce the 4.2 million tonnes target as the minimum, and that the aspiration is to increase it? If we can do better than the target, that will be in everyone's interest.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

My hon. Friend is right. The other aim of the meeting will be to ensure that there is a good dialogue between Government and the industry as we go forward to ensure that the quite serious disappointment that has been expressed up to now does not recur.

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North, Labour)

As well as talking with the industry, will my hon. Friend be able to see whether the starting point of 4.2 million tonnes could be raised immediately should he have evidence that that was achievable? Will he confirm that we could start at a higher level, rather than waiting until 2007 for the review to take place? In view of the concerns that I expressed last week, will he look with civil servants to see whether there are discrepancies in the way in which the figure that led to the starting point of 4.2 million tonnes was arrived at?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I cannot hold out to my hon. Friend the prospect of the figure of 4.2 million tonnes immediately being changed, given that it has only just been announced. However, I certainly agree that we should aim high. I see 4.2 million tonnes as the minimum that we can expect to achieve and I hope that we will be able to do better, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said. I shall return to the other points in a moment.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

I am slightly encouraged by what the Minister is saying, but a great deal of concern was expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee last week about the fact that the aim was not enshrined in legislation. As I understand it, that was the reason for clause 3. Does the Minister intend to enshrine 4.2 million tonnes as a legislative target, or how does he intend to do that? There is concern that if the target is not in legislation, it can easily slip.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

No. We have considered this matter over quite a long period, and the great achievement of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 was to come up with a mechanism that allowed a figure to be set for the energy efficiency commitment and for the Government to have an obligation to do what they can to achieve that aim. That mechanism was put on the statute book last year and is, in my view, the one that we should use, because a great deal of work went into

what was a valuable step forward. The 2003 Act sets out the commitment relating to that number. The number is not printed in legislation, but that would not be the right way to set about effecting the change that we want. The energy efficiency commitment has a clear status, which is set out in the 2003 Act, and will allow the step change in activity and achievement that we all want to see.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) suggested that the reason why more carbon could be saved in the business sector was because of a shrinkage in manufacturing. The answer is yes and no. It is true that structural changes have affected absolute carbon emissions, but energy efficiency in the sectors have also been improving. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) pointed out that carbon emissions rose last year, which was because of a higher than expected growth in the economy, so it is not true that the current structure of the economy avoids the past difficulties of economic growth leading to higher emissions. We need to do better on energy efficiency in the business sector. For example, since 2001, climate change agreements have roughly tripled the rate of improvement for the sectors that they cover, which has resulted in a doubling in the rate of energy efficiency improvements for industry as a whole. That has gone well, and it is right to give credit where it is due for that achievement.

Mr Andrew Stunell (Chief Whip; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

I see that the Minister is fulfilling my prophecy that he would have calming words for us. However, is it not true that the fastest growing sector of energy consumption is the commercial sector and the fastest shrinking is the industrial sector? That is in no small part due to the measures that affect industry and the failure to introduce measures that affect the commercial sector. In his energy efficiency document, the Minister referred to a new aim to deliver savings of 4.2 million tonnes. Is it not true that that the regulator, Ofgem and everyone else will work to that figure and that it will become the maximum rather than a minimum?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

No, I do not believe that it will be the maximum; we can aim to do better. I also do not agree about the distinction between the commercial and industrial sector. The climate change levy applies to the commercial sector, and there are significantly increased incentives for energy efficiency in the commercial sector. Part of the improvement that we have seen and the fact that there are now better prospects for saving energy in the business sector as a whole reflect improvements in the commercial as well as manufacturing sector. I am not saying that structural changes in the economy have had no impact—they clearly have—but the fact that things are looking better than they were at the time of the White Paper a year ago is to be welcomed.

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North, Labour)

I am getting anxious about the reassurance that I was looking for in respect of re-examining how the civil service arrived at the figures. Will the Minister also comment further as to whether

he has any power to convey to the regulator that the figure of 4.2 million tonnes is aspirational rather a maximum?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

On my hon. Friend's first point, I am happy to ensure that the calculations are circulated to all Committee members. I will look at them again, and if Members have concerns, I will be happy to take them up. I will also be happy to emphasise in my discussions with the regulator and others that we all want to achieve as much as possible in saving energy in the household sector.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

While debating the Utilities Act 2000, I was given similar assurances on combined heat and power, but we have had problems since. Will the Minister examine the history of CHP in light of the assurances given at that time, reflect on those that he is giving on energy efficiency now and ensure that history does not repeat itself?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I will be happy to reflect in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. We will discuss combined heat and power later, so he will no doubt raise that point again at that stage.

Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

I want to ensure that I have got things clear. The Government are making policy on the hoof. There has been a Government White Paper, the Bill has gone through the Lords and the Government have had discussions with industry, so the CO2 targets and achievable figures should already be known. We should not be consulting industry to decide them now. Will the Minister table an amendment on Report to new clause 7 to add CO2 targets so that we know what we are aiming for?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make clear that that is not what I intend to do. We already have a mechanism, through the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, which allows us to set those objectives—[Interruption.] I see from his mirth that he knows that. The figures have been set. I hope to ensure that, through the discussions that my noble Friend and I have with representatives of the industry before Report, we have the adequate dialogue with industry that we have not had until now.

We are already required to publish an annual report on progress made towards the energy White Paper's objective; that was another benefit from the Sustainable Energy Act, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East was responsible last year. To achieve our aims we will need wide participation from large numbers of interested parties. We have a vested interest in ensuring that our plans are open to public scrutiny, because that will improve them.

New clause 7 retains the principle behind clauses 2 and 3 in a way that amends the general reporting requirement in the Sustainable Energy Act, so that the relationship between the new and existing duties is clear. The proposal will require information to be provided on exactly the same list of low-carbon energy sources currently set out in clause 2. There was

discussion last week about the significance of the order in which the items occurred in that list. All we have done, to be helpful, is to reproduce the order in which they appear in clause 2.

Mr Colin Challen (Morley & Rothwell, Labour)

Why has the word ''nuclear'' appeared when the original intention of the Sustainable Energy Act was to consider renewables?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

The answer is the same as the one I gave a second ago; it is the same wording as in clause 2 of the Bill. We wanted to make minimal changes to what was already in the Bill but put it in a form that was consistent with the Sustainable Energy Act. We have not deleted things from clause 2 that members in the other place wanted to be there. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the word ''nuclear'' was included in the other place and is retained in new clause 7.

However, new clause 7 goes further in adding proposed new subsection (1B)(j), which broadens the requirement to include any other sources of energy that may help reduce carbon emissions. That will include solar energy, which was mentioned last week, and carbon capture and storage, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) in his helpful contribution on clean coal technology.

I am prepared to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), which would add coal mine methane to the list of energy sources and technologies in subsection (1B) of new clause 7. The new clause departs from clause 2 in other ways to make the provision workable: for example, it sets out the information that the Government have the ability to collect. It also provides a more realistic basis for reporting and requires the Government to publish information on what is done to ensure

''the maintenance of the scientific and engineering expertise available in the United Kingdom that is necessary for the development of potential energy sources''

listed in the subsection.

It was suggested in our debate last week that the implementation of the large combustion plant directive was going to be delayed, but that is not the case. The point made by the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment at Environment questions last week was that it is a complex directive with significant potential ramifications for large combustion plants in a range of sectors. We are taking time to reach a fully informed decision, but the implementation date is 1 January 2008, which has not changed.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Shadow Minister, Environment & Transport; Vale of York, Conservative)

What emerged from Question Time last week is the fact that there are two options available to the Government for the implementation. We very much favour some regard being paid to clean coal technology. At what point do the Government intend to consult widely with

industry to consider which option they favour, bearing it in mind that there is much support for that technology from Government Members?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

We are consulting widely and have been doing so for some months. I expect that we shall announce our conclusion in the next few weeks; we want to be able to do so by the end of June.

In amendment No. 8, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) suggests adding the term ''deployment'' alongside ''research, development and demonstration'' as areas to be reported on in relation to the energy sources listed. As he pointed out, if what I am suggesting to the Committee is agreed, his amendment would not work as clause 2 would not be there to amend. However, I am happy to table on Report a Government amendment to new clause 7 to add the term ''deployment'' in the way that he suggests. I hope that that will satisfy his concern.

New clause 8 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to set targets on curbing greenhouse gas emissions and on

''the percentage of electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources'',

together with reporting on those targets. We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. by 2012, and to reducing carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by 2010. Compared with most other European countries, we are most likely to achieve our Kyoto objectives, and I am confident that we shall.

We are committed to sourcing 10 per cent. of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2010. The devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are already promoting renewables, and my officials are working closely with officials there. However, specifying percentages of electricity to be generated by each renewable source, as the new clause does, would be too prescriptive.

One of the principles of the obligation, and one of its benefits, relates to the fact that we cannot predict exactly which technologies will be the most successful or when that will be the case, because some of those technologies are still in their infancy. It would not be helpful for us to attempt to predict precisely how much each technology would contribute some years ahead. That could hamper other developments that are not clear to us at present, but which will in due course help us to achieve our overall objective.

Mr Michael Weir (Spokesperson (Environment & Food; Health; Rural Affairs; Trade & Industry); Angus, Scottish National Party)

The Minister misunderstands the proposal. The intention is not to specify set amounts for each source of renewable energy, but to have an overall target for renewable energy and to report annually the amount from each source within that overall target. We could then see how we were progressing towards the target. Concern was expressed in the earlier debate that ambitious targets are being set without knowing whether many types of energy generation can meet those targets within the specified time scale.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on the amount of information that will be published. There is a large amount of information on the

sustainable energy policy network website and we will continue to keep that up to date over the coming months, so that people know exactly how we are progressing. Reports on how much each technology contributes will certainly be available.

One of the questions I was asked in the debate last week was how much capital funding we are providing for technologies other than wind. In the spending review period 2002-03 to 2005-06 we are making available £117 million in capital grants for offshore wind, although there are no grants for onshore wind developments. We also provide £66 million for biomass capital grants; £25 million through a major photovoltaics demonstration programme; £10 million for community and household projects; £10 million for energy research; £5 million for wave and tidal energy; and £4 million for embedded generation. In addition, we provide £19 million every year for research, development and demonstration through the new and renewable energy programme for all those technologies.

New clause 9 would add a requirement for an annual report on the commitments specified on the sustainable energy policy network website. There is already a requirement to publish an annual report. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, who tabled the new clause, is familiar with the website, which we aim to update every month. The aim of the new clause will be more than met by the arrangements that are in place.

New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish an energy efficiency aim for business and public sector buildings. I suggest to the Committee that focusing only on buildings would be unhelpful. We need to examine energy efficiency across business, including the energy efficiency of equipment and industrial processes. In the energy efficiency action plan, we have set out programmes to deliver carbon savings across business and the public sector. As I said earlier, the measures that we have introduced in that area are effective, so there is no need for a separate statutory target relating to buildings.

I have spoken at length about the Government's commitment to promoting the efficient provision and use of energy, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The danger of new clause 12 is that it would increase the likelihood of a legal challenge from those who have different views on the steps that the Government should be taking.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

Since last week, tectonic plates have shifted, to paraphrase the Deputy Prime Minister. We will shortly be invited to vote on a series of amendments that are fundamental to the Bill. The Minister will have seen the article in The Independent yesterday by the great environmental hero Professor James Lovelock, who said:

''We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear—the one safe, available, energy source—now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.''

Will the Minister let us know his thoughts on Professor Lovelock's article, which is so important to the future of energy provision?

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

That does not arise in the context of this group of amendments, although we are about to come to parts of the Bill that deal with nuclear power. I have seen the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers—

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

Don't rubbish it.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

I am not rubbishing it, but I caution the hon. Gentleman and others against believing that nuclear power is a quick fix. We need to focus our attention on making headway in the development of renewable energy. We made it clear in the White Paper that we might need to consider the prospect of new nuclear power, but at present the economics are very unattractive. There are some big questions about nuclear waste still to be answered, but this is not the time to discuss them. We shall look at the matter again when we debate the next section of the Bill.

On the basis of what I have said to the Committee, which reflects hon. Members' concerns, and given my point about meeting the industry and providing further information, I hope that the Committee will accept the proposal.

Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Sayeed.

We have had a long debate over three sittings on these important clauses, and most members of the Committee have taken part, which is a welcome change, as Government Members often do not participate.

We have heard much about the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, on which I made my first speech as shadow spokesman. The speech was memorable as it took about 30 seconds to make at about half-past 2 on a Tuesday when it finally got through the Commons. The Act, too, was memorable because it was considerably weakened compared with the original drafting because targets were removed. Since enactment, an early-day motion has been tabled on strengthening the measure.

Clause 3, which has drawn a great deal of support from both sides of the Committee, is useful because it strengthens the Bill in equal measure to the weakening of the Sustainable Energy Act due to the removal of targets.

I asked the Minister to justify replacing clause 2 with new clause 7 and he has gone some way to doing so, but I must ask my hon. Friends to support clause stand part. My only slight concern, which relates to the mechanics of the Committee and how we consider amendments, is that I have considerable sympathy for amendment (a), which was tabled by the hon. Member for Sherwood and which would include coal methane in the energy sources listed in clause 2, and indeed in the Minister's new clause. I think we will have an opportunity to vote on that separately, and I shall ask my hon. Friends to consider supporting it.

We want to keep the clauses as they stand. I am becoming concerned about the position of renewables, and that point is emphasised by the intervention about nuclear energy by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Again, we can return to that

debate in the near future—probably under the next set of amendments—but it shows the position that we are in. As we discussed on Second Reading, the contribution from nuclear sources is about 22 per cent. of our electricity; in 10 years' time, that will be down to 2 per cent. There is a very long way to go between now and then to bring renewables up to speed to replace the missing 20 per cent. Even if we achieve that, we will have gone nowhere on carbon reductions, because nuclear does not contribute to carbon emissions. My hon. Friend made a good point, if prematurely, and no doubt we can return to it. I ask my hon. Friends to support the retention of clauses 2 and 3.

Mr Andrew Stunell (Chief Whip; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

I said at the previous sitting that I expected the Minister to administer ointment and balm during our discussions, and he has done his best to do so. He presented new clause 7 in the best possible light, but it still deletes the targets and limits the Government's obligation to report on matters that the Secretary of State wants to report on rather than matters that should be reported on.

I was particularly interested in the Minister's reinterpretation of 5 million tonnes as something less than 6 million tonnes but more than 4 million tonnes. I do not know whether he has ever tried that approach in a magistrates court, but I suspect that it would not get very far. I am not sure whether a group of school governors could get away with such an approach to targets with Ofsted. The reason why one could not get away with it in a magistrates court or with Ofsted is that we would be talking not simply about an aspiration, but about a legal requirement. Every member of the Committee who has spoken except the Minister wants a proper, official statutory requirement. He has disappointed us tremendously by failing to go for that.

I have said before that the difficulty is that the regulator, who has one of the principal duties to ensure that things happen, takes a narrow view of the tasks. There is no doubt that if the measure does not contain a figure, Ofgem will take the view that it can allow the market to dictate progress, and if we include a figure that is well below 5 million tonnes, Ofgem will set that as the maximum to which it is prepared to go in, as it would see it, distorting the market.

The Minister boldly said that he wanted to be aspirational, but the energy efficiency plan for action refers to the announcement of a new aim of delivering savings of 4.2 million tonnes. The figure is already aspirational and is about as woolly and floppy as it gets. He is not setting an aim, but following a trend.

The Minister made several useful points about the contribution that the commercial and industrial sectors make to energy efficiency savings. I would like to debate that in more depth on another occasion, because it raises very important issues. However, the essence of the debate on clauses 2 and 3 is whether the domestic sector, which is responsible for 30 per cent. of carbon emissions, should have more rigorous carbon reduction targets. The Minister has decided that it

should not, and that it should simply follow what current trends predict. That is bitterly disappointing to those of us who believe that a much more vigorous assault on the problem is needed. Whether there are any levers in the legislation will determine whether the regulator takes the problem seriously. The question does not solely, or mainly, concern the sources of energy that we use, but what demand we apply to the system. That is particularly true of the domestic sector, where efficiency of use is at least as important as the nature of the supplies that are delivered to it.

We seek to retain clause 3 as well as clause 2, and if the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is inclined to press new clause 9, we shall support that too. I recognise that the Minister has done his best and has made moves in the right direction, but it is difficult to see any progress. We think that coal mine methane is a sensible addition to the list, and we hope to proceed on that basis with either an amendment to clause 2 or with an amended new clause 7.

This has been a disappointing debate; I do not believe that the Minister has substantially answered my earlier charge that he misled the Committee by saying that new clause 7 is a proper substitute for clauses 2 and 3. The opportunity has been missed.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Minister has misled the Committee. Does he wish to withdraw that statement?

Mr Andrew Stunell (Chief Whip; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

I allowed my enthusiasm to run ahead of my propriety. I apologise to the Committee and the Minister.

Mr Jonathan Sayeed (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)

Is the statement withdrawn?

Mr Andrew Stunell (Chief Whip; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

Unreservedly. It is particularly unfortunate that I said that, because I have a high regard for the Minister, whom I know tries his best to give the Committee the information that he feels that we should have and to ensure that it is accurate. I therefore apologise. None the less, perhaps the remark was a measure of how disappointed and concerned my colleagues and I are that an important opportunity for what is supposed to be a Bill that will set policy for the next decade, and possibly after, has been missed. We shall seek to divide on clauses 2 and 3.

Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

On a point of order. Mr. Sayeed. I said earlier that the amount of electricity derived from nuclear sources would be down to 2 per cent. in 10 years. I apologise, but I should have said 20 years.

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (e-Commerce & Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry; East Ham, Labour)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Sayeed. The proportion of electricity derived from nuclear sources by 2020 will be about 7 per cent.

Mr Laurence Robertson (Shadow Minister, Economic Affairs; Tewkesbury, Conservative)

In 20 years—by 2024—it will be 2 per cent.

Dr Desmond Turner (Brighton, Kemptown, Labour)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for accepting the principle that there is a huge, clear distinction between the development of a machine or technology and its deployment. For instance, the

Army could have the most magnificently developed tank in the world but if it is sitting in a garage in Aldershot, it will not fight any wars until it is deployed.

I am happy with the Minister's assurance that he is prepared either to table or to accept an amendment on Report. I hope that he will resist any blandishments from his departmental lawyers trying to tell him that there is no difference between development and deployment. Lawyers are always wrong, and it is nice to serve on a Committee that is not dominated by lawyers. If there are any here, I shall say it again: lawyers are usually wrong. Given the Minister's helpful response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.