John Robertson:

I congratulate Mr. Cash on securing the debate. He has proven once again that he speaks well on not only Europe; he has given good speeches on energy—on coal today—and on water in Africa in previous debates.

The UK has billions of tonnes of coal, which we might need to use one day. It would be foolish to write off that coal completely and have the dash for gas that has been described. As my hon. Friend Mr. Clapham said in an intervention, we might end up with a span of three years in which we have to go to gas and might therefore build new gas power stations that will not meet our need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

I firmly believe that we should all try to reduce our use of oil and gas. They are finite resources, and if we are serious about securing a clean, sustainable supply of energy for future generations, we must act now. I am particularly disappointed by the Government announcement that we will be into the new year before we hear what will happen with the energy Bill and the Government’s policy on it. It was supposed to be dealt with before Christmas, but it seems to be being put back and back. That time could be used to deal with this country’s needs. If we keep putting these matters back, we will certainly end up with a dash for gas.

Angus Robertson (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster Group); Moray, Scottish National Party):

Does the hon. Gentleman share my disappointment that the Peterhead project has been put back? Does he agree that it offers a tremendous opportunity and that the Government should stop dithering on it, so that it is delivered?

John Robertson:

Yes, I am disappointed, but I am also disappointed by many things that are happening in Scotland on energy. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could influence some of his colleagues north of the border to open their eyes and consider the wider possibilities of energy there and the needs of not only the Scottish people, but people in the UK and, possibly, beyond in places where we could sell that energy.

Angus Robertson (Parliamentary Leader (Westminster Group); Moray, Scottish National Party)

On having a wider influence in the energy market, does the hon. Gentleman welcome the Scottish Government’s initiative for a super grid in the North sea? That would help to link Norway and Scotland and do exactly what he is promoting—get energy that we produce into the wider market.

John Robertson:

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but the caveat is that he assumes that the grid will give Scotland access to Norway. If we keep to our present energy policy, Scotland will be taking energy from Norway. That is why we quickly have to make a decision now and go forward.

There are huge opportunities for coal on the international market if we develop clean coal technology and carbon sequestration. It is estimated that the use of coal will rise by 32 per cent. by 2015 and by 59 per cent. by 2030. The International Energy Agency forecasts that coal will retain a quarter share of the world’s energy mix.

When we talk about coal, it is important to consider China. Coal is still the great fuel in China, where it is used in everything from power stations to the samovars for heating water on trains. The answer to China’s fuel needs is to go back to the past. China’s future fuel will still be coal.

Coal has a bad reputation: dirty, dangerous and highly polluting. The prospect of a coal-powered future may fill many with dread. China is already by far the world’s biggest producer and consumer of coal. Its 30,000-odd mines churned out more than 2 billion tonnes of the stuff last year. That is more than a third of all the coal produced in the world. The mines also cost the lives of 6,000 Chinese miners. Coal is the main reason why China is now second only to the US in the output of greenhouse gases and is soon to overtake the US.

Coal’s dirty reputation may be about to change, however. China has given the go-ahead for the construction of several huge new projects to turn dirty coal into clean gas. A company not far from my constituency, Babcock, is one of the leading lights in the technology. I hope that we do not allow another country to get ahead of us by taking the technology in which we were once the experts and cashing in on it in the future. It is important that we as a country get behind coal gasification. We have understood for years that it is one way to make money for this country.

With oil prices now more than a barrel, it has finally become profitable to use coal again, but we have to build multi-billion-dollar plants to be able to use it and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the levels that will be acceptable in the future.

William Cash (Stone, Conservative):

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would not be a terribly good idea if we went for gasification and it led to a forest of derricks. In other words, there is a way to draw gas without environmental disruption.

John Robertson:

The hon. Gentleman is right, but that technology is still a long way down the road. Unfortunately, our needs are now and not in the future. We should never throw the baby out with the bath water. We must consider everything and exclude nothing.

According to the experts, the new mega-plants will take dirty, sulphur-rich coal and turn it into clean, sulphur-free gases, such as methane, which will be ready to be liquefied and put into the tanks of China’s millions of cars or burned it its power stations.

On energy policy, it is no surprise that I, as the chairman of the all-party group on nuclear energy, support a fully balanced energy policy. I am concerned that we may miss opportunities by delaying decisions to allow the private sector to build nuclear power plants. We may end up depending on gas for the vast majority of our energy sources. If China is on the road to investing in clean coal technology, why are we not? The Chinese have announced ?10 billion of investment in renewable energy; therefore, why can we not do so?

Reducing the use of oil and gas is a sensible option. Any further delay will only increase our dependence on foreign gas. The hon. Gentleman identified in great detail the problems in respect of not just energy, but national security.

I hope that the Minister will indicate how the Government view the situation. I believe that China can be an example, not a threat. We must consider why it is investing money in new coal technologies, and why it has entered into a billion agreement with a French company, Areva, to build six new power stations, while we dither and wonder what to do with our energy policy. It is important that we get the matter sorted out quickly.

Filed under: speeches by admin