Exactly. That is why I said a maximum of 10 years' protection. I see no justification for the sunset provisions at all, in all logic, so I wish to remove them. We would then have a reasonable protective measure that would fulfil what the Government probably intended when they drafted section 185 of the 2004 Act.
I submit to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is no reason for delay in legislating to get rapid deployment of renewable energy. We need a comprehensive set of measures; new clauses 4 and 20 are clearly central to that process. Without new clause 20, new clause 4 will not be fully effective. New clause 21 is a further addition, and new clause 19 was not selected but refers to Ofgem's responsibilities. Ofgem plays a pivotal role and if its primary responsibility is sustainability, it will make a huge difference. I will not expand on that because new clause 19 was not selected, but its purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise that the Government's best course is to accept new clauses 4, 20, 21 and others. There is no question of party advantage, but potential for great advantage for the country. I therefore strongly urge my hon. Friend to accept the new clause.
Energy Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Desmond Turner
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 30 April 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Energy Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
475 c379-80 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:40:28 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_468774
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_468774
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_468774