With permission, I would like to make a statement on the final report of the NHS next stage review and the first NHS constitution. Before I do, I should like to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Darzi of Denham, who has led the process. He has done so magnificently, bringing to bear his invaluable professional experience and expertise. I thank him and the thousands of front-line clinicians who have shaped and formed the conclusions of his review.

As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the NHS this week, it is befitting that we should acknowledge its successes, secure its strengths and chart a path for its future. Created by fraternity to take the place of fear, the founding principle of the NHS was as clear as it has been enduring: that access to health care should be determined by clinical need rather than the ability to pay. The NHS has been a friend to millions, sharing their joy and comforting their sorrow. Today, the service sees or treats a million people every 36 hours, eight out of 10 people see their family doctor every year and a million more operations a year are performed than 10 years ago.

Then, the NHS was suffering from chronic under-investment. The challenges were too few doctors and nurses, poor equipment and crumbling infrastructure. Patients waited months, if not years, for treatment; waited weeks, not days, to see their GP; and measured their time waiting in accident and emergency in days and nights rather than in hours. A service whose promise was fair access for all had witnessed patients dying before they could even receive its care.

This Government resuscitated the NHS and reaffirmed its principles. Today, patients wait no more than four hours in accident and emergency, and by the end of the year they will be able to go from referral by their GP to treatment—with all the diagnostic tests in between—in no more than 18 weeks, and normally in nine. There have been considerable improvements in the quality of care received by patients and delivered by NHS staff. The improvements for cancer and heart disease alone have saved nearly a quarter of a million lives in the past 11 years. The NHS is now able to deliver the highest quality of care in many medical disciplines and settings.

The report published today heralds the next stage for the NHS: to deliver the highest quality care for all. It is underpinned by the service’s first constitution, which will empower patients by clearly articulating their many rights, bringing transparency to decision making, and securing its founding principles for generations to come.

The review has been led by front-line clinicians in every NHS region. Seventy-four local clinical working groups, made up of some 2,000 doctors, nurses and other staff working in health and social care organisations, have developed improved models of care for their communities, from maternity and new-born to end-of-life. They are based firmly on the best available clinical evidence and extensive engagement to ensure that they reflect the needs and preferences of local people.

In common with all health systems around the globe, the NHS faces some significant challenges: ever higher expectations; greater demand driven by demographics; the transformational power of better information; the changing nature of disease and treatment; and rising expectations of the health workplace. The report puts the NHS on the front foot, seizing the opportunities that those challenges present, rather than simply reacting to their consequences.

Meeting those challenges demands that the NHS do more to help people stay healthy and to give them more information, choice and control over their health and health care. Every primary care trust will now commission comprehensive well-being and prevention services to meet the specific needs of their local populations.

Preventing vascular conditions such as diabetes, stroke and coronary heart disease has the potential to save thousands of lives. Today, some 4.5 million people are afflicted by vascular conditions, accounting for more than 170,000 deaths every year. We will launch a new Reduce Your Risk campaign to raise awareness and understanding as a precursor to the national vascular screening programme for everyone aged 40 to 74 that will begin next year.

Improving the health of individuals and families will become an increasing focus for GPs. We will work with professionals and patient groups to improve the world-leading quality and outcomes framework to develop better incentives for maintaining good health as well as providing good care.

As much as the NHS will do more to help people to stay healthy, it will also become a service that responds more rapidly and effectively to the people who use it. Patients will be given more rights and control over their health and care. They will have greater choice of GP practices, with better information to make the best choices for themselves and their families. That will be delivered by a fairer funding system that gives better rewards to GPs who provide responsive, accessible and high-quality services. Choice will not simply be a policy of Government but a right secured for all through the first NHS constitution.

The constitution will guarantee patients access to drugs and treatments approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. We will give greater support to NICE to increase the speed of its appraisals process so that new guidance is consistently issued more quickly. Primary care trusts will have a new duty to provide transparency in their decisions and clear explanations to the public. Those measures proclaim an end to the postcode lottery in NICE-approved drugs and treatments.

The rights will be accompanied by more personal control for patients, harnessing their ingenuity to improve their health and care. Every patient with a long-term condition will be offered a personalised care plan, jointly agreed by the patient and a named professional, so that services are organised around the needs of individuals. For the first time, we will pilot personal health budgets that give individuals and families the fullest control over their care.

All the measures announced here today are designed to improve the quality of care that patients receive. It is essential that quality is understood from a patient’s perspective. The measures pay regard to experiences as much as effectiveness, with safety as a given. Patients want to be treated in environments that are safe and clean, and to be shown respect and regard, compassion and kindness. The highest clinical quality can be undermined by letting the simple things slip.

We must have an unwavering, unrelenting and unprecedented focus on quality. Our approach will be dedicated and disciplined, putting quality at the heart of everything that the NHS does. We will begin by bringing clarity to quality, ending the daunting and frustrating confusion that is caused by the morass of standards. NICE will be transformed to select the best available standards, fill the gaps and establish a new NHS evidence service, which will ensure that best practice readily flows to the front line.

We can only be sure to improve what we can measure. Information can unlock local innovation by showing clinical teams where their greatest opportunities lie. We will create a national quality framework, so that every provider of NHS services systematically measures, analyses and improves its performance. Front-line teams will be supported by a new set of graphically illustrated quality measures that will inform the daily decisions that lead to improvement, known as a clinical dashboard. [Interruption.] I did not invent the title; clinicians did.

The power of information will be provided to the public. We will legislate so that all providers of NHS services will be required by law to publish quality accounts, just as they publish financial accounts, which will detail the quality of care that they provide for each and every service, and easy-to-understand comparative information will be made available online. For the first time, improvements to quality will be recognised and rewarded. Patients’ own assessments of the success of their treatment and the quality of their experiences will have a direct impact on payments.

We will harness the expertise and experience of clinicians, to raise standards by ensuring strong clinical involvement at every level of the NHS. New medical directors will be appointed to join existing nursing directors in every NHS region. They will be supported by clinical advisory groups to sustain and support the strong clinical voice elevated through the review. Nationally, a new quality board will be formed to provide leadership, advise Ministers on top clinical priorities for standard setting and make an annual report on the state of quality in England compared with that of international peers. There will be strong safeguards for quality, with no hiding place for those who fail to get the basics right on issues such as infection. I have already announced that the Care Quality Commission will have tough new enforcement powers to tackle infections and other lapses in patient care.

Finally, we know that health care works at the edge of science, constantly creating new ways to cure and care for patients. The NHS has long been a pioneer, but too often too few NHS patients have benefited. We will create an environment in which excellence and innovation can flourish. That is why the report heralds new partnerships between the NHS, universities and industry to achieve the very best care for patients. This ambitious agenda to improve quality for patients can succeed only by unlocking the talents of the front line. We will ensure that NHS staff have the freedom to focus on quality, empowering them to improve services.

Clinicians have abilities that go beyond clinical practice alone. Our new expectations of professionalism redefine their role as practitioners, partners and leaders in and of the NHS. We will unlock clinicians’ creativity and innovation, give greater responsibility for the stewardship of resources and proclaim a new obligation to lead change where the evidence shows that it will improve quality.

These noble objectives will be supported by pragmatic action. Our journey of setting the front line free from central direction will continue, our commitment to foundation trusts remains strong and we will extend similar freedoms to community services. We will free up their talents by introducing a right to request to set up a social enterprise. All primary care trusts will have an obligation to consider these requests, and staff choosing to join such organisations and continuing to care for NHS patients will be able to retain their NHS pensions.

With greater freedom will come a newly enhanced accountability. The report sets no new targets; our approach will be openness on the quality of outcomes achieved for patients, meaning accountability for the whole patient pathway, from beginning to end. NHS staff are the service’s most precious asset. We will more clearly illuminate how highly we value them by making new pledges to all staff in the NHS constitution: on work and well-being; on learning and development; and on involvement and partnership. All NHS organisations will have a statutory duty to have regard to the constitution.

Furthermore, the system for education and training will be reformed by working in partnership with the professions. We will open a new chapter in our relationship with the medical profession by establishing Medical Education England. We will increase our investment in nurse preceptorships threefold, so that newly qualified nurses will be given more time to learn from their senior colleagues. We will pay higher regard to the contribution of non-clinical staff—the porters, administrators and others who are the backbone of the service—by doubling our investment in apprenticeships, and we will strengthen arrangements for learning and development so that all staff have access to the opportunities that they need to update and enhance their skills. Following today’s publication of the final Next Stage Review report, we will over the course of this week publish supporting documents that set out in more detail our proposals on primary and community care, for the work force and for informatics.

Finally, let me turn to the first NHS constitution. The changes outlined by the review will improve quality, but the best of the NHS—its enduring principles and values, and its defining rights and responsibilities—must be protected for generations to come. Patients and the public should be empowered by the clear expression of their rights in relation to the NHS, and the value of staff should be fully recognised. Decision making should be transparent and accountability strengthened. It is right and proper that a national health service, funded by national taxation, should remain accountable in and to Parliament. These goals are accomplished by our draft constitution, which we will publish for consultation today.

Our proposal is to legislate so that all NHS bodies, and independent and third sector providers of NHS services, must take account of the constitution in their decisions and in their actions. The Government will be required to renew the constitution every 10 years, involving the patients who use it, the public who fund it, and the staff who work in it. No Government will be able to erode or undo the fundamental basis of the NHS without the consent of the people’s elected representatives.

Safe in the knowledge that the best of the NHS shall not perish, we will pursue our ambition to deliver the highest-quality care to all—not in some respects, not in many respects, but in all respects. On its 60th anniversary, after a decade of investment the NHS has the most talented array of staff in its history, united in their ambition. High-quality care for all is now within our reach. The report charts a path towards its achievement, and I commend it to the House.

The 60th anniversary is a time to thank the staff of the service. It is a moment at which we should reiterate the values of the NHS, which command support on both sides of the House. We should also ensure that the NHS is fit for purpose in the 21st century. This is an opportunity to show vision and leadership for the NHS. It is a chance to create an NHS that is genuinely patient-centred and evidence-based.

Regrettably, however, the work of the clinical pathway groups around the country has been overlaid by a continued bureaucratic, top-down system. In place of vision, we get another list of initiatives: some old, some new, some borrowed, and quite a lot of them blue. The vision should be that we raise the quality of health care in this country so that it becomes among the best in Europe. Our cancer survival rates are below the European average, our mortality rates from heart disease and stroke are above it, and our lung disease mortality rates are truly shocking. While focusing on that vision and holding the NHS to account for patient outcomes, we must at the same time set the NHS free from distorting top-down process targets.

The Secretary of State, however, is confused. He says that there will be more outcome measurements, but no new targets—yet he clings to all the existing targets, and the policy will not work unless it is geared to outcomes. If managers are still geared to targets, they will continue to distort clinical decisions in pursuit of them. If the Secretary of State does not propose to scrap the targets, how can we believe that the outcome measurement will drive the policy? Yet he says nothing about scrapping those targets. Clearly, other parts of the Blairite agenda have been dropped, as there is nothing in the statement about practice-based commissioning, foundation trusts or independent sector treatment centres. If they are all on the back-burner and the Blairite agenda has gone, why does the Secretary of State cling to targets?

The Government have followed our lead in proposing an NHS constitution, but where in that is the incorporation of NHS values? Why have two of the NHS principles set out in the NHS plan—continuity in respect of those principles would help the NHS—gone missing, including the principle that the NHS will support and value its staff? If it is a real constitution, where are the definitions and duties of NHS bodies; and where is the operational autonomy and independent regulation so essential to a more autonomous and patient-centred service? A constitution needs to be more than a patients charter, important as such patients’ rights are. If the NHS continues legally to be whatever the Secretary of State decides it is, the power will still live in the Department of Health, which is clearly what the Department of Health intends.

Will the Secretary of State look again not so much at these documents today, but at the performance regime document that he published last month? It describes strategic health authorities as

“the local headquarters of the NHS”

and it gives them power to control their areas. We can see what that means, as the Darzi review document proposed 21 new bodies at a regional level for the East of England SHA. The Secretary of State talks about local decision making, so will he stop the regionalisation of the NHS and the growth of a new regional bureaucracy on top of everything else?

The Secretary of State proposes to create Medical Education England, but he views it as an advisory body, not as the body responsible for commissioning medical education and training to meet work force needs, as agreed between health care employers and staff. The real power of commissioning is given to—guess who—the strategic health authorities. The plan claims to be bottom-up, so will the Secretary of State abandon the top-down insistence on polyclinics and let the local NHS decide how primary care services are best provided? How can the Secretary of State talk about GP access and then want to shut down local and accessible GP surgeries? Clinicians care about continuity of care, so why do the Government undermine it?

On health care-associated infections, where is the zero-tolerance strategy that patients are demanding? If the South East Coast SHA can pledge in its Darzi review that there will be no avoidable cases of hospital-acquired MRSA by 2011, why cannot others? Why are C. difficile rates in the UK 10 times those of other health economies?

Apparently, the Government are claiming that they will promote home births. How can that be so when 15 local maternity units have been closed or have lost their obstetric service and 26 more are threatened? The simple fact is that if obstetric care is taken further away, home births or birth centres simply cannot be offered.

The Secretary of State has followed our lead in a number of areas: extending personal budgets to include some patients with long-term conditions; enabling palliative care patients to choose where their care is provided; and publishing more data on outcomes reported by patients. Let us be clear about outcome measurement. Mortality rates for hip replacements are of limited value. Patient-reported outcomes need to extend to subsequent information on mobility, return to work, ability to look after oneself and absence of pain. Narrow outcome measures are only a little better than narrow targets.

The Secretary of State said nothing about public health services. Obesity, binge drinking, drug misuse and resurgent infections threaten our health and the future of the NHS. Health inequalities are widening. Improving public health is critical to long-term health outcomes and the ability of the NHS to meet demands successfully. The lack of preventive action is a scandal, yet no response in today’s statement is remotely proportionate to the challenge.

The Secretary of State also now says that patients will not be subject to a postcode lottery. How often have Members heard that? Time and again. In reality, there is nothing new in what he announced today. It is already the case that primary care trusts should not refuse access to drugs on cost grounds alone while awaiting evaluation from NICE. If NICE approves a drug, they are already obliged to make it available within the NHS within three months. Last year, the Government promised to speed up NICE evaluations, yet today we are still among the countries with the slowest uptake of new medicines, despite being world leaders in research.

We thank all those who have contributed to the review. The local clinical work will be valuable, but we must regret the fact that the Government appear unable to recognise that quality in the NHS depends on responding to patients’ needs and expectations, the exercise of choice within a competitive environment, the freedom to innovate and a focus on the importance of outcomes for patients. It does not require—indeed, it will be impeded by—top-down process targets, excessive bureaucracy, incoherent policies and a command-and-control approach.

Modern health care demands that we free the NHS to deliver outcomes and quality for patients. That is the best diamond jubilee gift we could give to the NHS.

I am very disappointed by that response, particularly as so many clinicians—not just the 2,000 who have been working with Lord Ara Darzi, but 60,000—have had an input into this. Those visions, for which today’s final report from Ara Darzi is the enabling report, were developed locally, not dreamed up in a strategic health authority. The hon. Gentleman attacks it on the basis that there is too much top-down bureaucracy—

There is too much.

The hon. Lady says that there is, but this is an example of our having freed up clinicians and people working in the health service, patients and carers, the staff and the public to set out their framework for the future.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) says that we should scrap the targets. The position of Conservative Members is that there should be no greater access to GP surgeries, no 18-week maximum wait for surgery and no maximum of four hours in A and E. He mentioned the patients charter. I have the patients charter in front of me. What does it refer to? This, after 16 years of Conservative government:

“For hip or knee replacements and cataract operations, a waiting time guarantee of 18 months”.

It was signed by Baroness Bottomley in 1995. What did the Conservatives go on to say? They said:

“From April 1995, the NHS is broadening”

this

“to cover all admissions to hospital.”

[Interruption.] The point is that we could have done with someone setting some targets, getting to grips with the issue, before we came into government, but that is the best that they could offer after 16 years in power— 18 months of waiting.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also said that we followed the Conservative lead on the constitution. I am sorry, but I have traced this back to a Fabian pamphlet produced by my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport long before the ideas from the Opposition were put forward in relation to this independent NHS. They want the NHS to be a giant unelected quango—an idea that was ridiculed again this week by The Lancet, as well as by the King’s Fund and every other organisation that has looked into it.

The hon. Gentleman then said that we should have bottom-up solutions. Polyclinics were developed in London by London clinicians, in a part of the world where 54 per cent. of GPs are either single or double-handed, where a third of all practices do not even have disabled access and where 50 per cent. of A and E cases involve people who should be in primary care.

The Opposition reject a local solution enabling GPs to come together in services that can provide diagnostics, blood tests and X-rays, or to stay in their own services while being linked through a hub-and-spoke system. It is preposterous that the Opposition should oppose a move envisaged by Bevan in 1948.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of maternity units. For the first time in 40 years, we stood up for clinicians in Manchester who said that three large neonatal specialist units were needed at the expense of four other units in the area. That will save the lives of between 30 and 40 babies a year, and will cost an extra £60 million. The Opposition were first against it and then for it, but the reconfiguring of services means that clinicians are able to say “This is how best to improve patient care”. Although the Opposition’s response is disappointing, it will not stop us from working with clinicians, staff, patients and carers to improve the quality of care in the NHS.

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. It contained much in terms of aspiration on which we can all agree—it refers to the pursuit of quality and prevention in health care, access to medicines and the importance of empowering patients—but the main issue is how those goals can be achieved. There was little, if anything, in the statement to suggest that the Government have learned that change cannot be dictated from Whitehall.

I was given a copy of the original leaflet informing the public about the national health service back in 1948. It contains a section about health centres, which states:

“Doctors may be accommodated there instead of in their own surgeries”.

I suppose that what goes around comes around, but is not the current imposition of GP-led health centres, or polyclinics, yet more evidence that the Government have not learned that this issue cannot be approached through command and control from Whitehall?

The Secretary of State has previously acknowledged the democratic deficit and lack of accountability in the health service. He is still the only democratically accountable person in the service: nothing has changed as a result of his statement. Have they got to him, or does he still acknowledge the democratic deficit in the NHS?

We strongly agree about the need to speed up access to drugs and to speed up the NICE process, but what about all the drugs already on the market that have not been NICE-approved? It seems to me that the postcode lottery will remain with a vengeance in the case of all the drugs that came on to the market before NICE existed. Does the report contain any proposals to examine the criteria that NICE applies in deciding whether to approve a drug? It is currently not possible to take into account the interests of carers and others in relation to dementia drugs, and despite a recommendation from the Select Committee on Health, there was nothing about that in the statement.

As for the constitution, although I endorse the case for clarity on rights and responsibilities, will patients be given legally enforceable rights or is this a “motherhood and apple pie” statement of ultimately meaningless intent? What will be done, for example, to end the scandal of the mixed-sex wards that still exist in our hospitals, particularly in the mental health sector?

I am very concerned about the lack of any reference to mental health in the statement. The Secretary of State will be aware of yesterday’s devastating analysis of the state of mental health services by the new president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The 18-week target is absolutely irrelevant to anyone with a mental health problem. Can it be right for this to continue? Is it not bizarre that patients will have a legal right to a drug to suppress their condition, but no right to the treatment that could cure them? Surely that is ridiculous.

The statement also made no reference to tackling the health inequalities that scar our country to this day, and appear on many indices to be worsening. Is that no longer a priority for the Government? Surely if it were a priority, it would have been headlined in the statement.

The statement contained much good rhetoric—and much good new Labour rhetoric, such as the reference to a “clinical dashboard”. I was, at least, relieved that the Secretary of State denied any responsibility for that ludicrous concept. The proposals have good aspirations, but also some notable and serious omissions. One is left with the sense that, when the dust has settled, nothing much of significance will change.

The hon. Gentleman at least damns the proposals with faint praise. He is wrong about dictating from Whitehall. There has been an ongoing debate about that within the NHS for 60 years. The original concept of the NHS—this was also central to the debate within the Cabinet at the time between Morrison and Bevan—was that hospitals should be taken out of the control of local municipalities and charities. Bevan’s vision for the national health service was one that, in a sense, needed to be driven from the centre. I accept, as we all do, that what we are discussing today is not simply a question of providing more autonomy, but of how we do that in a system that we might describe as one of subsidiarity, in which the centre still has a responsibility through elected politicians to ensure that, for instance, waiting times and health care-acquired infections are tackled and that pay is determined centrally. What the public said time and again as we went through this process is that, in terms of health, they are not as concerned about devolving to the local level as they are about ending the postcode lottery and of having a more uniform system from the centre. That is what the debate is about.

The hon. Gentleman talked about accountability. In terms of the constitution—I think this is what he was referring to—we looked at whether we should impose greater accountability on primary care trusts. In the end, we decided that a lot is happening at the moment and we should not impose something from the centre, and I was delighted to discover that the Local Government Association—it set up a commission on which the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), a previous Secretary of State, sat—came to the same conclusion. It said:

“On balance, further restructuring of PCT boards or changes to”

their

“responsibilities…would be an unfortunate distraction and likely to do more harm than good in the short to medium term”.

We agree. That is not to say that what is happening in terms of accountability—foundation trust models, councillors sitting on the local board of the PCT—should not continue. We just should not impose something over the top from the centre.

When the hon. Gentleman reads the document, he will see that it covers some of the matters he referred to, including the clinical dashboard—which I assure him surgeons and clinicians love, so those who wish to interfere with it, do so at their peril. He mentioned health inequalities. First, it is important to mention—as Professor Michael Marmot, the world-renowned expert on this, points out—that the health of everyone in the UK has got better. If the basis had been just the health of the poorest improving in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality, we would not just be closing a 10 per cent. gap, but we would have closed the gap completely since 1997; but, quite rightly, the health of other, more prosperous, groups has improved. We published the health inequalities strategy two weeks ago. There is a reference to the minimum practice income guarantee, which is important because that militates against health inequalities.

On mental health, all the eight clinical pathways from maternity through to palliative care looked at mental health as well, and mental health also had its own group. Also, in all the 10 reports from each of the regions around the country, mental health is dealt with in terms of the right for people with long-term conditions to have a care plan, the right to get much better practice into local and community practice and the right for patients to be empowered over their own care. That applies to mental health as much as to any other form of illness.

I welcome the statement, but may I ask about the polyclinics and their relationship to general practitioners? In my area, they wrote an open letter to the local newspaper criticising the polyclinics. I think they are a pretty good idea, but how are we going to get the GPs to work with the polyclinics, because many people do not realise that they are private operators within the health service?

The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) mentioned the 1948 leaflet that went through every door and that said that health centres would come eventually. They never did, either through lack of funding or professional opposition. What would really help would be to get away from the deliberate misconception about these centres. The first argument is that they will all have 25 GPs. They will not—they will have about five. The second argument is that people will have to leave their own GP to go there. Wrong—people can go to one of the GP-led health centres and still remain registered with their GP. The third argument is that they will all be run by private companies. Obviously, there is a tendering process and we want to see quality, particularly in under-doctored areas, where we are increasing the number of GPs to provide a proper service. However, we expect the vast majority to be run by GP consortiums. Once people see that all these dreadful distortions—in part, exaggerated by the Conservative party—are just not true and that we are increasing capacity, they will see that this is a frankly long overdue increase in capacity in primary care.

One reason why people in my area of Waltham Forest are very resistant to any of these new plans is that, rather like many other people, they have just survived a “fit for the future” programme that was a disaster, in which the PCT managers rode roughshod over all the public’s views and attempted to close down one of their hospitals. That was stopped eventually, such was the outcry, but they remain very sceptical about this.

For example, people are told that, in north-east London, stroke centres will save lives, but we know now from clinicians that unless someone gets to a stroke centre within two hours and starts the treatment, it will have no further effect on them and they might as well be at their local hospital. Given the problem of diagnostics, is not the reality that this will not apply at all to the majority of stroke victims?

I am sometimes confused whether people want central command and control. The one consistent thing through all 10 SHA reports is the need to specialise in heart disease, stroke disease and serious traumas. Now, right across London and around the country, there is a real focus, and the stroke strategy that we published in December was probably the most widely welcomed Government health document that we have ever seen. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire praised the philosophy behind it. So it is no good pretending that people will get as good stroke care in hospitals where the clinicians experience these problems only once in a blue moon. They need specialist care, and that is how we are beginning to bring down the number of deaths from strokes and to ensure that we compare favourably with all the health services in Europe.

Between the poorest parts of my constituency and the better-off parts of Bolton, there is 15-year mortality gap. To address that problem, Bolton PCT has just launched a major programme to screen by March next year all 45-year-olds—44,000 altogether—who have not had basic health checks recently. Will my right hon. Friend send Bolton PCT his congratulations, along with mine? In 1997, its precursor would not have had the resources that it has today to carry out such programme.

I send my congratulations to Bolton PCT. Again, here there is a mix between what is done nationally—for example, the smoke-free legislation that we introduced a year ago, which was not an easy decision to make—and the action that takes place locally. In my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine, we see terrific initiatives to tackle deeply entrenched problems of health inequalities. I congratulate Bolton PCT and all the other PCTs across the country that are getting to grips with this issue.

What does the Secretary of State’s statement offer in the way of hope for a more human and humane service to the cancer patient in my constituency who received the most appallingly cold and bureaucratic letter telling him that he cannot have the drug? When he wants to see a doctor in the middle of the night, someone comes and, with satellite navigation, eventually finds their way to the house but has no knowledge of the patient and little knowledge of the language. What does the statement offer that man?

The hon. Gentleman touches on some of the issues. Irrespective of what else happens in the NHS, his constituent will feel let down by it. There will always be treatments that do not go through the NICE process or are still undergoing the appraisal process. In those circumstances, it is up to the PCT to make a decision. What we say in the constitution is that a patient now has a right to a proper explanation of why a treatment has been denied. They also have the right to ensure that they are treated with dignity, respect and compassion. Those things can be measured. The press were talking about the size of a nurse’s smile, but the Royal College of Nursing supports us on this because although safety and effectiveness can be measured, compassion and dignity are equally important to patients’ experience. We can measure those factors through patient surveys and ensure that the quality of care improves for everybody.

I welcome the statement and the fact that my right hon. Friend has reiterated that future Secretaries of State will remain responsible for the framework and accountable for the future of the NHS. The Opposition seem to want to do away with national targets, but can he explain how we could set a national framework without targets? Does he ever envisage a day when a Secretary of State will come to the Dispatch Box and say, “It’s not my fault, mate: it’s all the local people taking decisions.”? What is being proposed is a free-for-all in the NHS, which is where we were in 1997, when we had an internal market that did not provide a consistent service across the country, and passports that would have taken money out of the NHS to subsidise the private sector. It is only this Government who are protecting the NHS and only a national framework that will do so.

My hon. Friend is right. Waiting times were the major concern in every survey. Patients were dying on waiting lists of more than two years. I have quoted the best that the Conservatives could do after 16 years in government—it was a disgrace. Getting hold of that situation and reducing waiting lists to an average of nine weeks—and a maximum of 18 weeks—for all the diagnostic tests and so on by the end of this year will be a major achievement. Of course we need to ensure that the NHS is clinically led and locally driven, but that does not release me as Secretary of State, or us as a Parliament, from our responsibility for ensuring that we have a national health service providing a uniform quality of care across the country.

Ever since the Labour Government were converted to the principles of reform, Ministers—including the present Secretary of State—have expressed support for patient choice and competition between providers. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that he is not moving away from that by now insisting on using the words “empowerment” and “transparency”, and adding a load of management consultancy jargon and the legalism of a constitution written by whoever prepared his statement for him today? If he wishes to make a reality of local patient-based services, why not just give GP practices more control over commissioning and implement practice-based budgeting? If he wants polyclinics to emerge, which they could with some benefit in London and parts of big cities where there is an obvious need for them, why does he need a centrally managed national plan to impose them—and use resources—in areas where there is not the slightest evidence of local demand or need?

For two reasons. First, for 60 years we have had the bizarre and perverse result that there are half as many GPs per head of population in the poorest areas. That is Dr. Julian Tudor Hart’s inverse care law, under which the people who need the care most are least likely to get it. We are not putting up with that any more. Putting new GP services in the 25 poorest communities in the country will tackle health inequalities, and it is essential that we do that—[Interruption.] Opposition Members say that that would have happened anyway, but it did not happen in 60 years. Incidentally, on the second point, neither has there been a GP service that patients can access from 8 am to 8 pm, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Yes, I plead guilty to saying that we should provide the funding from the centre to ensure that that happens. It has not happened since 1948, because of either a lack of funding or professional opposition. The “Anne of Green Gables” idea that if we just hand over the money to the British Medical Association it will ensure that that change happens is, frankly, ludicrous.

My final point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that there is more than one word to use. We use the simple word “choice”, as I hope that he will see, over and over again in the constitution. Practice-based commissioning needs to be developed further, and that is part of the review, but the real issue of choice comes down to the patients. We are introducing, for the first time, an element of the tariff that will be based on quality. That is an important development to drive quality through the system.

My right hon. Friend’s national vascular screening programme will be of great interest to my constituent, Kath Howitt, whose husband Glen died two years ago, very suddenly, at the tragically young age of 39 with undiagnosed high blood pressure. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the tendering process for the new GP services will not be over-burdensome and will allow innovative social enterprises, such as Local Care Direct, which offers out-of-hours GP services in Wakefield, to increase their scale and reach? Will he ensure that the tendering process allows a level playing field and does not hinder such initiatives?

I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituent. Of course, it is crucial to have this screening programme for everyone—men and women from the ages of 40 to 74, with a call and then a recall every three years. When we announced it, there was only one dissenting voice—the representative of the BMA, who said, “We don’t have the capacity.” Now we are providing that capacity, not just for that condition but for abdominal aortic aneurysms, which are one of the biggest killers of men over 65. I can assure my hon. Friend that the services will be properly tendered and will allow social enterprises, pharmacies and others to compete, although the majority of the screening programmes will take place in GP’s surgeries.

May I welcome the emphasis on quality, and particularly on compassion and kindness? The debate in the House on 17 June on polyclinics cleared the air very well and told us exactly what GP-led health centres will have to provide. It also made it clear to me for the first time that existing GPs could bid for those services. It has come to my notice that the offers of bidding have closed in some PCTs before general practices have been aware of them. Is there any way by which the length of time can be extended so that GP practices can tender on a level playing field?

Ironically, it was the Opposition who gave us the opportunity to clarify the situation by going against the propaganda that they had been putting out. I am happy that the hon. Gentleman saw that clarification. Only one contract has been awarded, and that was awarded to a social enterprise. We expect the vast majority to go to GP consortiums and there is no way that those consortiums have anything other than a level playing field as regards bidding. If the hon. Gentleman has any details about where he believes that there has been a problem, and if he writes to me, I shall look into it and try to ensure that the proper procedures take place.

May I ask my right hon. Friend how greater choice and control over health care will be extended to groups that are sometimes very vulnerable, such as people with mental health conditions, and those for whom society has generally had less sympathy, such as people with gender dysphoria? On the subject of mental health wards, may I invite my right hon. Friend to join me and visit the brand new in-patient facilities that have recently opened in south Birmingham, of which we are very proud?

I will very gladly come and look at the new facility in south Birmingham. It is important to point out that we must ensure that mixed-sex accommodation is eliminated in mental, as well as physical, health facilities. On the issue of mental health, as I said earlier, there was a specific pathway—one of the “pathways of care”, as they are termed in medical circles—on mental health. When my hon. Friend has had a chance to look at the report, she will see that the result, particularly in her area, is that there will be a complete focus on ensuring that if people are incapacitated to such a degree that they are not able fully to control their own destiny, they will have someone with them—an advocate—to make sure that the right decisions are made. As the World Health Organisation keeps saying, there is no physical health without mental health. In the report, mental health is as important as any other aspect of health.

I was a little concerned about the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the ambulance service at all in his statement. A week ago, one of my constituents called for an ambulance at 7 o’clock; by 8 o’clock, when an ambulance eventually arrived—all the ambulances were in York and Scunthorpe and were not available—she was dead. What does the Secretary of State have to say to her family, and to others who do not get the care that they need simply because there is no ambulance available for them?

I very much hope and trust that that is an exception to the normal rule, and I will look into the circumstances of that case if the hon. Gentleman would like me to do so. Ambulance services and paramedics are a crucial part of the report. When he has had a chance to look at it—I appreciate that we are talking about 10 SHA visions in every region of the country, and by an enabling report by my noble Friend Lord Darzi—he will see that the issue is crucial to ensuring quality. Paramedics and ambulance staff are even more important now, particularly as regards stroke care, which we talked about earlier. Care for a stroke patient should start at the moment when the ambulance arrives, not when the patient gets to hospital.

My friend told us that NHS staff will be able to leave the organisation and subsequently contract with it as members of a social enterprise. How many people does he think will take advantage of that offer in the next year or two, and what are the advantages of going down that road, both for the national health service and for groups of former employees?

I am not sure how many people will take up the offer. There are already three or four social enterprises across the country. When we went through the process, we found that lots of front-line clinicians, including midwives, nurses and physiotherapists, wanted to link together and set up their own organisation—and sometimes to move into adult social care as well—to avoid the bureaucracy sometimes involved in different NHS organisations working together. What stopped them was the fact that they wanted to preserve their pensions. For instance, people providing sexual health services in my patch, Hull, told me just a couple of weeks ago how much more they could do if they could set up their own organisation.

Today, we are saying that PCTs that are being difficult on the issue will have to treat a request from staff seriously. If the change goes ahead, staff will retain their NHS pensions. In addition, for the first three years, the contract will not go out to tender; the people involved will be guaranteed a clear run. I believe that lots of providers across the country will be keen to take up the suggestion. The unions are very keen for us to go a step further and ensure pension portability everywhere. That is much more difficult. Ensuring that portability in social enterprises is easy; for the independent sector, it is very difficult.

Forty per cent. of children who die of cancer die of a brain tumour, yet it takes longer to diagnose a brain tumour in this country than it does in many other countries in Europe, or in the United States. How will the review help to push brain tumours up the national health service’s list of priorities ?

Once again, when the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to look at the eight clinical pathways, one of which included the issues of paediatrics and children’s care, he will see that there are some really important developments. Strategic health authorities and local clinicians are saying, “If we were empowered to do things differently, we could improve services and do what we need to do, not just nationally, but locally.” There is a clear concentration on improving children’s health as part of that clinical pathway.

The modern equivalent of outright opposition to the NHS in 1948 is the professional cynicism that we hear today from the Opposition and, indeed, from some parts of the medical profession. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that some doctors—some, only a few—talk as if healthier patients are a threat to their livelihood? Will he assure me that over the next few days and weeks he will spend his time not in defending the health service but in proselytising the advantages that it brings to patients, communities and the people who work in it?

I can proselytise for England, and will do so for the national health service, which is very precious. Yes, there are disputes, disagreements and so on with organisations and individuals but, basically, there is a huge buy-in to the next 60 years being even better than the past 60. I believe that we can work together with all organisations, whoever they represent, to make this vision work and improve patient care for everyone.

The Secretary of State talked about GPs providing “responsive, accessible, and high-quality services”, so will he take this opportunity to remove the axe that he has placed over the level of service provided by rural GP practices in my constituency that run their own dispensaries, which he plans to close down if there is a pharmacy near by? One of them has written to me saying that that would involve making redundant two salaried doctors, cancelling all phlebotomy services and discontinuing ECGs, 24-hour blood pressure monitors and 24-hour heart monitors. If he is genuinely concerned about GP services, why is he continuing with this mad plan?

That is myth No. 380 from the Opposition. What we have announced in the pharmacy White Paper is a consultation to look at dispensing pharmacies, principally because we need to ensure that patients have a proper choice. All the things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in Hansard are absolute, complete, undiluted poppycock. We are not proposing any such thing. [Interruption.] Poppycock is the mildest word I could find. People should not be frightened of a consultation that concentrates, not on vested interests—I know that Opposition Members are absolutely imprisoned by vested interests—but on the good of the patient.

We now come to the main business, which consists of Opposition day debates. I inform the House that I have selected the amendments to both motions in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House acknowledges that the security of the UK’s energy supply has become of increasing importance over the last five years; understands that with over eight GW of coal and a further seven GW of nuclear generating capacity coming offline in the next decade the UK faces a potentially serious energy gap by 2016; regrets that with only 2 per cent. of the UK’s energy needs coming from renewable sources, the UK is one of the worst performers in Europe; notes that the Government’s own Renewables Advisory Board has established that the UK is set to miss its EU renewables target for 2020 even with significant policy changes; further notes that, as an island nation, the UK has major potential as a source of wave and tidal energy; deplores the fact that the Marine Renewables Deployment Fund has not delivered monies to a single project since its creation in 2005; regrets that the Government’s latest Energy Bill contains insufficient provisions for feed-in tariffs for microgeneration, the fast roll-out of smart meters or any serious help for the fuel poor; and urgently presses the Government to act now to secure the UK’s energy supplies for the future.

At the heart of this debate is the need of the entire world to wean itself off its extreme dependency on oil. I say that as a former oil trader and as someone who has been steeped in the industry for more than 20 years. May I therefore declare my interest in the sector, and make reference to my declarations in the register, the annual printed version of which is due to be printed soon?

We have called this debate to discuss an issue on which our economic survival depends. The security of our energy supplies, whether for lighting our homes, fuelling our cars or powering our industry should always be one of highest priorities. But now, as we look ahead to the next 10, 20 or 50 years, there are uncertainties and complications that never existed for previous generations, including rapid growth in the demand for energy, and the threat of a drastic climate change caused by burning fossil fuels. So, when we talk about energy security, we must acknowledge that there are three dimensions: supply security, climate security and price security. The need to resolve those three problems has become extremely urgent, and so far, a chronic lack of decision making has seriously compromised our ability to act and to adapt as needed.

Our understanding of the issue has dramatically changed over the past 20 years. I remember working with an oil company that used to specialise in supplying heating oil in winter to the fuel poor. Its promotional gizmo comprised a small Perspex cube containing a small quantity of oil, and printed on the outside was its proud slogan, “Thank you for making the world a warmer place”. I do not know what the company would happily print there today, because the whole world seems to be heating up.

The debate takes place against a background of record prices and the inevitability of further increases. Gas prices are trading at 59p today and at 107p for the first quarter of 2009, which will have a massive impact on consumers. It is widely expected that gas prices will increase by as much as 40 per cent. by the winter and that electricity prices will do so by only marginally less. That could increase the numbers in fuel poverty by up to 1 million and cause huge pain to households throughout the country, so it is clear that price security and energy security go hand in hand.

We recognise that the United Kingdom has been lucky over the past century. We were at the centre of a western-dominated system of global trade and finance that brought not only huge social and economic benefits, but underpinned our role as a formidable force on the international stage. Through a quirk of geology, we enjoyed the good fortune of having an enormous amount of natural resources at our disposal—first coal, and then oil. That has helped make us prosperous, but it may also have helped make us complacent.

Now, the world economy is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Gradually, the centre of gravity is shifting eastwards, and China and India have developed faster than many people could ever have imagined, opening up new trading corridors and creating flows of capital that completely bypass the west. Each extra 1 per cent. of economic growth results in a 1.5 per cent. increase in the demand for energy, creating unprecedented global pressure on energy demand, so we are no longer assured of being at the head of the queue for the vital commodities that sustain our economic growth. Whereas 15 years ago we may have looked to the North sea for our energy requirements, the decline of production from the continental shelf has exposed us more and more to the variables of global markets.

Does my hon. Friend agree that on the question of how to generate more power from non-carbon sources, it is highly likely that, come the next general election, we will still have no more decisions than we have today, after 11 wasted years?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of taking early and urgent decisions about new investment. That is exactly the point that I and my colleagues want to address and, as I often say to the Secretary of State, we endeavour to do so in a spirit of cross-party agreement, because if we form the next Government, as we hope to, it is essential that investors know that there will be continuity for their investments.

But has it not been obvious for some time that great economies, such as India’s and China’s, have been expanding fast and, inevitably, would want their share of those precious resources? Should not the Government have understood that point and done something—taken action—to provide for our future energy needs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about appreciating that our electricity generating capacity and equipment would to need to be replaced, and quickly, but to be fair to the Opposition, and occasionally I am—

We are the Government.

I am sorry; I am getting ahead of myself—two years ahead. I am always ahead of my time.

No one—not even the experts—could have predicted the ferocity of the increase in commodity prices over the past year. It was a genuine shock to our economy and to that of the entire world. We can, however, look into the future to some extent.

My hon. Friend is being generous to the Government in an unwarranted fashion. All the decisions that are being taken now in 2007-08 should have been taken in 2002-03, when the Government produced an energy White Paper that ducked all those decisions. The commodity price increases of last year apart, everything that is happening now and that we are having to deal with now was predictable.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can track a good four years of dithering and delay, for which a generation risks paying a very high price.

We can look into the crystal ball and see the big picture looming. For instance, the International Energy Agency says that between now and 2030, primary energy consumption is expected to increase by two thirds. As demand growth already outstrips supply growth, the meteoric rise in energy prices that we are witnessing is likely to be a lasting feature and not just a temporary glitch. Given that crude oil is trading at around $140 today, the UK literally cannot afford to play this global game of risk.

But we do not have to play that game. This island—with its high winds and high seas, its skilled work force trained in the energy industry, its manufacturing sector restructuring towards a high-tech and value-added model and its green financial centre in the City of London which is leading the world in carbon trading—is uniquely placed to go green and secure our energy independence. Under our Conservative vision, not only is it possible to combine energy and climate security, but that is the only practical strategic choice. However, that long-term vision can be made possible only with the political will to make big decisions. As my right hon. and hon. Friends will argue, the Government’s lack of action in the past decade has not only compromised our long-term low-carbon future, but left us vulnerable in the short term as well.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of the new emphasis on renewables and the United Kingdom’s renewables capacity. Presumably, they were also important 10 years ago. Can the hon. Gentleman remind us about the share of renewables that the Labour Government inherited from his party?

That is a slightly ridiculous question; that was such a long time ago. Renewables hardly existed 10 years ago. So much has changed in the past decade and so much could have been done.

Over the next 15 years all but one of our nuclear fleet of power stations will be withdrawn from service, a third of our coal plants will be decommissioned and we will need about 25 GW of new electricity generating capacity to keep pace with our expected needs and the predicted economic growth. As my hon. Friends have pointed out already, the Government have been aware of that impending supply gap for years. Let me remind the House of what they said in the energy review a mere two years ago. They said that if, as the modelling of the then Department of Trade and Industry suggested, the closure dates of nuclear and coal-fired power stations coincided in about 2015—and we all now know that they will—

“market participants may not be able to respond by developing and commissioning new power stations in a timely fashion.”

That was in 2006. What has happened since? We have heard a great deal about nuclear power, although new reactors are still unlikely to be operating much before 2020. However, to give credit where credit is due—I am doing my best—I recognise that the Government have worked to identify the concerns of potential investors and to put in place a framework that answers some of those concerns; I pay tribute to the work of Dr. Tim Stone in achieving that.

However, we are now waiting for talk to convert into action. In the meantime, we have added only one percentage point to our current renewable capacity, and that will not get near to meeting even the Government’s original target of 10 per cent. by 2010, let alone the targets subsequently established by the European Union. We also have a Government who seem to be intent on building a new generation of coal-fired power stations at almost any cost, leaving future generations with a massive carbon headache.

The problem for the Government is that they know that they have ducked the big decisions over the past 10 years. We have had White Papers, reviews, consultations and strategies, the latest of which—it was only a consultation—was published last Thursday, yet it still feels as though the momentum that the country needs for investment and change has hardly got beyond first base. Much of the blame attaches to the Prime Minister, who did little for the environment while Chancellor and who, now he is Prime Minister, simply does not understand energy markets. He asked Sir Nicholas Stern to write a report on climate change and then totally ignored most of its main proposals. He could have helped to establish the first UK pilot scheme for carbon capture and storage at Peterhead, but he ignored it and the project collapsed. He put £50 million into a fund to develop marine renewables, but made the conditions to access it so complex that so far not a single penny has been given away. His latest trick was to try to persuade OPEC to turn on the taps and invest its cash in our green technologies. That stunt, which turned into a humiliating begging mission abroad, showed scant understanding of what oil is or how the international commodities markets work. One cannot ask the Saudis to pump more oil when it is the wrong kind of oil and when global refining capacity is already strained, and one cannot expect the price of oil to go down when the pricing structure is far more dependent on militant attacks in Nigeria or the falling value of the dollar than on a few more barrels of Arab heavy.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I was not here at the beginning of his speech. He will know that, over the next few years, energy security across Europe is likely to become more dependent on the Russian Federation for supplies of oil and, in particular, gas. Is he as disturbed as I am by the most recent harassment of the BP joint venture by the Russian authorities, and does he believe that Europe should take a much more concentrated and united approach towards Russia on energy security?

I am reluctant to delve into areas that are better answered by someone who represents the Foreign Office or has the foreign policy brief. The relationship between BP and TKK is very complicated, and I would not like to say anything rash and silly across the Dispatch Box that might in any way jeopardise the profound discussions that are going on. In terms of security, we do not get much gas from Gazprom; a lot of it goes to mainland Europe, particularly Germany. However, the interdependence between European consumers and Russian suppliers needs to be understood, because without their markets abroad, Gazprom and the producers in Russia, the former Soviet Union, would be unable to subsidise gas supplies in their own domestic economy. It is a far more complicated picture than many newspaper commentators suggest, and we have to be very responsible in what we say.

In getting the right balance between security and greenness, does my hon. Friend agree that the signal failure of the Government is not to give sufficient weight to technology, which can play a huge role, particularly in carbon capture, where the relevant technology is available and could be brought into effect with very little delay?

I will expand shortly on carbon capture and storage, which is a crucial ingredient of this debate, as is the word “technology” that my hon. Friend used. Almost all sectors of energy production are on the cusp of a scientific revolution, whether it be the fuel cell, carbon capture, cleaner coal or, indeed, nuclear. In America, instead of having the carbon regime that we think should underpin policy here, people are putting total faith in technological change and development by investing millions, if not billions, in the science. We have chosen a slightly different path towards the same end, and each is a legitimate route. In the end, technology, above all, will address the problem that we face.

Germany, which was mentioned in the context of gas from Russia, has made strenuous efforts to diversify its energy supply. I believe that it is installing something like 130,000 photovoltaic panels a year, while we are installing only about 200. That shows that other countries have taken decisions and got on with the job of providing alternative sources of energy, while our lot have been snoozing.

One of the key differences between us and Germany, which has, in our view, encouraged the development that my hon. Friend rightly identifies, is that it has feed-in tariffs and we do not. I will return to that matter in a moment.

How can anyone believe that this Government can give the lead we need for a green energy revolution when, after 10 years in office, it is their policies that have left us 25th out of the 27 EU countries in terms of the proportion of energy we generate from renewables? The price any country might face for not taking such serious decisions is clear: economic chaos. We saw that in South Africa, where 10 years ago, the power company Eskom told the Government that unless investment was made, power cuts would follow. That warning was heeded too late. Electricity blackouts have now become a common occurrence there, and they may continue for another five years. The economic costs cannot even begin to be calculated; businesses, agriculture and tourism have all been severely affected.

Such consequences in Britain would be utterly devastating, and to avoid them, we need to act now to ensure that the market delivers our energy in a way that is not skewed towards carbon-heavy fossil fuels. Our vision for energy security is built on three key planks: going green, cutting consumption and securing supplies. It is only by driving all those factors forward at the same time that we will be able to maintain clean, reliable and affordable energy. Overall, changing behaviour and championing energy efficiency will have far and away the most significant effect on the sustainability and, therefore, the security of our energy policy. The smart meter, for instance, could become one of the most important drivers of energy efficiency in the country. We are tempted to insert a new clause in the Energy Bill, requiring all homes to be fitted with a smart meter in 10 years. We are pleased that the Government have moved forward on that general principle, following the pressure applied from both sides during the Bill’s passage through the House.

We opposed the Government’s proposal for electricity display devices on the basis that the information did not give consumers the full capacity to change their behaviour, or to sell electricity back into the grid via the use of domestic microgeneration. We are glad that the Government are no longer pushing ahead with that proposal, but valuable time has been lost while they arrived at the conclusion everyone else had already accepted.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the country faces two massive barriers that the Government must deal with very quickly? One is the planning system, which is relevant to the roll-out of renewables, because it clearly militates against making the required decisions in the time needed. What do the hon. Gentleman and his party have to say about that? The second barrier is the availability of the national grid to those wanting to put electricity into it, and its fitness for purpose in the 21st century to deliver what the hon. Gentleman, our party and, I am sure, the Government want. What does he think about that?

The hon. Gentleman’s attack on the national grid is unwarranted. It faces a massive challenge. The infrastructure has served us well over the years, and Britain has been very lucky to have a national grid. Massive challenges face the National Grid Company in investing money to cope with, for instance, a new nuclear power station with a far greater capacity than existing ones. Rather than attack National Grid, the hon. Gentleman ought to understand the challenges, and support its efforts.

On the Planning Bill, we agree that there needs to be a swifter planning process, but we were unhappy with the Bill because of the undemocratic nature of the decisions to be taken. We did not approve of the independent planning commission, and I even think that some decisions should rest with the Secretary of State. We are concerned that there is no clear explanation of how the community infrastructure levy will work, and national policy statements that do not come to this House will lack any democratic warrant. That is why we expressed concerns about the Bill.

rose—

I shall take one more intervention and then press on, otherwise I am going to go on for ever.

I am grateful. There is 9.3 GW of renewable energy waiting to come on to the national grid. What is the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policy on the national grid, considering that that huge amount of energy is waiting, never mind the energy that is queuing up behind it?

The national grid needs to be able to take the energy that is ready to come on, rather than take it from power stations in the order in which planning was applied for. It is not easy, and I suspect that there will be a shift from onshore wind, which represents most of the energy that the hon. Gentleman identifies, to greater input from offshore wind. I shall come to that in a moment, because I wish to talk briefly about the renewables obligation.

What would we do? First, we need to kick-start a renewables revolution in the UK. At the moment, that is proceeding at a snail’s pace and a lot of targets have been missed. The UK has 40 per cent. of Europe’s wind resources, but just one tenth of Germany’s 20 GW of wind capacity. That is related to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made a moment ago. The current renewables obligation has skewed investment heavily in favour of onshore wind and methane, so we support the Government’s decision to band the obligation and clear the path for the necessary massive expansion of offshore wind.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Does the hon. Gentleman mind if I press on? I think that I am taking too much time, and the time for the debate has been compressed because of the statement.

With offshore wind operating at a load factor of about 35 per cent., it is clear that the Secretary of State’s plan for 33 GW of sea-based turbines by 2020 is, to say the least, ambitious. We need a major roll-out of microgeneration for domestic households, schools, hospitals and public buildings. Even a report by the then Department of Trade and Industry estimated that we could get up to 40 per cent. of our electricity from microgeneration in the next 45 years. Even that figure lacks ambition, because ground source heat pumps, wind turbines and photovoltaic solar panels are increasing in efficiency and decreasing in cost all the time.

The best way to create a commercial market for microgeneration would be a system of feed-in tariffs. There should be no doubt about that. More than 16 countries in Europe have such tariffs, and there is about 16 times more microgeneration in those countries than here in the UK. The Government’s refusal to implement them in their latest Energy Bill is baffling. Alongside microgeneration, we need a comprehensive strategy to be implemented for the capture and use of heat. In Holland, combined heat and power became the biggest generating force in the country during the 1980s, yet UK power stations are losing £5 billion-worth of heat every year. We need to harness it as a source of energy, not dissipate it as a source of global warming.

Small-scale renewable projects do not go far enough. We still need a massive expansion of major renewable and low-carbon projects to suit the scale of the challenge that we face. Britain has an incredibly rich range of natural resources to build on. This emerald isle sits in a sea the power of which, if harnessed, could provide huge amounts of electricity to both the UK and Europe. It is clear, too, from a report by EEF, that marine technologies represent a gold mine for British companies looking to establish themselves in the low-carbon industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware, however, that there is a provision in the Energy Bill on the banding of renewables obligation certificates, which would give those undertaking demonstration offshore wind and marine renewables projects the choice of either a double-banded ROC or repaying the large grant? There is great concern among those in demonstration renewables projects that they will not proceed. What is his party’s position on that?

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern and I know that exchanges between him and the Secretary of State about that have taken place in the past. I think that the Secretary of State undertook to write to him.

However, the Government have not capitalised on our extraordinary advantages. For example, I would like an explanation of why their much vaunted marine renewables deployment fund has neither attracted significant interest nor distributed any funding in more than three years. It is all the more perplexing because Britain has more businesses engaged in developing marine energy devices than any other country. Why have the Government created eligibility criteria that are so complicated that companies simply cannot find the wherewithal to apply?

Furthermore, as was said earlier, we all recognise that coal could play a fundamental role in our future energy security. However, where we could have expected leadership, there has been muddled thinking. The Government’s delays have resulted in our one developed carbon capture programme closing down. What has happened to it? BP is working to develop it in Abu Dhabi, so a great British scientific breakthrough has been lost to this country.

The Government’s lack of vision has resulted in only one carbon capture and storage pilot project, whereas we know that there will be demand for more new coal-fired plants over the next few years. Are they to go ahead without CCS? The right and sensible way forward would be for the Government to accept our proposals for three CCS projects and move towards maximum limits on emissions so that the industry has absolute clarity about how it needs to change.

There is also the question of storage. Our onshore gas storage is currently among the lowest in Europe. Some European countries are required to retain 80 days’ worth of gas, but we have the lowest storage, yet we are at the end of the pipe. Our position contrasts starkly with that in the winter of 2005-06, when we came within days of running out of gas.

For legitimate reasons historically, which are associated largely with North sea production, we have not developed the sort of onshore storage infrastructure that is normal elsewhere. That must change. I accept the contribution that new pipelines and liquefied natural gas can make, but as our domestic gas supplies dwindle, we need to be sure that we have sufficient supplies for several weeks, not just days.

We tabled a new clause to the Energy Bill that would require the Secretary of State to make an annual statement on his assessment of our long-term storage needs and the steps that the Government were taking to deliver them. The Government’s refusal to accept the new clause again makes us fear that they will not take the necessary steps to ensure our long-term energy security.

The debate must be seen against the EU targets for renewables, which the Government negotiated. The Secretary of State knows that few people believe that they are achievable except at massive cost to businesses and households in this country. It is not a time for the Government to say that we should aim high—of course we must, but the aims must be achievable and realistic. Time after time, the Government have set targets and slid away from them as it becomes apparent that they are undeliverable. That happened with renewables and with fuel poverty targets, but the EU targets are on a different scale. The Government must explain in much greater detail the way in which we can achieve a target of generating 15 per cent. of our energy and perhaps 40 per cent. of our electricity from renewables.

What do the Government perceive as the role of marine and tidal energy? How would we achieve those targets if the Severn barrage either were deemed too damaging to the environment or was held up for years by wrangling? They need to explain how they have decided how much it will all cost. The Government’s estimate is £5 billion to £6 billion a year, but the Renewables Advisory Board estimates that the cost could be as high as £100 billion in capital investment from UK industry and property owners. Indeed, it was reported this month that Paul Goldby of E.ON believes that the Government’s green energy targets could add £400 to the average household’s fuel bills as utilities companies pass on the additional investment costs to consumers.

Of course, we want tough targets for renewables and low-carbon energy, but we also want them to be realistic and achievable so that investments are made on sound business principles to establish as much energy independence as we can, not to satisfy the EU’s arbitrary whims.

Energy security is one of the most important issues on the political agenda and its significance is growing. The various elements that make up this country’s approach to energy should not be taken in isolation. It is no exaggeration to say that, together, properly structured and implemented, they will determine our very survival. To avoid a period of profound peril 10 years hence, the decisions to avoid that peril must be taken now. Too few such decisions have been taken. For the sake of our future, we urge the Secretary of State to get on with it without delay.

I beg to move, To leave out from “House” to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

“acknowledges that the Government is addressing the recent sharp increases in fossil fuel prices, which reflect an imbalance between supply and demand in global markets, through international engagement; recognises that the UK has the most competitive energy markets among the G7 nations, as recognised by independent analysts; acknowledges the Government’s success in establishing a market framework which encourages sharp increases in gas import and storage capacity; further acknowledges the Government’s success in establishing a clear framework for investment in new nuclear generation capacity through the Nuclear White Paper, and in setting out a blueprint for a historic expansion of renewable generation through the Renewable Energy Strategy consultation; recognises the Government’s work in promoting energy efficiency as an integral part of its strategy; commends the Government’s efforts to counter fuel poverty through the Winter Fuel Payment and through securing major financial commitments from energy supply companies; notes the Government’s support for microgeneration; recognises that the Energy, Climate Change and Planning Bills will provide a legislative framework that is fit for purpose in changing market conditions and that supports the Government’s policy objectives; believes that the Opposition’s failure to show clear leadership on energy could put at risk Great Britain’s energy security; condemns their failure to support the Government’s Renewables Obligation; and deplores their opposition to the Planning Bill, which will provide greater certainty for major infrastructure building and help secure Great Britain’s future energy independence.”.

I welcome much in what the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) said, particularly his analysis of what is happening in energy markets and his appreciation of the scale of the challenge that we face in responding to it. I agree with a lot of what he said about the importance of tackling the threat of climate change, too. He is right that in some respects there is a measure of cross-party consensus in the House about the right way of dealing with those challenges. However, he will not be surprised to hear that I disagree strongly with his analysis of the actions that Her Majesty’s Government have taken so far to address those considerable challenges.

May I offer the hon. Gentleman a little bit of friendly advice? I am not sure whether he chose the topic for today’s debate or whether he was frog-marched, as it were, into tabling such a motion—we can speculate about that—but I thought that the point of Opposition Supply days was for the Opposition to showcase their policies. However, I obviously had that wrong, because I listened intently to what he said and he clearly has no policies to showcase. We heard nothing from him or in any of his hon. Friends’ interventions that shed any light on what his approach would be. In a week when his party—and, I am afraid to say, the Liberal Democrats—voted against the Planning Bill, which is probably the most important reform of recent times and which can help us to secure our country’s energy future, the hon. Gentleman has some cheek in moving his motion today.

The Secretary of State says that we have not put forward any policies. Which of our policies did he miss? Was it feed-in tariffs, smart meters, agreeing with the changes to the renewables obligation certificate or carbon capture and storage? I could continue with the list, but it would appear that he was not listening.

No, I was listening to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I want to talk about what I understand his party’s policies to be in a minute. Indeed, I wish that they were as straightforward as he is now presenting them to be. I want to highlight some of the confusions that characterise his party’s policy on energy.

The Government have taken the necessary decisions to help secure our country’s energy future, not ducked them, on climate change, nuclear power and shaking up our planning system, as I said, so that we can get on and make the important changes that need to be made. The Government have made the right decisions. On renewables, we have set out what I believe to be the best way of securing our long-term energy needs, lessening our dependency on fossil fuels in the process. On every one of those issues, the Opposition have been found wanting—pandering, dithering, gesturing.

If a company wanted to embark on getting planning permission to build a nuclear power station today, would the Secretary of State advise it to wait until the quango is set up and the national policy statements are in place and to use the new system, or would it be quicker to go under the old system?

We are likely to see planning applications being made in the next couple of years, and they will be dealt with under the new system. The new system will be more streamlined and effective. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has talked to potential nuclear investors, but strong support is being expressed, and not just by the CBI and some other industry organisations, for the reforms that Her Majesty’s Government have proposed. Let me say to him and others that the status quo is not a credible option. The current planning regime has woefully let down the country’s needs in relation to major energy infrastructure projects. If we need confirmation of that point, we need only cast our minds back to the six-year long Sizewell B inquiry, which I believe significantly delayed investment in nuclear power.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats, who oppose nuclear power, and the Conservatives, who are not prepared to vote for the planning means to get nuclear power, not only put at risk our future energy security but create an obstacle for the British engineering companies that make a huge contribution to world technology and jobs in this country? It is envisaged that up to 200 nuclear power stations will be built over the next 30 years worldwide.

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to his lifetime support for the nuclear industry. There was an unfortunate unholy alliance between the Liberal Democrats, who opposed the planning reforms and who oppose nuclear, and the Conservatives, who say that they support nuclear but opposed the planning reforms. One is a means of achieving the other, and I believe that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton needs to go back to the drawing board and reconsider his position on this issue and many others.

If undemocratic planning procedures are so essential to promoting renewables, why have 22 out of 25 European Union countries managed to promote renewables with a lot more community involvement and democratic consultation in planning than the Government are proposing?

If we look at the planning arrangements in many other European countries, we see a much more streamlined system. It is not part of the Government’s reforms, which the hon. Gentleman is deliberately mis-describing for his own reasons, to take away the opportunity for people to lodge a proper objection to a development. It would be quite wrong to do that, and I challenge him to say that that is the right way to describe the reforms that we have proposed.

There can be little doubt that securing the UK’s energy supplies as we make the transition to a low-carbon economy is one of the greatest challenges that our country faces. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has rightly said, we are doing this against a backdrop of rapidly rising energy prices. In the face of this new global landscape, our efforts are focused on three principal issues. First, we must ensure the greatest degree of energy security and independence for the United Kingdom. Secondly, we must address the threat of climate change. Thirdly, we must do all that we can to mitigate the impact on consumers of the rising cost of energy.

I shall deal first with the issue of energy security. As we all know, global competition for energy resources is intensifying. Resource nationalism, closed-off markets, subsidies and state-owned monopolies are all combining to remove investment incentives to exploit the world’s energy resources. Another pressing reality that we need to face is the ageing nature of many of our existing power plants. Over the next two decades, we will need to replace one third of our energy generating capacity. Nine of our current power stations will be substantially affected by the implementation of the large combustion plant directive, and might have to close by 2015. All but one of our nuclear power plants will have closed by 2023. This domestic reality demands that we all take decisive action.

First, we need to maximise domestic energy production. The UK still meets about two thirds of its energy needs from the UK continental shelf. There could be at least 25 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent left in the North sea, and we need to do all that we can to utilise those remaining resources. In 2007, the highest number of offshore exploration and appraisal wells was drilled since 1996. About 300 million to 400 million new barrels equivalent was discovered, and this year has seen the highest levels of interest in new licences for more than 30 years.

However, we cannot afford to be complacent. We are committed to maximising UK oil and gas production, and that is why I recently announced measures to incentivise increased production in our existing oilfields and to enable new fields to come on stream as soon as possible.

Why did the Government spend the previous years increasing taxes and tweaking the tax system against the producers of North sea oil and gas in a way which they warned would result in their not optimising production? Are not the Government only now belatedly realising what a mistake that was? Why do they posture with the Saudis when we could do more to raise production at home if we had the right tax system?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is responsible for petroleum revenue tax. He regularly meets the oil and gas industry to discuss these issues, and it has strongly welcomed our recent proposals and announcements. As to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the Saudis, it is quite wrong to characterise the discussions with them as pandering; that does not do him any justice at all.

As I said, we need to create the right investment climate for UK energy infrastructure, which is rightly our No. 1 priority. Billions of pounds have been invested in new gas storage, which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned, and new import infrastructure. He rightly referred to the new LNG terminal at Milford Haven, which will bring Qatari liquefied natural gas into the UK. Also under construction is 8 GW of new generating plant.

We are also forging ahead to develop the low-carbon technologies that we need to support our security of supply and climate change objectives. Last year, we set out measures in the energy White Paper to triple renewable energy capacity through the renewables obligation. In September, we began a feasibility study on a barrage across the Severn estuary—one that could provide as much as 5 per cent. of the UK’s total electricity requirements. In December, I announced plans that could allow companies to build 25 GW of new offshore wind capacity by 2020. Last week, we announced with Ofgem immediate action to strengthen grid access for renewables—a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) referred. Our proposals on connect and manage should help unblock some of the current delays in getting new renewable projects connected to the grid much more quickly. Perhaps as much as an extra gigawatt could now come on stream much more rapidly.

Last year, there was a 20 per cent. increase in offshore wind generation capacity, and we will soon overtake Denmark to become the world’s leading offshore wind generator. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton was highly critical of the Government’s record on the promotion of wind power. It is worth reflecting on one fact: as a country, it took us 20 years to generate the first gigawatt of wind-generated electricity; the second gigawatt, under the present Government, took 20 months to bring on stream. We must do more, and do it urgently, to meet our share of the EU 2020 renewables target.

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about offshore wind, which is clearly an important way forward. However, the deep offshore wind and marine renewables sector has expressed concern about changes in energy legislation and I have corresponded with the Minister for Energy on this matter. Although there are grants under the present system, I understand that they are repaid by future profit, but under the new scheme a choice will have to be made between the double-banded renewables obligation certificates or these grants, and I am told that that will result in the sector being unable to get investment for many of these projects. Will the Secretary of State look at that again, because deep offshore wind and marine renewables are an important part of the renewables future, and unless we get this right, it could have a serious impact on our ability to meet the targets?

It is true that companies cannot choose between grants or renewable obligation certificates. That has been the long-standing position, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene later on my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy. I am sure that that debate will be a fascinating one for us all to read in Hansard at our leisure.

Last week, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton pointed out, the Government published our own route map for achieving our ambition on renewable energy. A tenfold increase in renewable energy within the next 12 years is, I accept, a hugely ambitious target. We also aim for a sevenfold increase in the amount of renewable electricity generated in the UK and we are proposing measures that will extend and raise the value of the renewables obligation—the principal mechanism of incentivising such investment. We are proposing to introduce a new financial incentive to deliver a tenfold increase in renewable heat sources as well. Again, the hon. Gentleman referred to many of the technologies, including ground-source heat pumps, that could make a difference in that respect. We will consider increasing financial support, including feed-in tariffs, to stimulate microgeneration of heat and electricity in our homes.

I have to say that the policies of the Conservative party, as I understand them, represent in all those regards not a step forward, but a step backwards. The one thing that investors tell us time and again is to keep the incentive regime predictable and not to scrap the renewables obligation for large-scale electricity generation. So what do the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and his party actually propose to do? They still propose to scrap the renewables obligation—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would like to correct that position, he is welcome to intervene.

The Secretary of State should go back to the consideration in Committee of the Energy Bill, where we made it quite clear that we support the banding of ROCs for larger-scale projects. On feed-in tariffs, the measures that we proposed would give the Secretary of State discretion. He could therefore decide at what level feed-in tariffs would be appropriate for microgeneration and at what level ROCs would be appropriate. We would give him as much flexibility as possible because we recognise that the two systems can work side by side, but we want to give him the discretion to decide at what level they come in.

I suppose that that is a clarification. [Interruption.] It is a clarification of sorts. I confess that I have simply referred to the Conservative party policy documents. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has announced today that they have all changed. I very much—[Interruption.] Am I wrong to say that they have changed or am I right? I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I suggest that he read his own party’s policy documents. He will find them quite explicit—later in the debate, we can confer about that—and they confirm the Conservatives’ current policy.

May we perhaps concentrate on Government policy, and may I ask the Secretary of State a simple question? There have been estimates that up to £100 billion will be needed to fulfil the obligations courageously set out last week. Will that will be loaded through the taxpayer or entirely through energy bills?

This is an Opposition Supply day, so it is quite reasonable for me to question the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about his party’s policy.

Returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the £100 billion figure is the sum total of private sector investment needed to finance this change in our electricity consumption. Yes, it will be paid for, ultimately, by consumers. That is true, and we have set out in the document our baseline assumption about the impact on bills and what it will mean.

We will need to do more on energy efficiency and providing further help and support for fuel-poor households—we accept that challenge—but as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, as a distinguished Select Committee Chairman, there is no way of somehow conjuring up that money out of nowhere, with no consumer ever being affected by it and all of us getting on with the rest of our lives without noticing that £100 billion. We will notice the £100 billion in our bills over the next 10 years. There is simply no other reality for us to address. The challenge for the Government is to mitigate the impact of those rising bills. Again, in our renewable energy strategy, we set out some ways in which, sensibly, we could do that, but we must all keep in mind that simple reality.

I want to come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton about feed-in tariffs, because he is right that they have had a significant effect in many other countries in bringing on new technologies, but at significant cost to consumers. Germany, for example, is often cited, as it was today by the hon. Gentleman. He, like the House, will be aware that there are moves to reduce the feed-in tariff because of the impact on consumer bills.

At a time of rising energy prices, it is incumbent on us to take into account how we make the transition to a greener power generation system. We must take into account the impact on people’s bills, because our constituents will come to us and say, “Why are my energy bills going up to meet the costs of going green?” We must have convincing arguments for that.

Indeed, that impact will be not only on everyday folk through their energy use, but on companies in the ceramics industry in my constituency, which are high users of gas, for example. There will be an impact on the ability to produce products that can be sold at a price that people can afford.

We have to be aware of the impact not just on consumers, but on industry. I want to come to that in the context of my remarks on the emissions trading scheme.

On the question of costs, how has my right hon. Friend become bewitched by the pied piper of nuclear power? It has been heavily subsidised, never delivered on cost or on time, and left us a £73 billion legacy. The new nuclear facility in Finland is already two years late and £1 billion over budget. Are not all the other alternatives—wind, wave and the other renewables—far more attractive and practical? They will certainly come in at better value than nuclear.

I do not think we should say no to any low-carbon form of power generation. Nuclear power is a proven and reliable way of generating low-carbon electricity, and I think it would be wrong for a generation that has taken advantage of the benefits of reliable nuclear power, as this generation has, to say to future generations “We are sorry, but we are not going to give you the option of nuclear power in the energy mix.”

My hon. Friend has a difference of opinion with the Government on nuclear power, and I am sorry about that. I do not think that he takes into account the new economics of energy in the world, the high—probably sustainedly high—prices of fossil fuels, and the necessity of action on climate change and the impact of a carbon pricing mechanism such as the emissions trading scheme. All those changes have opened up a space in which new nuclear facilities can operate, which is why so many countries around the world are actively pursuing the nuclear option, wisely and sensibly in my view. At the end of the day, however, it is for the private sector, not the taxpayer, to finance investment in a new nuclear power station, and my hon. Friend’s concern about subsidy is therefore misplaced.

Some of us are sitting on the fence in relation to nuclear power, and like others I am still to be convinced, although I am not closing my mind to it. As consumption in China and India is expected to rise by 50 per cent. between now and 2030 and as coal will have to be burnt, surely a country that has extracted only 15 per cent. of its coal reserves should be talking about major investment in the coal industry as well as the nuclear industry.

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that we must keep the option of clean coal on the table as well, and that it would be wrong to introduce new measures, as proposed by the Conservatives, which would make it impossible for new coal-fired power stations to be commissioned at any time soon in the United Kingdom.

The nuclear industry is complaining of a shortage of skills in the sector. Its main complaint is that it has nothing to plan against when it comes to recruiting and training people. What certainty can the Secretary of State give the industry, and how will he provide the skills that are needed?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; the issue of skills is a potential key bottleneck in the United Kingdom’s nuclear renaissance, and we must address it systematically. How can we do that? We can do it in a number of ways. Obviously a deal flow on new nuclear power generation will create the certainty to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I hope we will begin to see that. In the meantime, however, there are things that we can do, and are trying to do, to address the problem that he has highlighted. The National Skills Academy for Nuclear, for instance, has recently started to function, and it is taking on and planning to train 1,000 extra apprentices in the industry.

What we cannot afford to do is wait three or four years before doing anything to address the skills problem. If we do that, our ambition will be constrained and we will probably have to rely on migrant experts to come and help us with our nuclear programme. I see this very much as an opportunity for the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom to undergo a significant revival.

I heard a Liberal Democrat say in response to a comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that there were no suitable British companies. If that is really the Liberal Democrats’ view, I think that they should get out of the House a little more and travel around to see some of our outstanding manufacturing companies, which have tremendous potential to create tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs in this sector, many in parts of Britain that desperately need them.

While we may disagree on other matters, does the Secretary of State not share my concern that, paradoxically, those who are most worried about global warming appear to have shut their minds to the only reliable form of electricity generation that does not generate any form of carbon dioxide? Does he not find that puzzling? Will he ensure that we get on with building nuclear power stations as quickly as possible? Rather than building only enough to generate 24 per cent. of our electricity, should we not go beyond that, as the French have?

I hope the hon. Gentleman feels better for that. I agree with him about the scale of our ambition. At present about 19 per cent. of our electricity comes from nuclear sources, and I have made it clear that we should not set a cap on the contribution of nuclear power in the future. That is for the market to decide, not Ministers. My personal sense is that our ambition should be significantly higher, for the good and sensible reason the hon. Gentleman has given: that such power is low-carbon and reliable, and the technology is proven and safe.

We would be cutting off our nose to spite ourselves if we were to take an ideological view about nuclear. In the 12 months that I have been in this post, I have learned that the ideologues on energy policy are those who jeopardise our energy security the most. What we need is a hard-headed, practical, common-sense view about how we can have a broad-based energy policy in the UK that utilises all the technology available to us, including nuclear. We are going to need all those energy sources in order to be sure about our energy supplies in the future.