more … ]]> http://www.mingcampbell.org.uk/2010/09/16/renewable-heat-incentive/feed/ 0 http://www.mingcampbell.org.uk/2007/05/23/labour-disregarding-concerns-over-nuclear-power/ http://www.mingcampbell.org.uk/2007/05/23/labour-disregarding-concerns-over-nuclear-power/#comments Wed, 23 May 2007 22:43:13 +0000 Web Team http://www.mingcampbell.org.uk/2007/05/23/labour-disregarding-concerns-over-nuclear-power/

more … ]]> At Prime Minister’s questions today, Liberal Democrat Leader Ming Campbell attacked Tony Blair for disregarding concerns about risk, cost and toxic waste in relation to nuclear power.

He said that the Government should instead invest in wave, wind and tidal power and clean coal technology, which would give Britain a secure non-nuclear future.

He asked:

“Can the Prime Minister explain why in his manifestos of 1997, 2001 and 2005 he did not seek a mandate for a renewed generation of nuclear power stations. Why is he so hell-bent on nuclear power now?

“Why is it that the Prime Minister is so committed to the idea of nuclear power in a way which suggests he disregards the issue of risk and cost and toxic waste. Where is the investment in wave, wind and tidal power and clean coal technology that would give us a secure non-nuclear future?”

more … ]]> Ming Campbell discusses his visit last Thursday to Beddington Zero (Fossil) Energy Development in Sutton (a.k.a. BedZED), as well as Sutton’s travel policies and the Liberal Democrats Green Tax Switch.

You can see the local paper’s report on Ming’s visit here.

more … ]]> During a visit to Sutton today, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ming Campbell, spelled out four reasons why the Government should be condemned for its transport policies, contrasting Labour’s record with one of the leading Liberal Democrat local councils, Sutton, and its policies to cut congestion and pollution.

Figures released by the Liberal Democrats show:

• Traffic levels have increased by over 11% since Labour came to power, with 129 million additional car journeys per year
• Since 1990 emissions from road transport within the UK have increased by 10%, to 32 million tonnes. They are projected to increase by 18% by 2010, to 38 million tonnes
• Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest since 1997, having risen 3% over this time
• Between 1997 and 2005 the cost of motoring has fallen by 9% while bus and coach fares increased by 15% and rail fares by 5%

Visiting Sutton, the first London authority to pioneer new initiatives that cut congestion and promote sustainable travel, Ming said:

The Labour Government has failed to cut congestion or pollution and green taxes have fallen to their lowest level since Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister.

The Liberal Democrats are the only party with substantial proposals on cutting congestion and tackling pollution.

By reforming Vehicle Excise Duty Liberal Democrats propose that those with the ‘greenest cars’ pay nothing while those with the most polluting vehicles pay up to £2000.”

Liberal Democrat Councils are making a real difference on the environment. Sutton Council is encouraging business, schools and individuals to develop travel plans and Richmond Council is considering linking parking permits to carbon emissions.

The Liberal Democrats are the only party ready to make the tough choices on tackling climate change.

more … ]]>
June 20, 2006: Ming Campbell MP and Ed Davey MP discuss energy policy and the environment during their return from visiting Woking’s Combined Heat & Power (CHP) Plant and Woking Park Fuel Cell.

You can sign up for their podcast and listen to it on your MP3 player, or just click on the button below to listen to it now on your computer.

Download and listen to Ed and Ming’s podcast (MP3, 5,928kB)

more … ]]>
June 20, 2006: Ming Campbell outlined the Liberal Democrats’ opposition to a new generation of nuclear power stations and then went on to visit a Combined Heat & Power Plant in Woking. If you would like to hear a live recording of his speech, you can download it and listen to it on your MP3 player, or click on the button below to listen to it now on your computer.

Nuclear Power is not the answer to the ‘energy gap’.

It is less secure, far more expensive, more environmentally unfriendly and more risky than the alternatives.

The government has failed to spell out who will pay for a new generation of nuclear power stations.

The Government’s own White Paper in 2003 said that nuclear power was an “unattractive option” on grounds of cost and waste.

Nothing has changed since then to make it an attractive option, despite the Prime Minister’s claims to the contrary.

It is time to set out some facts to counter the unhealthy spin of this government.

One: the economics of nuclear power simply don’t add up.

Because the risks are so hard to quantify, no-one can predict how much it will cost.

Taxpayers are already liable to pay up to £90 billion to clean up after the existing generation of nuclear power stations.

The taxpayers are picking up the tab because when the last government privatised British Nuclear Fuels, investors refused to shoulder the risk. There is no indication that they are any more willing to take on that risk this time.

Nuclear power is not attractive to the private sector without massive state subsidies, either in the form of grants for construction, tax breaks, the assumption of environmental risks or the rigging of the market to guarantee prices in the future.

The government has not come clean on who will subsidise nuclear power.

Mark my words: it will be taxpayers and consumers in the form of higher energy bills.

The Prime Minister likes to use the example of a new nuclear power station built in Finland.

It is simply not true to say that it did not require subsidies.

The Finnish government is guaranteeing decommissioning and waste storage costs, and the construction was subsidised by the French government which has an interest in the deal.

Two: there remains no easy solution to nuclear waste. No country on earth has solved the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.

It is not true that new power stations generate one tenth of the waste of existing technologies.

The House of Commons own Environmental Audit Committee said that another generation of power stations would generate 400% more high-level toxic waste due to the loss of re-processing facilities.

Decommissioning and waste storage are massively expensive, and when factored into the cost of nuclear power it becomes an economic nonsense.

Three: investing so much money in nuclear power will crowd out investment in renewables.

At a time when renewable technology is advancing year on year this is irresponsible to say the least.

New nuclear power stations would not come on line until 2018 at the earliest.

The twin problems of climate change and security of supply require much more urgent action than that.

When we can have a green, local, cheaper and more flexible alternative, why on earth should we and future generations pay more for radioactive nuclear power?

A flexible, decentralised energy infrastructure that will allow smaller production units and less inefficient electricity distribution, is possible.

If we aggressively pursue energy efficiency measures, promote renewables and carbon capture and storage for gas and clean-coal power stations and begin the process of ‘re-wiring Britain’ as outlined in the government’s own 2003 energy strategy, we don’t need new nuclear power stations.

The only way the government can sell the fiction of nuclear necessity to the British taxpayer, is if it hides the nuclear tax. But make no mistake we will be paying for it for years to come.

This is rapidly turning from Blair’s legacy into Brown’s liability, he has abandoned his iron will and is writing a blank cheque – and ultimately the British people will foot the bill …….. nuclear power is not a legacy it is a liability.

more … ]]> Liberalism has always been and should be about enterprise, competition, free trade and open markets.

I am part of that tradition whose economic liberalism, of course, we have to balance with a concern for the environmental impact of economic activity, the need for properly funded public services and a fair distribution of rewards.

The Labour Government can reasonably claim to have produced a measure of economic stability, thanks mainly to the decision – which we had advocated and then supported – to make the Bank of England independent.

But it has produced excessive regulation; a mixture of Maoist revolutionary upheaval and poor performance in the public sector which in some key areas – the Home Office, Revenue and Customs, Work and Pensions is appallingly inefficient; a tax burden which is complex and inefficient; and a creaking infrastructure.

Underlying the Government’s growing problems is a fundamentally flawed approach to management which rests on controlling everything from the centre and on obsession with multiple targets that are insensitive to local conditions.

Micro–management by politicians from Whitehall is inefficient and ineffective. No successful business chief executive would try to control every aspect of their operating companies’ activities. But Brown and Blair are both avid centralisers.

Let me now sketch out our approach to several issues. First: taxation.

The assumption which we make is that the overall level of tax should not rise. The Government has raised large sums of money for investment in public services – which we supported – and needs to deliver value for money, but not ask for more.

We propose however to shift the tax system to make it simpler as well as fairer and greener.

We would cut the national income tax base rate from 22 to 20p while also abandoning our earlier plan for a 50p top rate. Raising personal allowances would also allow us to take 2 million workers out of income tax altogether. We would also raise allowances for middle income earners who have been dragged into the top rate. We would pay for our package of tax cuts by raising environmental taxes and by higher taxes on the very wealthy. But we recognise the importance of work incentives and profit making.

Our approach to business tax is to make it simpler, to strip out a lot of the complex reliefs and hand the money back to business in lower corporation tax rates.

Second, there is now general acceptance that this government has allowed red tape to get out of control. The target set by the Treasury in this year’s budget to cut the burden of Revenue and Customs forms by 10% by 2011 is a clear admission by the Chancellor that reform is needed.

But 2% a year is hardly ambitious. Why wait until 2011?

Let me make some suggestions about how to cut regulation.

First, abolish the DTI. It does not add value but complicates the picture. We have seen recently that schemes like the Small Business Support help few companies and increase cost in bureaucratic overheads.

Second, Independent Impact Assessment of new regulation to force Ministers and Bureaucrats to look at the implications of their decisions. Existing Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) are performed inconsistently and usually by the department that is implementing the regulation. These should be performed by a new independent body, to give an objective view to Parliament.

Third, new business rules – such as changes to the Small Firms Loans Guarantee Scheme, or to work permit rules – should be reviewed after two years to assess their effectiveness and to examine any unintended consequences. The RIA board would be able to recommend repeal if necessary.

Fourth, sunset clauses should be standard, with different lifetimes set depending on the nature of the regulation.

Fifth, EU and national processes need to be streamlined EU directives are a major source of unwanted complexity in business regulation, especially when translated and gold-plated by UK civil servants.

Europe may be the source of some irritation for business, but the positive effects of the European Union and the single market are substantial.

Enlargement has been a major economic success. Of course, Europe needs to liberalise, and there are sectors like energy and agriculture where the EU remains shockingly protectionist.

I lead a pro-European party. But we are hard-headed about our commitment and voted against the recent budget deal because the Prime Minister failed to deliver on his negotiating objectives: to secure reform.

Market based reform is essential.

In this, business – as a truly European constituency, has a crucial role to play. I fully support the initiative of Martin Sorrell and Michael Rake in setting up Business for New Europe.

The EU will have a key role to play in another area crucial to the future direction of the British economy: environmental policy as through emissions targets under the European Emissions Trading Scheme. The requirement to cut our carbon emissions significantly will shape the growth of the economy in future.

But rather than waiting for targets to bite, we need to imagine what a low carbon economy looks like and start taking decisions to move the economy in that direction.

A low-carbon economy is both an opportunity and a challenge. Properly handled, it can offer both greater security of supply and competitive costs.

The move towards green technologies heralds the possibility of several new emerging markets. Britain should be ahead of the curve.

It is encouraging to see thirteen major companies arguing the case for lower emissions targets in order to boost innovation as they did last week.

We see no justification however for the Prime Minister’s strong enthusiasm for a new generation of nuclear power stations. The Cabinet Office in 2003 produced a review endorsed by the Prime Minister at the time outlining a non-nuclear strategy. Liberal Democrats share that vision. Our policies would deliver energy security through investing in renewables, energy efficiency, micro-generation and carbon capture technologies, without the need for new nuclear power.

Significant questions remain unanswered about the commercial viability of a new generation of power stations and about the management of the financial and environmental risks.

No private company will invest in nuclear power without massive public subsidies or a rigging of the market.

No sensible government should guarantee to meet unknown decommissioning costs when the present generation of nuclear power stations may cost up to £90 billion to clean-up. But the alternative is equally damaging: business would pay a heavy price in a rigged market that passed these costs on to energy consumers.

Investment in nuclear will discourage investment in other technologies that could supply capacity.

There is little doubt in my mind that a decision to ‘go nuclear’ will crowd out investment in renewable energy sources to the detriment of the country and the renewables industry.

In his rush for a legacy the Prime Minister is in danger of hanging several mill-stones around the neck of the British economy. Nuclear power is one, timidity on pensions reform is another.

Of the five tests set by John Hutton for “a pensions settlement for the 21st century”, only one is likely to be fully met.

Their proposals do not promote fairness in the system – unless there is a dramatic increase in the number of people entitled to receive a full state pension the indexing of pensions from 2012 will only benefit the wealthiest pensioners.

Their proposals do not radically simplify the system – means testing will be extended over the next 6 years consolidating greater complexity in the system. The continuation of the contributory principle for the state pension will only maintain the high level of complexity in the system, making pension entitlement in each year very unclear.

Their proposals do not do enough to promote personal responsibility- means testing will not be reduced- and the system will continue to act as a disincentive to save for many. The plans put forward by Labour are not sustainable and fail to deliver a settlement for the 21st century.

A decent Citizen’s Pension means that we could move away from mass means-testing of pensioners, and make sure that every pensioner gets their full entitlement. Scrapping mass means-testing will create much more simplicity and transparency for people planning for their retirement.

Basing the pension on residency and not contributions would be simpler and would extend coverage, especially to women.

Equally, with a stable Citizen’s Pension as a base, employers should find it easier to determine an affordable and sustainable approach to their own occupational pensions schemes.

We want to see as many people as possible with an additional, personal pension, which is not controlled by the state.

We support the use of the power of inertia to boost pensions, by requiring all employees ultimately to be opted into a pension, which they would be able to opt out of.

And public sector pension schemes must be put on a fair and sound footing not given an unfair advantage over private sector.

New Labour has had mixed success managing the economy but for the sake of competitiveness and efficiency, we now need a breath a fresh of air.

A return to liberal principle of fair competition in the economy, without unnecessary government interference, but also without government bail-outs,

In short, a return to liberal common sense.