I鈥橫 ALWAYS saddened when significant exchanges in the House of Commons go unreported by the national press. Take, for example, Jack Cunningham鈥檚 recent intervention, when Patricia Hewitt, the Trade and Industry Secretary, announced the government鈥檚 important White Paper on energy.
Cunningham, who is MP for Copeland, in Cumbria, welcomed the policy statement and said he hoped that its aims for renewable energy can be achieved. However, he was also glad the government had a clear commitment to retain the option of using nuclear power in the future. No surprise this, as his constituency includes the nuclear reprocessing centre at Sellafield of which he is an unashamed champion.
Was it not clear, Cunningham asked, that unlike the climate change levy, carbon trading 鈥� the transfer of carbon credits between developed and developing countries 鈥� would enhance the economic position of nuclear power, and thus its potential contribution in future?
Advertisement
The government clearly placed much emphasis on energy efficiency and energy conservation, Cunningham said. So did the trade and industry secretary recognise that all the millions of different decisions being taken 24 hours a day, seven days a week, would never be changed simply by exhortation, he asked. Did Hewitt recognise that she would have to legislate to regulate?
Hewitt replied that Cunningham, who had been Britain鈥檚 first ever minister for energy conservation, was right. Exhortation alone would not work. 鈥淲e need to build energy efficiency into our homes, offices, factories and appliances. We shall do that through the building regulations, through stricter product regulations in Europe and through voluntary agreements with industry. We shall also do it through this much stronger energy efficiency commitment and through the development of an energy services market.鈥�
Cunningham pointed out, and Hewitt agreed with him, that when the new carbon trading system comes into force in 2005 it will apply to all sources of electricity, be it produced from oil, coal, nuclear, wave or wind power.
THE controversy over genetic modification isn鈥檛 going away. Against a background of possible commercial production of GM crops in Britain, the government has announced that it is promoting a national dialogue on GM issues. Essentially, there are three strands to the dialogue: a science review, a public debate and an economic study. The emphasis is on public interest and concern, long-term opportunities, risks and uncertainties, and the underlying science and international regulatory frameworks.
David King, the government鈥檚 chief scientific adviser, together with Howard Dalton, chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is leading the GM science review. The Food Standards Agency will provide independent advice. This panel is reviewing and summarising the state of scientific knowledge and uncertainty over GM issues.
A series of public meetings around the country is also being organised to explore the science that underlies GM issues. So whether you are a professional scientist, student or a member of the public interested in GM science, the idea is that you will be able to ask questions at the meetings.
Anyone wanting to contribute a paper or raise a relevant issue can do so by accessing .
