National Life: Shared Values and Public Policy Priorities
Baroness Featherstone Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I could not agree more with everything he said about LGBT. Something I will never understand is the awfulness of a young person having to choose between their religious faith and their sexuality; I find that incomprehensible.
I am very grateful to have this debate and congratulate the most reverent Primate on bringing it to the House. What are our shared values? I know what I would like them to be—openness, tolerance, inclusiveness, fairness, kindness, honesty, liberty and community—but the world does not appear to work like that. Brexit, as many have said, showed what a divided and somewhat nasty country we can be.
The political backdrop against which our lives play out inevitably colours the atmosphere of our day. Public policy on health, crime, employment, housing, education and the environment all contribute—and, clearly, a more equal society is vital in addressing the current malaise—but public policy can do only so much. It is both society and its governance—and religion—chicken and egg, that set our value system. There is an underlying rationale for malaise and misery when loss, divorce, unemployment, crime or ill health come our way; but there is relatively low unemployment and a relatively decent health service, and crime has been dropping for some time, but there is still malaise and misery. The old structures that held our society in place—marriage, religion, law, class or a virtual, unwritten but universal understanding of acceptable behaviour—are now far less certain, uniform or permanent than used to be the case. That is thankfully so in some of those instances, as they did not always embody values that I might wish to share.
How can we balance what is good for “me” with what is best for “us”: the aspiration for the common good, as opposed to selfish individual advancement? What role does government have in all this? This is tricky territory to tread, as with one false slip in the sentence, you open yourself to pastiche as wanting a ministry of fun and state-regulated, force-fed humour courses.
The deal was always that we behaved well because the Church and other religious establishments, parents, teachers, the police and our Government—pillars of society—said we should. They, at least theoretically, set an example of good behaviour and expected us to do the same. If we did as we were expected to, we were rewarded with approbation from our family, friends, teachers, the community or God—depending on our proclivity—or even an inner feeling of positivity or well-being, because we can actually as human beings universally distinguish right from wrong.
From our establishments, institutions and leaders came a code of social conduct that we all understood. There was either a penalty for deviating from the expectation of good behaviour, such as social exclusion, civil or state punishment or excommunication; or the simple reward of doing the right thing to fulfil our own expectations of ourselves, stemming from our innate sense of good behaviour.
That is no longer the case. This ordered existence has been disintegrating for years. Church attendance and belief are dropping, teachers’ position and authority is diminishing, parents are not exercising the level of control or influence over their children that they used to, and we have had the scandal of MPs’ expenses, banks defrauding us, paedophiles in the Catholic Church, sportspeople cheating, and so on and on. There are feet of clay all over the place, and the media feed the frenzy of this downward spiral and catalogue the cataclysm. The media themselves emphasise the negative, the nasty, the banal and the low-grade, let alone the 24-hour news cycle that is a monster that has to be fed. What about us? We shop on credit, we drink, we take drugs, we numb ourselves by sitting in front of one sort of screen or another and we blame everyone else—generally the Government or foreigners.
This is decline and fall. Governments have allowed a society to develop in which inequality, exclusion, stress and low-level tension are the norm. Mutual support and neighbourliness have declined; isolation is increasing, mental illness is more prevalent, and the signs of day-to-day anger and tension are everywhere. So we should look at policies to reduce stress and inequality, with much less emphasis on status and much more on co-operation and friendship. Status and friendship have their roots in fundamentally different ways of resolving the problem of the competition for scarce resources. Status is based on a pecking order, coercion and privileged access to resources, such as we in this House enjoy, while friendship is based on a more egalitarian basis of social obligations and reciprocity.
Of course, we need to re-establish trust in the state, and in the behaviour and nature of the state—perhaps even in experts—and they need to lead by example. In fact, that is the terror of Trump right now. In the grand sweep of policy, there are obviously “big picture” items, such as tackling poverty, reducing social exclusion, cutting crime and building more homes. But so often now the remedies that we apply to keep us on the straight and narrow are legal rather than social boundaries. However more stringent our laws are, with surveillance, rules, regulations, targets and punishments, they achieve so very little in terms of changing behaviour for the better. The exposure of the level of paedophilia in sport this last week, the Savile scandal and the sexual exploitation in Rotherham are not, I sadly suggest, scandals of the past alone. I suspect that, if we were to look under any rock, anywhere in this country, we would still find these horrors—and there are no values that I share with those who are the perpetrators of such horrors.
Public policy may set the tone for change of behaviour, but we all have a responsibility for behaviour change, and we cannot leave it to public policy or the Government. We must all learn to intervene and all challenge unacceptable behaviour. This is not authoritarian; this is social liberalism—and, ultimately, we must all take responsibility for our own behaviour.
Nuclear Reactors
Baroness Featherstone Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
As I indicated, there has been strong interest, with 38 expressions of interest. It is indeed the Government’s intention to take this forward, which we are doing.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, the creation of a series of small nuclear reactors across Britain would give rise to a multiplicity of potential new terrorist targets. What plans do the Government have to limit this threat, including scaling up the civil nuclear police force?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, nuclear security is central to the Government’s concerns. Obviously, that informs all the policy that we are putting forward in relation to small modular reactors, their siting and taking forward the dialogues that we will have with those eligible out of the 38 expressions of interest.
Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Featherstone Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, it is our view on these Benches that carbon capture and storage and transportation should have been woven into the principal objective of the OGA. I hear what the Minister says, but it leaves me some concerns. Although the Government have made many arguments and given many assurances about the importance of carbon capture and storage, we on these Benches are not completely convinced.
I wish to raise with the Government some points which still give us great concern about the level of commitment to carbon capture and storage and indeed about their ability to deliver on our legally binding targets. If CCS is not going to be integral to the principal objective and functions of the OGA, we might have had more confidence and assurance if Her Majesty’s Government had agreed to an earlier amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, to which my noble friend Lord Teverson added his name, which would have required the Government to undertake and develop a national strategy for carbon capture and storage. CCS is such a vital part of decarbonisation for the period when carbon is still being produced that we have grave concerns in this regard.
On Report in this House, the Minister made great efforts to assure the House of the Government’s commitment to carbon capture and storage and about the money invested—£130 million since 2011 to support research, development and innovations to foster the next generation of CCS technologies. In Committee, the Minister assured us:
“It is not as though no work is happening on carbon capture and storage. We are committed to a competition with up to £1 billion capital—that is current, and we will make an announcement on it early in 2016”.—[Official Report, 7/9/15; col. 1230.]
That was on 7 September 2015. On 25 November 2015, Her Majesty’s Government cancelled that £1 billion Conservative manifesto pledge, as was stated in this House.
I simply say to the Minister that actions speak louder than words, so perhaps he will understand that we on these Benches would like to trust the Government’s words, but they have made it somewhat difficult. Time will, of course, tell, but I remind the Minister that carbon capture and storage is a vital component of our ability to meet our carbon emissions targets. The establishment of the OGA was an opportunity to embed proper regard and action on transportation and storage. That is now an opportunity lost.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I will not delay the House unduly, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests as the new president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. I have some very big boots to fill in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.
I do not want to replay what has happened to development proposals for carbon capture and storage, I say to the Minister only that there are great opportunities with it, but investors and the industry now need reassurance from the Government. There are interesting developments, not least within our regions. The Dutch are increasing their interest in carbon capture and storage. As we come to the closing stages of the Bill, I ask the Minister to regroup on the issue, to give us back some reassurance and to look to the positive opportunities that lie ahead. Britain can lead in this technology, but it will take some commitment from the Government and the industry. The key thing needed at the moment is reassurance to the industry.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I agree that carbon capture is one of the keys to the future of energy and climate policy, because, if it can be done commercially and successfully, it will allow us to continue burning fossil fuels but in ways where the carbon is extracted. This is the case for continuing with fossil fuels, and perhaps slightly undermines the case of those who want to abolish fossil fuels altogether, because the whole point is that you can carry on if you have the technology.
Through your Lordships, I ask the noble Baroness who just spoke from the Liberal Democrat Benches whether they have thought about alternative and cheaper carbon removal technologies. There is carbon capture utilisation, which is developing in all sorts of new areas. It is beginning to look as though it can undermine the vast costs of piping carbon away into the North Sea. As we heard from the Minister, that would set back the problems in the North Sea, which are enormous and one hesitates to add any burdens to them, however important one may think the technology. So if there are cheaper ways of going forward, surely we should be going those ways.
That makes sense of what I understand from my noble friend to be the Government’s strategy, which is that the experimental efforts with carbon capture and storage in its full glory, with piping, transmission, finding places in the North Sea and overcoming all the vast technical and cost problems, can be replaced by something rather more imaginative. We may be moving in the right direction. My question is whether the Liberal Democrats have thought about those alternatives before pressing something which will obviously hurt the oil and gas industry in the North Sea at a time when it is already hurt very considerably.
Baroness Featherstone
I am happy to answer the noble Lord’s question. The Liberal Democrats keep an open mind on all technologies which can advance our climate change agenda. However, in Peterhead, for example, projects were well advanced and should have been continued.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but at this stage of the Bill noble Lords are not allowed to speak more than once.
Renewables Obligation Closure Etc. (Amendment) Order 2016
Baroness Featherstone Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Featherstone
As an amendment to the above motion, at the end to insert “but this House regrets that the draft Order will close the Renewables Obligation to solar photovoltaic installations smaller than 5MW on 1 April; notes that this will have a detrimental effect on rooftop solar and community energy schemes, which will be left with no support, and that the date for closure is much earlier than expected by the industry, causing a significant reduction in investor confidence across the industry; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to reinstate the Renewables Obligation for solar under 5MW and guarantee that existing solar projects will not be affected by future changes to policy”.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I fear that the Minister and I are not going to agree on this. However, it is not very long since we debated the ending of the feed-in tariff order, and I am sad to be here again so soon to enable a debate in which we on these Benches can express our dismay and alarm at the destruction being visited on what was a thriving world-leading industry in renewables—in this particular case, the ending of the renewables obligation for solar PV under 5 megawatts.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments that I made in that debate. I failed to get the Government to publish the calculations on the levy control framework, in which they prayed in aid a projected overspend as the rationale for their harsh and unforgiving bonfire of the renewables. Nevertheless, I appeal to the Government once again for transparency in relationship to the LCF, and ask that the figures are made public, so that the credibility of the Government’s case can be properly assessed.
We lost the battle against the extraordinarily steep and abrupt removal of the feed-in tariffs for solar, wind and hydro. We have tried to get this Government to understand not only the seriousness of this in terms of moving towards a low-carbon future that allows us to meet our legally binding targets, but also the depth to which investor confidence has been undermined in the renewables sector and the long-term, negative impact on the economy that this has caused. It is very disheartening to see so much of the good work achieved by the coalition Government unravelled by this one.
What is clear is that this work, which saw the tripling of electricity from renewable sources and made Britain the fastest-growing green economy in Europe, was clearly led by only one side of the coalition, the Liberal Democrats, and not embraced at all by the other. It was galling to listen to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time today claim that 99% of solar on roofs came under a Tory-led Government. That sticks a little bit in the craw. Since the end of the coalition, this Government are ending support for onshore wind power; sharply reducing support for other renewable technologies, including solar PV and anaerobic digestion; ending renewable energy’s exemption from the climate change levy; reducing the incentives to purchase low-emission cars; privatising and selling off the Green Investment Bank; scrapping the Green Deal with no replacement; weakening the zero-carbon homes standard; adding community energy to the list of sectors excluded from receiving tax relief; ditching the £1 billion budget for pioneering carbon capture and storage; ending the renewables obligation early—the subject of today’s debate—and on and on and on. It is a litany of destruction.
When the Secretary of State announced, following the 2015 election, that she would “unleash a solar revolution”, we on these Benches naively thought that she meant a revolution that supported solar—but each action that has been taken has proven the opposite. That takes us to the statutory instrument before us today, which closes the renewables obligation to solar PV installations smaller than 5 megawatts on 1 April 2016. It will have a detrimental effect on rooftop solar and community energy schemes, which will be left without support, and will cause a significant reduction in investor confidence across the industry—solar and beyond.
Rooftop solar, the cornerstone of the solar strategy produced in April 2014, is now in dire straits. The tariff that has been set for the 1 to 5 megawatts solar band is much too low to incentivise rooftop deployment in that size range, leaving larger rooftops with essentially no route to market. The large-scale rooftop market is potentially the most significant and cost-effective solar market. This market is dominant across Europe and is expected to reach grid parity first, yet the UK is not taking it seriously. The rooftop renewables obligation for solar at less than 5 megawatts must be reinstated to allow these commercial projects to go ahead until March 2017 with the forward visibility they require.
Also marched up the hill by the last Government and then abandoned by this one were community energy groups. Many opportunities were created for local communities to share in the economic benefits of local renewable projects, and yet the rug on larger solar power projects is being pulled from underneath them. It is vital that ground-mounted renewable obligations should remain open to community groups and to developers doing shared ownership or community investment schemes.
Another crucial aspect is the need for strengthening of the grace periods, to which the Minister referred. They are indeed a bone of great contention. Let me give the Minister one example from a leading UK solar company setting out the practical effect of the 22 July 2015 grace period qualification deadline. It was unknowable to the industry even 24 hours in advance: 22 July was the first anyone knew about it. This company had a project that was 95% ready to submit as a full planning application but was not intending to submit it until about a week after the consultation was published. When the 22 July consultation was published, it scrambled like mad to submit it, but the application now straddled 22 and 23 July because some key documents could not be sent in until the morning of 23 July.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, of course investor confidence is an issue. In the department we meet the industry on a frequent basis—I met representatives of the solar industry just this week. Some of the concerns that are being expressed tonight were not expressed to me on that occasion. Of course there is a healthy dialogue, but I do not recognise some of the wilder statements being made about the lack of investor confidence. Industry will always take a particular view, and there will be some in industry who will not want to see an end to subsidies—I understand that; why would they? However, as a Government, we have to see how money can be well spent.
It has been a good debate, but I urge noble Lords to reject the amendment and support the order, which is a necessary part of ensuring that we get value for money, do not overdeploy in this area and end subsidies that are not needed.
Baroness Featherstone
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions; I thought that serious and considered points were made on all sides. The Minister said that I did not address the issue of subsidy. I took it as read that we all want to see the end of subsidies, but the issue is the methodology for delivering that. As I explained that at great length during the debate on the fatal Motion that I tabled to annul the feed-in tariff, I did not want to rehearse all those arguments. However, again, as the levy control framework calculations are still not before us, we cannot examine the evidence of the case.
Arguments were made about the costs to consumers. We are all concerned about the cost to consumers, but I laid out the price range involved in the cost of risk. The £1 per annum that would be saved feels a very poor argument in terms of reducing costs when, at the same time, the Government are so willing to invest in those energy sources that are so much more expensive, such as nuclear and diesel.
Lastly, on the overdeployment of solar, until the Government come forward with a plan illustrating how they are going to reach their renewable targets, we may be reliant on extra electricity because renewable heat and renewable transport are in so much trouble. Therefore, although I appreciate the arguments and agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, we are not going to see eye to eye on this issue. I am very grateful for the support of the Labour Benches on this, and for the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, which were well made. I seek to test the will of the House.
Energy Security: Hinkley Point
Baroness Featherstone Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Featherstone
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions they are taking to ensure that the UK’s long-term energy security is protected, in the light of uncertainty regarding Hinkley Point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, good progress continues to be made on the deal so that Hinkley Point can provide clean, affordable and secure energy that families and businesses can rely on now and in the future.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
I thank the Minister, but he will be aware that there is a certain amount of coverage in the media: the finance director of EDF has quit; the value of EDF shares is falling; and EDF does not have a legally binding contract with the Chinese. If it does not proceed with Hinkley Point, what is the Government’s plan B for the security of our energy supply in future years, given that the support for renewables industries has been completely undermined by the Government and that there is still no commitment to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, which would provide energy for 120 years—three times as long as would a nuclear power station?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, EDF has said that it is working hard to take a final investment decision in the near future with the full support of the French Government. We believe—along with the Minister who took the initial decision, Ed Davey—that the Government negotiated a good deal; he repeated that this week.
Energy: Carbon Capture and Storage
Baroness Featherstone Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of CCS, but I disagree with him in relation to the cancellation of the project. As I have indicated, we are looking at other ways of advancing CSS, including an innovation budget, possibly a contract for difference and international co-operation. This is the right way forward with value for money.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded, CCS is a hugely important part of tackling climate change, particularly with regard to cost-effectiveness. Without the crucial £1 billion investment in the cancelled CCS project—as the Government themselves phrased it just a year ago—how else are binding carbon targets to be met? I urge the Government to reconstitute the £1 billion pioneering project.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness is wrong: it is not £1 million but £1 billion. This is the whole point. It is a massively expensive project. We have to look at value for money and at achieving the best ends for the best value. As I say, we recognise the importance of CCS. That is why we are carrying it forward in so many other ways.
Feed-in Tariffs (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2015
Baroness Featherstone Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Featherstone
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Order, laid before the House on 18 December 2015, be annulled (SI 2015/2045).
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, this is an important debate, and it is with regret that I felt that I must table this fatal Motion, as I am aware of the significance of this action, but regard the matter as so serious as to merit such a Motion. The order makes policy changes which will have far-reaching and detrimental effects—effects which will not only put our renewables industries in serious jeopardy but impact on our ability to deliver our legally binding renewable energy targets. Furthermore, the strong economic case for investing in the sector seems to have been ignored, neglecting what could and should be an extremely significant source of Britain’s future economic prosperity.
The feed-in tariff scheme is the Government’s main mechanism to encourage the deployment of small-scale, low-carbon electricity generation, and the order imposes two caps: one financial and one that controls generation capacity. The financial cap of £100 million applies to all renewables technologies right up until 2018, meaning that they will get approximately £35 million a year between them all for new-build deployment. The generation cap on each technology sets a quarterly maximum which, translated, means that even if there is demand, suppliers will be prohibited from meeting it. That is extraordinary micromanagement of an industry.
The industry understands that subsidies must end—there is no argument about that—but the economically sound way to respond to that is to reduce subsidies at a rate that allows the industry to continue to grow and move to a stable, subsidy-free footing. That is not what the Government are doing, alas. The rug is being pulled from underneath the industry, reducing the size of the workforce by up to half, just when other countries around the world have spotted the business opportunities in this sector and are increasing their investment. The steepness and abruptness of the Government’s proposals caused shockwaves across the industry—security, confidence and investment all undermined at a stroke.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states:
“We draw this Order to the special attention of the House on the ground that it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.
The committee further notes that there was a very high level of opposition to the DECC proposals in the responses to its consultation from the renewables sector, with a total of 54,630 written responses, of which 2,634 were unique responses. The majority objected to the proposed deployment caps and 90% disagreed with the proposed generation tariffs. Following the consultation, the Government made some changes: the reintroduction of the pre-accreditation scheme; the lessening of the reductions to the feed-in tariffs from 87% to 65%; and making tariff bands clearer—which are all very welcome. I have no doubt that the Government will argue in this debate that they moved following those representations, but I do not believe that they have moved one iota beyond their originally intended position.
Our renewable industries have been remarkably successful. In the new low-carbon sector in the United Kingdom, 11,500 companies are involved with 460,000 people turning over, in 2013, about £120 billion. The major player is solar. This is good for the economy and for the planet. The deployment limits will severely impact on the size of one of the cheapest low-carbon energy options just at the very moment that there is a need for greater deployment of renewables. Only one week ago, Ban Ki-moon said:
“I call on the investor community to build on the strong momentum from Paris and seize the opportunities for clean energy growth. I challenge investors to double—at a minimum—their clean energy investments by 2020”.
However, investors will not come here. We are going in the wrong direction.
Baroness Featherstone
My Lords, I thank all the speakers in this debate. It has been very instructive and informative, and so many of the contributions were knowledgeable. I thank the Minister for the government response.
My purpose in tabling this Motion to Annul was really to persuade the Government to go back and work again with the industry. It is exactly that rate and degree of change that we are discussing. As for it being a fatal Motion, when will the Government stop submitting negative SIs that are unamendable? They did so with this one on 18 December, just before the rising for Christmas, and buried in a slew of SIs, which might have denied us any debate whatever. It is important, given the seriousness of the issues I raise, to say to the Minister, “I want the Government to go back on this”.
I noted the quote from the Solar Trade Association but I would say the same if I were in its position and not wanting to put off investors. The Minister asked how I would reduce the subsidy. My answer is, again, to go with the industry and see whether there could be a new rate of decline of subsidy and an agreed timetable. That is not for me to say as I do not run these industries, but I know from the level of complaint and amount of lobbying I have received that there are genuine and serious concerns.
What I heard generally from this House in the excellent speeches was that most noble Lords agree with the ends and that there needs to be a change, but were not willing to will the means to get to that end. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. I hoped to hear willingness to make further amendments. Sadly, I heard none. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Fuel Poverty
Baroness Featherstone Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his interest in this and his tribute to Lord Ezra. I will get a detailed breakdown of the position on fuel banks to him, because I am unaware of that. As regards the position on fuel bills, he will be aware that the last reported figures, which will be for last year, show that bills are coming down and that we are saving because of the impact of changes on policy costs; the average household will save £30 on policy costs. We are bearing down on that, but in relation to the fuel poor specifically, obviously action is needed, which we are addressing through the energy company obligation and the warm home discount scheme.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I also pay tribute to Lord Ezra. On 1 April 2018, the regulations on energy efficiency in the private rented sector, which is the worst-offending sector, will come into being. That will mean that it will become illegal for a landlord to let a property if it does not meet the E grade standard. Can the Minister update the House on what progress he has made on working with landlords to achieve this most important measure in time for the commencement date?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Baroness, which I omitted to do on her first question to the Front Bench on this subject. In relation to progress on the issues she addressed, obviously we are looking very closely at the position of social landlords; that is part of the general review we are carrying out of the energy company obligation in relation to fuel poverty. As she rightly says, it is an important part of the mix, but we are bearing down heavily on bills, which are falling for the first time for five years according to the latest recorded figures, and will continue to do so. But, more importantly, we need the necessary action we are taking through the £1 billion energy company obligation and the warm home discount.
Forests: Coal-bed Methane Extraction
Baroness Featherstone Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I can certainly confirm that that is the process. Only one commercially running coal-bed methane extraction operation is going on at the moment, and there have been no issues since 2007, when it started, with regard to health and safety or contamination.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, what evidence-based case is there for applying far less stringent environmental controls and protections to coal-bed methane than to hydraulic fracturing?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the process for coal-bed methane is essentially parallel with that for fracking. There are no separate considerations here—or in so far as they are separate, it is only because of the slightly different technology. Both have extremely robust systems. In addition, if fracking was involved where we have coal-bed methane, a separate system of protections and consents would be needed.