Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Baroness Worthington Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 24th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Finally, another question to address was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. He suggested that the Liberal Democrats were not interested in sustaining our industry, but if our industry is competing with a world that has gone for far cheaper renewables, and our industry is relying on expensive new nuclear power, then that is not the way to sustain our industries.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Oates. As I said in Committee, I have some sympathy with the greater transparency of the assessment of the value for money of new nuclear, partly because it will prove once and for all that there is a very strong case for pursuing reinvestment in our nuclear capabilities at every scale, whether the large-scale reactors that we are considering at Sizewell and Hinckley Point, or the SMRs, which I hope will be pursued with a considerable increase in speed as we address our needs for secure, affordable and zero-emission electricity.

As noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we will be seeing a greater need for electricity. We will, I hope, see a huge increase in energy efficiency as we move to electric vehicles, because they are inherently more efficient than the combustion engine fuel supply chain, but there will be a greater load on the grid so we will need vastly more electricity, even as we get more efficient. We need a varied set of technologies providing power reliably and with resilience throughout the year. Nuclear can clearly play an excellent role alongside greater increases in solar, wind and other forms of renewable electricity. There is no need for these to be seen as competing; they complement each other very well.

I suspect that the Minister will reply that it is not necessary and that there will be information in the public domain about the choice. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made a very compelling case for how difficult it would be to provide a full value-for-money assessment when such things as national security are so hard to translate into a sum of money. As we noted in Committee, there are countries much less concerned by the terrible events in Ukraine because of the nature of their electricity supply. It is right and proper that the UK should pursue the Bill—that we get on with it and see money flowing in the sector, which has been very stop-start. If we get this going, can sustain our interest and not do stop-start, the value for money will increase. The Bill is all about making these investments less costly for the taxpayer and the consumer and I support it. I am sympathetic to the amendment, but I do not support it.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, there were a couple of paper tigers dancing around in the Chamber today. I will deal with one of them straightaway. We are not unique in this Chamber in thinking that it is a good idea to do a value-for-money study on these projects. In Clause 2(3)(b), one of the criteria for designation is that

“the Secretary of State is of the opinion that designating the nuclear company in relation to the project is likely to result in value for money.”

Given that the Government themselves believe it is appropriate to have a value for money study, those who think we have somehow dreamt up something totally unfeasible, ridiculous and stupid need to address their remarks to the author of the clause, not the authors of the amendment. The two amendments actually say two things, the first of which is that we believe the Secretary of State thinking it likely to result in value for money is not a sufficiently high level of evidence. It needs to be that it

“will result in value for money”.

I would express that as being the difference between “the balance of probabilities” in a civil case and “beyond reasonable doubt” in a criminal case. Basically, we want a better than 50% chance that the value for money guess comes out right. I do not think that unreasonable or contrary to the spirit of value for money, as Governments ought to be exercising it when spending public money. That needs to be considered quite carefully by those who think that value for money is somehow a Liberal Democrat evil which has been conjured out of nowhere.

The second of our Amendments says that when that has been done it should be published. My noble friend Lord Oates drew on examples in the nuclear industry in the past 60 years of evidence and material being gathered and kept very, very quiet. Of course, eventually it all comes out, if only in the decommissioning costs or from the actual unit cost of producing the electricity, which nobody can any longer avoid. The first generation was built on the basis that the electricity would be so cheap we would not need to have electricity meters. We tend to forget that those kinds of claims were ever made, but they were never supported by evidence because the evidence was never published at a relevant time when it could have affected the decisions being made.

The two amendments the Liberal Democrats have put into play are based on making sure that the Secretary of State does a proper value for money exercise and that they base their decision not just on the balance of probabilities—“If we’re lucky it’ll be all right; if we’re unlucky, well there we go”—but with some reasonable level of certainty that the exercise has produced the right result. Making it transparent and putting it on the public record is a good way of making sure that those who make a professional evaluation of value for money are well aware that what they put into their report will be in the public eye and open to challenge and discussion.

If only that had been the case with previous generations of nuclear generation decision-making, we would have got a better outcome. I do not mean that there would be no nuclear plants built, but we would have perhaps avoided what the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, speaking on behalf of the Government, complained about in relation to the decommissioning process. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said that it is necessary to avoid “gold-plating” decommissioning costs

“that deliver millions of pounds to contractors unnecessarily”.—[Official Report, 8/3/22; col. GC 434.]

I thought those were powerful words. She was talking about decommissioning costs, but should we not be doing the same with commissioning costs? What can be wrong with testing that out?

Also, value for money is not something that can be assessed anyway, because there are impenetrable questions which make valuing the outcome completely unfeasible. When one looks at the value for money of any project, there are two issues. The first is the actual cost of the project. Have the costs been realistically assessed and are they properly built into the estimates being presented? For generation after generation of nuclear plants, it has been perfectly obvious that the cost of building them has not been correctly assessed. Indeed, that is true of the plants currently under construction.

The second thing that needs to be quantified is the nature of the rewards that one gets from the project when it has been built. What are they? The rewards from a nuclear plant consist of the electrical output and the security factor. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made an excellent contribution on that topic in Committee, the essence of which he repeated just now. I do not reach quite the conclusion that he did, but I will say how I think we might best analyse it.

We know that at the moment, the electricity that will be produced will be at least 50% more expensive than if it came from offshore wind power, for example. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave some of the figures. This plant will not come on stream for another 15 years. We do not know what the unit cost of offshore wind will be in 15 years’ time but, if you follow the graph, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be quite a lot cheaper than it is now. So it is a competition where nuclear starts 50% ahead; it will probably be more like 70% ahead when it comes online. I am setting aside any consideration of whether any allowance should be made for decommissioning costs.

Then, we get to the security argument: what happens when the wind does not blow? Well, we have a strike price that is nearly double that of offshore wind. It is therefore obviously a premium product. It is not something you would indulge in unless you could see a substantial value that was related not to its electrical output but to something else. The carbon reduction is real and not to be neglected but, of course, other renewables—certainly offshore wind, solar and onshore wind—have those carbon savings. It is a matter of debate whether they provide more or fewer savings per gigawatt than nuclear but, as I understand it, nobody is really saying that other renewables would not deliver the same carbon savings. So security of supply is the point in play. For me, the exam question, therefore, is this: can we get that security of supply in any other way that is cheaper and faster, with less or no impact on the RAB figures, which consumers will have to pay at the end of the day?

By coincidence, yesterday morning, I attended a presentation given by National Grid. It was asked some quite poky questions about whether it thought that the national grid would have the resilience for all the electrical power that will be demanded to flow through the system. Its answer was surprisingly upbeat. It said that it would be relaxed about the grid’s capacity if, for instance, there were 15 million or 20 million electric-powered vehicles dispersed widely throughout the United Kingdom, and, incidentally, concentrated in the places where electrical demand is greatest, such as the south-east of England. It sees the grid as a fundamental element of the storage of power to cover the times when it is needed. It did say, however, that there will have to be additional investment by the distributive network organisations, or DNOs, to reinforce the local distribution grid.

--- Later in debate ---

To my mind, the questions of the taxonomy, qualification for ESG and whether we regard the new nuclear generation as part of the green transformation are completely central. In fact, they will determine whether that green transformation happens at all.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 12 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I will not detain the House for too long.

The question of whether nuclear should be classed as a green investment and therefore within the taxonomy should not be in doubt in any way. The reason it is even discussed is that the European Union turned it into a highly political question and ignored the advice of its own research agency, the Joint Research Centre, which was commissioned to assess whether nuclear should be considered sustainable and therefore be included. It unequivocally found that it should but, for political reasons—mostly centring on Austria’s vehement objection and the politics of Germany—this issue has been dragged out and treated separately, alongside another controversial aspect of the EU taxonomy: whether natural gas should be considered a green investment. To my mind, this was entirely regrettable and could have been avoided.

Since we have left the European Union, we have the good fortune of being able to set the record straight and make it absolutely clear that nuclear should be considered sustainable and green, and should therefore be included in our green finance definitions and the taxonomy. I look forward to the Government and the Treasury confirming as such, because to do anything else would be a great shame and would fly in the face of science. If anyone has had the pleasure of going through a pension screening survey to assess the greenness of their investments, they will note that, in many cases, nuclear is still listed alongside arms trading and pornography; this is a hangover from a different era and needs updating. I look forward to the UK setting the record straight and therefore sending a strong signal to other countries and the European Union.

I will not go into Amendment 14; my view on whether it is the right way to approach the waste issue was clear in Committee. It is a serious issue but we should not overexaggerate it in any way just to achieve the slowing down of this investment.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Baroness Worthington Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Well, on many issues, such as the climate emergency, the nature crisis, concern about air pollution and whether we should have a living wage, we have won all those arguments over time, and I fully expect that we will make the same progress here.

The noble Viscount said, “Don’t worry, the costs won’t be borne immediately.” I point to your Lordships’ House having recently passed the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill—an acknowledgment that we have already laid huge costs on future generations in terms of the destruction of the earth. What we are talking about here is like buying a property and then saying that the ground rent in future will be decided by a random number generator. We do not know what the costs will be, but those costs of trying to dispose of this material exist.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, “Oh, we have the technological solutions”, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, hinted at the issue when he asked, “Why would future generations dig this up?” We should think about what we have done to the pyramids and a great many ancient sites: here is this mysterious thing from the past and there might be treasures in there. One of the great challenges of trying to decide about deep geological disposal is the question of whether you should mark it or hide it. If you mark it then how do you convey, many centuries into the future, that this is a dangerous place? That is not a question that anyone has ever found an answer to because there is no answer to it.

I would be interested in the Minister’s answer to this. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said there had not been much discussion of this issue, but when I raised the question of a geological disposal facility the Minister told me there were four places where this was being consulted on. I asked him to identify those places and he said he could not, so I would be interested to hear any updates on that. It rather contradicts the comments from the noble Lord in front of me, who said that three places had already decided. I spoke at Second Reading about my experience of being in Cumbria and seeing what resistance there was, even in a place that is broadly pro-nuclear power, to deep geological disposal.

You do not make a purchase, particularly with public money, without knowing what the costs will be. I have some sympathy with the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Vaux, about trying to make sure that the cost does not land on the public purse—except that the practical reality is that we have seen a great deal of socialisation of costs and privatisation of profits. The state will always be the organisation that has to pick up the costs because the clean-up and the storage have to happen and the state has to ensure the security of its people.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being present at Second Reading, and this is the first time I have spoken in Committee. I am speaking to Amendments 3, 44 and 45. Normally, when I speak on matters of climate change, there is not much distance between my position and those of the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Teverson. However, on this issue, I totally oppose Amendment 3, which can be interpreted really only as a wrecking amendment designed to derail the Bill and the financing of this essential infrastructure, which we need to see built for the clean, affordable and secure sources of electricity that we will need in the future. Amendments 44 and 45 similarly seek to derail this effort and therefore should be opposed by the Government.

To pick up on some of the details, at heart, the difference between us is a sense of radiophobia. Noble Lords on the other side believe radiation to be a deadly, uncontrollable source of pollution that cannot be managed, which is just not true. We know how to manage this waste today and will know how to manage it tomorrow. If you know the source of radiation, and whether it is alpha, beta or gamma, and how it can be stopped by simple everyday materials—paper, metal and concrete—you can contain this waste. You can stand today in a disposal facility of high-level waste, in existing reactors above ground, and touch the sides of the casks containing that waste. It is that safe. In fact, the background radiation would be less than you would get if you were exposed to background radiation from visiting parts of Cornwall.

So please can noble Lords engage in this debate on the basis of science? Can you visit these facilities and engage in an understanding of how this currently operates and will operate in the future? If you drop this radiophobia, you will understand that this is essential in the fight against climate change—not only the existing reactors, but the new reactors and existing-design reactors. We need them all. We need to throw everything we can at this. We need to do it safely and securely, and that is what we have been and will be doing.

Please can we not accept this amendment, but have a dialogue and get to the root of noble Lords’ concerns? I am sure, as was pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that once you understand the nature of radiation and that the higher the radiation, the quicker it decays, you will understand that this is a manageable problem, unlike the completely unmanaged problem of CO₂ emissions. CO₂ is emitted every second of every day in every country, and is accumulating in the atmosphere with no one taking responsibility. No one is paying for its collection and storage. You have to put this in context, understand the science and visit the current management practices in this country and others. Then you will understand that these amendments are not in good faith; they are designed simply to slow this down, and I therefore cannot support them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she would acknowledge that the circumstances in which waste is currently being managed are stable—I do not think she was here when I was speaking to the earlier group of amendments, about Ukraine—and we have orderly government and an orderly economic system. We have controls. The world cannot be guaranteed to stay in that place. In another case, waste could look very different.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to comment on the completely and utterly irresponsible spreading of misinformation around the Ukraine reactor. People are claiming that it would be 10 times worse than Chernobyl, which is utterly untrue. This is the largest reactor in Europe, yet it is so secure that it cannot be compared to Chernobyl in any way, shape or form, but all this misinformation is circling around it. We have seen that reactor being rendered to a safe point even under the conditions of war. What more proof do you need that this can be safely managed?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The noble Baroness directed that to me, so I will point out that, yes, the artillery shells did not hit the reactors, but they are designed to deal with aircraft strikes and earthquakes. They are not designed to deal with artillery shells.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

Which do you think is more impactful—an artillery shell, or an airliner or F14 fighter flying into the side of the reactor? They are designed for this. They have regular safety protocols and procedure which they go through in considering what should happen in a conflict situation like this. You are really not speaking from a position of information to understand this, I am afraid. I should not use pronouns; I should have said that the noble Baroness should really study this more before making proclamations such as this. It derails this essential effort.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, of course, the problem is actually flooding, as was shown at Fukushima—and bad maintenance, even in an organised society like Japan. The Tokyo Electric Power Company is probably seen as one of the most reliable companies in the world, but it did not do its job and caused a lot of the problem when there was the tsunami. I am not suggesting that a tsunami will hit Ukraine very soon, but there are issues.

I want to move away from the polemics. I thank Labour Members of the Committee for giving us a headline on opposing such facilities, but I admit that it is not the Liberal Democrats who have determined that they have not happened so far; it is the local communities that have rejected them. Maybe that will change. I have huge regard for the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I said this at Second Reading and will not go through it again: if you want nuclear, you do not do it this way. You do not build one big facility at 22 billion quid, and decide five years later to build another. You organise it in a different way, perhaps as South Korea did, with a fleet of the bloody things; sorry, I should not say that. This is the most inefficient and crass way of building nuclear power in this country.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

We are doing series building. The existing Hinkley Point is two reactors built in series, and these will be another two built in series. That is four, so that is not bad—and they are large reactors, double the size of the existing PWRs. You get what you pay for. You will get an enormous amount of reliable, secure and clean electricity that will be the backbone of our grid. It will flex to allow us to accommodate huge proportions of renewables, and it will be a system where we can produce hydrogen from nuclear. There is absolutely nothing for one to be concerned about in this proposal. I am a fan of alternative reactors; there are other ways of doing nuclear that are inherently safe and would not have led to the Fukushima accident, because they could have been designed differently. However, I ask the noble Lord: how many other reactors sustained themselves through that tsunami? It was unprecedented—10,000 people lost their lives—yet there was only one reactor problem, because it did not allow a release of pressurised air with water and vapour. That was what went wrong, not maintenance. There was a political call, and the reason for that was the world’s media focusing on it because of the radiophobia that has been spread, I am afraid, largely by the green movement over the last 30 years.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I can see the Government Benches starting to go for a refreshment break; never mind. I am trying to make a serious point. I have been to Hinkley C; I understand it all, believe me, but this is the wrong way to do it—the technology is obsolete. The question I want to ask the Minister outside the polemics is about the Nuclear Liabilities Fund, which he will be well aware of. Its current value in assets is £15 billion, largely through the Government’s sale of British Energy. We heard from my noble friend Lord Oates that the potential future liability is some £53 billion. EDF pays into the Nuclear Liabilities Fund at the moment.

My question is around the problem of there being a future liability that cannot be met. How does the Minister see that developing? Will the fund be able to meet the costs in the future? I am particularly interested in understanding whether the fund is in a bank account somewhere or is just an item on the Treasury’s balance sheet, so it is not really there and is just absorbed into public expenditure. It is a serious question. I would like to understand the previous methods that have been used to make sure that there is not a liability in the future. The figures just seem totally inadequate. Even if we do go through these types of facilities, how will we make sure that the liabilities can actually be met?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

The noble Lord is almost certainly right. That ship has sailed, to say the very least. In phases one, two and three of the nuclear programme, no adequate provision was made for decommissioning or any way of storing the waste. Unfortunately, that will clearly fall back on to the public sector in some form or another.

We are talking about a new generation. It is surely right and proper to learn from the mistakes of the last 60 years and make sure that that is properly costed in the formulation given for the construction and operation of these plants. I do not think that it is particularly controversial that we should learn from previous experience, although it is often very hard to do so.

Is the Minister satisfied that the public purse will be properly protected over a period of time from finally picking up the costs of geological disposal of nuclear waste from the plants that this Bill is intended to finance? The Government ought to answer that honestly and frankly so that there is no illusion on anyone’s part either about what is happening in terms of public subsidy or that the true costs of delivering a nuclear programme incorporate the costs of decommissioning, rather than shuffling them off at the start and delivering them as a bill of unknown but undoubtedly large size to the public purse.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

Before the Minister responds, I would be interested in whether we should have a review of the societal demands of how we treat the decommissioning and waste of nuclear, because it seems to me that we are operating against a set of principles that have become detached from the reality of how you can manage this more cost-effectively. A large body of evidence says that geological disposal is not needed, because you can just do subterranean management. If it were not for the widespread lack of understanding about the nature of the problem and the way it can be dealt with, we would not have to incur these costs. If there is a review, we should go back to basics.

The same is true of decommissioning. The simplest and cheapest way to decommission is to leave it alone and then decommission it. The desire to bring it back to greenfield status is utterly unnecessary. These are highly concentrated industrial sites that serve clean energy to millions of people. We should not be seeking to return them to greenfield on an accelerated timescale, unnecessarily incurring huge costs to the taxpayer. We should have a review, go back to basics and consider all of the above in terms of what we should do with our waste and decommissioning.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3, 17, 20, 42, 44 and 45, laid by the noble Lords, Lord Oates, Lord Teverson, Lord Wigley and Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. They relate to decommissioning and it is appropriate that they are all discussed together.

Prior to doing that, I will address the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the Nuclear Liabilities Fund. The NLF is a segregated fund which has been set up to meet the costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations currently owned and operated by EDF. The fund is managed by an independent Scottish trust, the Nuclear Trust. The trustees are responsible for ensuring the sufficiency of the NLF to meet decommissioning liabilities. I hope that that answers his questions.

I return to new nuclear and make it clear to the Committee that there is already a robust and effective statutory regime in place that addresses the decommissioning costs of new nuclear power stations. Under the Energy Act 2008, it is a legal requirement that all proposed new nuclear power stations have a Secretary of State-approved funded decommissioning programme in place before nuclear-related construction can commence on site. This includes setting out how the operator will safely manage spent fuel and waste during operations and meet the costs of decommissioning and the clean-up of the site. I note with interest the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and welcome the opportunity to meet him if he would like to discuss this process further.

As part of the FDP approval process, the Secretary of State must consult the Office for Nuclear Regulation—the ONR—and relevant environmental regulators where their functions are concerned. The Government have also published FDP guidance, which clearly sets out the principles that the Secretary of State will expect to be satisfied in an FDP. I note that we expect any approved FDP for a new project to be available publicly, as was the case for Hinkley Point C, save for material of a sensitive nature.

Approximately 94% of legacy waste created by nuclear power stations in the UK is low-level waste, which is either recycled or disposed of safely and securely. Higher-activity waste is treated and stored safely and securely in nuclear-licensed sites around the country. This will then be disposed of in a geological disposal facility, which the Government are committed to developing. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, made these points eloquently and I thank her for her contribution. A GDF will ultimately allow the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to complete the decommissioning and clean-up of the existing nuclear estate and to continue to manage radioactive waste effectively. This is the safest and most environmentally responsible option for managing higher-activity radioactive waste in the long term and there is a process under way to identify a suitable location for a GDF.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, recently wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on this very matter. A GDF working group, which is the first formal step in the process to identify a suitable location, has been formed in Theddlethorpe in Lincolnshire and is beginning discussions with the local community. In addition, the first three GDF community partnerships—the second formal step in the process—have been formed in Mid Copeland, South Copeland and Allerdale in Cumbria. These groups provide a platform for long-term community engagement, local investment funding and investigations to assess potential site suitability.

It is for these reasons that I cannot accept Amendments 3, 17, 20, 44 and 45. The FDP regime in the Energy Act 2008 already exists to ensure that new nuclear projects have effective arrangements in place before they begin construction to manage, pay for and dispose of the waste that they create. Amendment 3 in particular would prevent the Government from bringing forward new nuclear power using the nuclear RAB model that we need to decarbonise our power system and help meet our ambitious climate change goals. A GDF is the best option for the long-term management of radioactive waste and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his support for such a facility. I also thank my noble friend Lord Howell for his thoughtful reflections on this matter. As I said, a process is already under way to identify a suitable location with a community willing to host a GDF. It is imperative that we bring forward nuclear now, given that arrangements are in place for safe, secure interim storage of waste and its ultimate disposal.

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, made several comments on the potential costs of a GDF and how our understanding of these has developed. The earlier cost figure to which the noble Lord referred represented a lower-end single point estimate around some basic assumptions on the depth and type of rock in which the GDF would be constructed. It included only the cost of disposing of legacy waste. The revised cost range of £20 billion to £53 billion is a more mature and complete estimate based on credible scenarios. It includes figures for waste from new nuclear projects and materials such as uranium and spent fuel from earlier nuclear power stations, which may be declared as waste if no further use is found for them. It also accounts for factors including uncertainty and optimism bias. Uncertainty will be reduced as we progress through the siting process. We will understand the specific geology and associated engineering and technical requirements, allowing us to refine our cost estimates.

I turn to Amendment 42, which was laid by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. It is our understanding that the intent of the definition of “associated” in Section 67 of the Energy Act 2008 was to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to impose decommissioning obligations on entities that would be expected to have a substantial degree of influence over the operator’s normal activities, such as the operator’s group companies and shareholders with an interest in the company significant enough to influence its decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I am sorry to press this further, but of course there will be negotiations and some sort of a deal will be made with those developers, but if the circumstances change, as happened at Trawsfynydd, and there are immense additional costs beyond what was anticipated, surely there has to be a public guarantee to those communities. Those communities have supported nuclear power on the basis that such an understanding exists. If it is not there, there will be a volte-face, and there will be a reaction against nuclear power. This assurance has to be given one way or the other. If the Government want to go away, think about what mechanism is appropriate and come back on Report, I accept that, but to say that in no circumstances would the Government pick up the tab is to kill off the prospect of those locations.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

I do not think that that assertion is correct, because my understanding is that once the nuclear industry stopped building new reactors it moved into decommissioning. What we had was a period in which the entire sector was making all its money from decommissioning costs. The reason that those costs kept rising was that we had a very poor regulator which allowed a reciprocal relationship with private contractors, who brought forward all sorts of faster decommissioning timetables. That was nothing to do with what society needed or required; it was to do with the profitability of the industry. I hesitate to say that there are these red lines where society will not accept a new reactor because of decommissioning. It is much more complicated than that. We must be careful that we are not gold-plating regulations that deliver millions of pounds to contractors unnecessarily.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I entirely accept what the noble Baroness is saying, but circumstances will change and there will be costs that have not been anticipated. Those will be picked up either by the local community or by someone else. If it is someone else, who else can it be but central government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I have heard this from others, and the argument seems to be, “Well, we’ve created such a mess already that it doesn’t make much difference if we create any more.” They may create less waste than the old Magnox reactors, but all I am asking is that, before we create more of that waste, we have a way of disposing of it. It is important that we take that seriously, whether we are pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. We will not convince people unless we deal with this sensibly. In terms of this Bill, we cannot know the real costs unless we understand the costs of construction and operation.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I say with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that she has intervened on many occasions and we probably need to move on. I just ask that these matters be taken seriously and that when people discuss nuclear waste they think about it in terms of the very long term over which it has to be dealt with and the fact that we do not yet have that GDF and cannot possibly know the costs of it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My discourse on renewables would have been on the extraordinary cost of having to accommodate intermittence. I am afraid there are other things to discuss. I have already discussed this in another forum, so I think we can leave that point.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 4, as much of what I was going to say has already been covered. I have some sympathy with this amendment, as transparency is nearly always good and it would benefit the industry to have a thorough description of the value of investing in nuclear on this and other scales, so that we have it as an option as we combat climate change and seek to deliver affordable power to the nation.

As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, value is subjective. Therefore, it would be hard to use it as an objective way of saying that this should not go ahead. What value does Switzerland currently place on its electricity grid, which is almost 100% hydro and nuclear? That means that, despite its location in the centre of Europe, Switzerland is feeling incredibly safe in these troubled times. What value does it place on that? It is of huge value to Switzerland.

Similarly, the social cost of carbon rapidly needs to be revised as we realise that the impacts of climate change are happening far faster and at far greater cost than we ever thought. How do we factor that into value? Transparency is important and I would welcome a much more open discussion about the value that these large-scale nuclear power projects deliver for us. You can look at the levelised cost of electricity, but I suggest it is not the most important factor. You can pay a lot less for a tricycle than for a tractor, but they do not perform the same job. You must compare like with like.

With renewable technologies you have rapid deployment but very diffuse sources of energy, large land take and intermittency, which then requires a substantial extra cost on the grid for levelling when the sun is not shining or when we have periods of no wind, which does happen in Europe—it happened recently, actually, and contributed to the high gas prices we have seen. Let us have that discussion. I feel confident that the project we are talking about here, Sizewell C, will provide a great value for the money we are about to spend, not least because 50% of its additional cost comes from its financing, as has already been stated. That is a huge overhead, because these are capital-intensive long projects. This Bill will help reduce that and increase the value for money.

We now have two reactors under construction today. We can look at the costs of those to see how they transfer to subsequent projects that are funded under this more efficient mechanism. I have been informed about and questioned EDF about its cost overruns. The costs of the two reactors being built today are in line with what you would expect if you were building a huge construction project through the period of Brexit and Covid. Nearly all the inflated costs are true of all big infrastructure projects and are not unique to the nuclear project currently under way. So I would welcome having this conversation. I think transparency would be a friend of the industry and I therefore have some sympathy with this amendment.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I will concentrate in particular on Amendment 6, addressing nuclear outages, and Amendment 37, which would protect recipients of universal credit from being liable to the levies under this Bill. I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath, and I am slightly bemused about why it is not recognised that we should understand the basis of the value for money test, given that it is in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

While it may be true that the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow, it is equally true that nuclear power plants do not always generate. If a plant such as Hinkley—I am told it is estimated that, when it finally comes online, it will form something like 6% to 8% of total generating capacity—goes offline, we had better have some back-up for it. I hope that in his reply the Minister addresses some of these points and tells us what plans the Government have to ensure that that back-up exists to cover nuclear stations when they are non-operational.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

When we embarked on our nuclear build, we also took government money to build our hydroelectric pumped storage units, which were designed specifically to compensate and were built alongside the nuclear units. We are losing nuclear units, but we still have our hydroelectric pumped storage. The noble Lord can speak to National Grid. As we are not going to be seeing the same parity of nuclear output even after we have built the next round because we are losing the AGRs, we have more than enough capacity on the grid to cope with those fluctuations.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I regard this amendment as a complete blind. Indeed, the figures that have been quoted do not tally with the ones to which I am privy. Large nuclear power plants are the only proven technology available today to provide a continuous and reliable source of low-carbon electricity. They have never been afflicted by major unplanned outages, albeit that as nuclear power plants—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, surely no one is suggesting that these are alternatives, or if they are then that is not what any sensible assessment would allow. Of course the aim for a decarbonised world has to be sought through many forms. All that is being said is that to leave out one of the major areas of decarbonised electricity is asking for trouble, unless one can begin to assess the enormous costs of trying to fill it in in areas where it may not even be available.

The example of Germany is one that the noble Lord should perhaps bear in mind. The rumour is that, having tried to do without nuclear power and got down to its three remaining nuclear stations, there is strong talk that if it is to move into the new world that we are facing now, which has all sorts of implications for the future, a large chunk of reliable low-carbon nuclear capacity must be either retained or developed to add to all the other highly desirable things for net zero and all the other projects, including of course energy efficiency and a far greater use of every kilowatt of electricity for output, which is the secret of considerable improvement without too much electricity. If that is what is being argued, we are all for it, but nuclear electricity is an unavoidable part and to drop it seems a bit odd and very high-cost indeed.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has talked about the cost of energy. I agree with him that it is very important that we take this issue seriously. The reality is that the CfD mechanism, which will still be part of the financing mechanism under the RAB model, will pay back when we see these very high prices—some of those CfD models are paying back to consumers. My question for the Minister is: under the RAB model, if it pays back in future, will that revenue flow back to consumers or will it sit with the Treasury?

One of the criticisms that could be levelled at this idea is that it is regressive. If it were a tax, those who could afford to pay it would pay more while those who could not would pay less. The universal credit amendment is trying to say that the regressive nature of this needs to be thought about. If you exclude someone from the payments then you might be excluding them from the repayments if the CfD provides revenue back, so this needs thinking through. There is a real question here about its regressive nature. If the CfD is paying back in, are we holding that in the Treasury or could it go back to the consumer?

Onshore Wind Bill [HL]

Baroness Worthington Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of this Bill, tabled by my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I declare my interest as a co-chair of the Peers for the Planet group.

As has been eloquently expressed, onshore wind is our cheapest as well as a hugely trusted and now well-developed form of renewable electricity. It has been providing 10% of our electricity, or around that, from 2018. However, it has seen something of a huge decline in England and Wales, thanks to changes introduced in the 2015 Conservative Party manifesto. One of the two barriers, as has already been discussed, is around the fact that contracts were no longer being provided for support for these technologies. The Government deserve praise for addressing that, and we will soon see an auction for CfDs in which onshore wind can compete, which is a great step forward. However, in England and Wales specifically, we still see a very considerable barrier to development through planning guidance, which was also changed.

I do not need to repeat it, but I will stress that the two factors requiring that onshore wind must be featured in a local plan in an identified area, and the decision that it should receive the full backing of the local community, generate a huge amount of uncertainty for developers and create a distortion in planning, because normal planning would not require this for other forms of renewable energy. Could the Minister tell us how many local authorities have introduced local area plans where onshore wind is identified as being allowed? Could he also tell us how he defines the term “the full backing of the community”? It seems to leave a huge amount open to judgment for local planners, which is what is deterring developers—to such an extent that we saw a 96% drop in applications between 2016 and 2020. We absolutely need to see new planning guidance, with clarity that allows appropriate developments that achieve the right balance to come forward.

Times have changed since 2015. We have just seen the international climate talks conclude in Glasgow, where it became absolutely clear that we all need to do much more to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and that countries such as the UK, which is in a very fortunate position to be able to lead, should be leading, and considering what more we can do. Onshore wind has been a huge success, and it has been stalled; it is time to bring it back, so we can use it to meet our zero-carbon electricity target for 2035.

Meeting that target will be made much more difficult through the natural ageing of our existing onshore wind infrastructure. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, described the fact that we will start to see capacity fall off from our onshore wind industry, and by 2027 to 2030 we could lose 3.6 gigawatts, which could rise to 8 gigawatts by 2040. That is enough to power 5 million homes. How are we going to reach our zero-emissions target in 2035 if we are losing that scale of capacity from this trusted source of clean power?

The good news is that, if we do repower existing sites, we can expect to see more power out, for less footprint. A study from Renewables UK in 2019 said that 19 sites had been repowered to date and that that had increased capacity by 160%, with one-third fewer turbines. So this is absolutely a win-win for everybody, if we can allow the repowering of sites to come forward. The communities that have wind farms in their landscapes are already accustomed to them, and many people have found that the objections they feared before they were built have fallen away on them being actually brought into being, and that in fact they see many benefits.

I also reiterate the point about cost savings. This is the cheapest form of renewable electricity available to us; indeed, it is the cheapest form of electricity full stop. A Vivid Economics study in June 2019 estimated that, if we reached 35 gigawatts in 2035—that would be adding an extra 20-plus gigawatts to current levels—we would see a 7% reduction in our electricity bills compared with continuing to use gas. That report was written in 2019, and we all know that we have seen very high volatility in gas prices since then.

It is absolutely clear that we should not be dependent on imported gas for our energy security. It will not provide us with the reliable and cheap electricity that we need to reach our targets. Many noble Lords will hopefully instinctively understand this: when I was working in the power industry, we knew that gas demand spiked with wind; when there was a windy night in winter, we knew that gas demand would rise. So why not harness the wind in those periods, so that we can reduce our reliance on gas?

I conclude by saying—as has been said before—that this is not just an environmental question, it is one of development, jobs, investment in supply chains, winning exports and Britain leading in the world again. In 2015, times were very different. In the six years since then, climate change has risen up the agenda, the public are aware and people care—the youth of today are demanding more of us. I fully support the Bill and hope that the Minister will provide us with a positive response. This is something we can do today to unlock huge investment and get those millions, billions and trillions flowing into clean energy, which we need to see if we are to meet our Paris targets. So I hope that we will have a good debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019

Baroness Worthington Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Lords Chamber

None of us underestimates that there are many challenges. There is a will in this House to take this point on the map and go there, but we are not going fast enough and we are not all moving with the intensity that needs to be generated. We welcome the fact that the regret amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. We understand and will support it, but overall we want the order to succeed. We look forward to the Minister answering the nitty-gritty. It is only understanding the process—the steps—that will bring us closer to this absolutely vital objective.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s accepting the recommendation to change the target in the Climate Change Act to a 100% reduction by 2050. It feels very appropriate to be having this debate today, as we have marchers outside—tens of thousands of people who have come here to express their concern about the climate crisis and the loss of biodiversity that we are now living through—and others lobbying inside the building.

Climate impacts are being felt far faster than scientists and models predicted. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet this season is completely unprecedented for this time of year, at roughly three times the average. Heatwaves are blighting Europe throughout this month. Chennai, a city with a population of 10 million, is currently out of water. The everglades are on fire and coral reefs are continually being bleached. I could go on. We are living in an age in which the consequences of our actions are now becoming apparent. We have known about this problem for decades, but collectively, humanity has been too slow to respond.

In this context, the UK has shown great leadership and must continue to do so. We are now committing to a law that will take us to a net zero target by 2050, which is the right thing to do. We need to do this despite who is in the White House, despite China having 1,000 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations and despite Russia sitting on the largest fossil fuel reserves of any nation. To sit back and wait and expect some other country or institution to take this action would be a recipe for disaster. We cannot solve the problem ourselves, but we must lead by example.

We can work out how to deliver economic growth without contributing to the climate crisis. We have already made great progress. Thanks to decades of clever policy interventions, how we make electricity is now far cleaner. We are seeing large periods without any coal-fired power. This is incredible, given that we are the home of the Industrial Revolution and brought this technology to the world. We can use that clean electricity to make other parts of the economy cleaner too. Let us focus on transport, then on industry and heating. We now have the potential to get to net zero using existing technologies. The Government are therefore to be commended for agreeing to this change to the long-term target.

However, the Government have not fully accepted all the advice from the Committee on Climate Change and have said that they do not rule out using international offsets to get to our target. I do not object to this if they are well done and well regulated, and it will make no practical difference in law, because we do not set out limits and offsets until 18 months before the start of any budgetary period. However, having deviated from the very clear advice of the CCC, we can now go even further than the 100% reduction target because it will be far cheaper and easier should we allow international offsets into this system. In meeting this goal, if we want to stay at the costs we have accepted—1% to 2% of GDP—we can go further. It opens up the opportunity to go into minus figures—minus 120% or minus 150%. This is now possible, and it would be the right thing to do. This will not be the last debate we will have about the 2050 target. I think we will go further, beyond zero, because we will then be paying back the carbon debt we owe to the rest of the world. Historically, our per capita emissions far outweigh most countries’, and it is those countries that will see the impacts hit hardest. The pressure will be kept on us and I am sure that we will go to those much more ambitious targets in time.

Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I will make three points. First, the policy details of how we will get to our intended goal are obviously very important and emissions projections are not currently on track to meet our fourth and fifth carbon budgets. Better policies are needed to ensure that we harness the power of the private sector to deliver cost-effective reductions in the transport, heat and agricultural sectors. Part 3 of the climate change Act introduces a series of enabling powers that will allow the Government to introduce new incentives and penalties that would align business incentives with this goal. They would restrict or price emitting activities, and would reward and create incentives to invest in the solutions that get us towards our goal. These powers exist and all we need to do is conduct a public consultation on their introduction. That is what we should focus on now: broad, market-based approaches across the economy to align signals so that we can do what we have done in the power sector in all other sectors of the economy. We have to act urgently but proportionally, and aligning incentives is one of the most effective ways we can do that. That is the first step we must take and the CCA allows us to do it.

Secondly, Section 30 of the Act was accepted and introduced to allow us to omit international emissions from shipping and aviation using an SI. It is regrettable that the Government have not taken the opportunity to include that in the SI we are debating this afternoon. Rejecting once again the advice of the CCC is clearly a missed opportunity. Both international aviation and shipping sit outside the scope of the Paris Agreement and are governed by dedicated bodies. They are designing a rulebook that will help them to address climate change. The UK must lead in those negotiations to ensure we get an international solution to those two important sectors, but at the same time we must lead domestically; including them formally in the budgets would have given a clear signal that we intend to do that.

My third point concerns the statement that the Treasury will be encouraged to review the costs of meeting these targets. In this assessment, we must acknowledge that this issue cannot be reduced to a simple cost-benefit analysis. This is a moral question: the moral question of our time. No price can be put on the future of humanity; the planet will be fine, but most of humanity will not be. This is the critical issue: if we reduce this down to a nickel-and-diming of how much we will gain from one policy versus another—the net benefits or costs—failing to take into account that this is something we simply must now do, we will get the wrong answer. There are many examples of our doing things because they are morally correct, without carrying out a cost-benefit analysis, and this is clearly the defining example. When the Treasury is asked to look at this question, the one thing it must consider—it will be an essential part of making this politically acceptable—is the fairness with which we tackle this challenge and the distribution of the costs, to make sure that the people who are most able to pay do pay, and that those who cannot afford to take on extra burdens are protected. That is the question the Treasury should concern itself with, not a basic cost-benefit analysis of whether this is the right target. It is the right target; if it is not, then it is only because it is too weak and we can go further.

Finally, I return to the debate about measures and policies. I urge all those who are concerned about prioritising using our political capital to take action on policy that we refer to data and analysis. We can refer to the CCC’s own work. I fear that, too often, we are wasting our time talking about issues that do not currently involve large emission volumes. I am against the expansion of Heathrow, like everyone else, for local reasons, but it really has very little to do with the national issues of climate change. The same can be said of fracking. We must focus on the things that matter: transport, heat, industry and agriculture. I really hope we will focus on those in the months to come and introduce the policies we need to get to this target. I am very happy that we are having this debate today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley]

I am sorry; I obviously have not made my point clear. An impact assessment was produced before the Bill went through either House, and a second was produced after it had been enacted by both Houses. Those two things differed in the dramatic way I have described. I asked my research assistant to go through the entire proceedings of both Houses; he could find no serious scrutiny of the cost either way, but if the noble Lord recalls otherwise, naturally I will change my assessment and realise that he missed something.

My opposition has always been based on the economics of what we previously committed ourselves to, and my concerns today relate to the economics. I recall that when the Third Reading of the 2008 Act finally took place, I and the four others who had decided to vote against it—just as a matter of principle on the economics —retired to the Smoking Room to drown our sorrows and noticed as we did that it was then, in October, snowing outside. I went back to remind the House that we were passing a measure in the belief that the world was getting warmer when it was snowing in London in October for the first time in 74 years.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords—

[Lord Lilley]

I was immediately interrupted by people saying, “But surely you realise that extreme cold is a symptom of global warming”. Is that what the noble Baroness was going to say?

[Baroness Worthington]

I have two points. There is a great difference between weather and climate change, which the noble Lord would, I hope, have understood if he has read any of the reports on this topic. Secondly, the Act commits us to no costs, because it merely has a target and enabling powers. Each individual policy then enacted to reach those targets will have an impact assessment that has a full cost-benefit analysis. The noble Lord was absolutely wrong to oppose this Act on the basis of cost, because it is a target-setting measure with enabling powers. Is the noble Lord aware of that? Could he also comment on the fact that people have repeatedly said that the Act commits us to following EU targets on renewable energy? This is another falsehood; the Act says nothing about the need to do anything through any particular technology. Does he acknowledge that?

[Lord Lilley]

Yes. That is not a point I have made, but I acknowledge that the noble Baroness is right to rebuke whoever did make it. I am not opposing this measure; I am demanding an impact assessment, one that covers the aggregate. The Minister’s response is that we will get a cost-benefit analysis of individual measures, as the noble Baroness referred to. I just think we ought to know what the rough total is, as assessed by the Treasury. I am not alone in this; I call in aid my noble friend Lord Deben. He rightly said that I should have read the CCC report in its entirety, rather than just the summary, before I asked my question. Now that I have read it in its entirety—I did so without losing the will to live at any point—I know that it calls for a full impact assessment by Her Majesty’s Treasury. I am endorsing that call.

UK Net Zero Emissions Target

Baroness Worthington Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first point, he is right that these are great challenges and that there will have to be a change in behaviour. We should go about this in the right way, taking people with us because a great deal of this will involve changes in individual lives. We are already seeing this through a decline in car use by many people. I have certainly noticed that younger people are purchasing fewer cars and so on. Again, this is disruptive for the automotive industry but if we want to make these changes these things will happen, and changes are happening. We will need to take people with us. However, the Government must offer help in both innovation and research, and we will do that. On the noble Lord’s point about nuclear, I have made it clear it that we have not abandoned nuclear but we want it at the right price. As we made clear in the nuclear sector deal last year, we will continue to put research into all aspects of nuclear, whether small modular, large nuclear or whatever.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, when we passed the original Climate Change Act in 2008, the UK was the first country to pass a legally binding target for reducing our climate-damaging emissions. I am glad that in setting that example we triggered action from other countries; Sweden and New Zealand have now also legislated. Now that we are taking this bolder step to remove all our domestic emissions, we will see others follow. In the past few weeks, both Chile and Japan have committed to moving to net zero targets. I commend the Government and everyone who has contributed to getting to this position. The UK is taking the morally correct path. We are showing leadership at a time when the world is completely distracted by the rise of nationalism and populism. We are saying that there are more important issues that unify us as citizens of this sole planet that we share. We must take every step to ensure that this is not just a paper target but is backed up by policy. We have decades of examples of how we have done this; we are not starting with a blank sheet of paper. We have shown that we can decarbonise fastest among all OECD countries without it affecting our growth or economic development. We are a shining of beacon of hope in fairly dark times. I sincerely hope we will take our message to the UN in September, to Washington and Beijing, and that we will see others stepping up and increasing their ambition. It is easier and cheaper to do this than it has ever been. The technologies are there, the political will is growing and the children are out on the streets demanding that we do more. I am delighted that the Government are showing such leadership. Now we need to take it to Parliaments all around the world.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister replies, I suggest that questions be kept succinct and short to enable as many Peers as possible to speak in the time available.

Carbon Budget Order 2016

Baroness Worthington Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Lords Chamber

That is just one example in an area that looks like a significant anomaly in relation to our responsibilities under the carbon budget. The bigger question that I hope the Government will address in the coming year is: how will a decision be made about the inclusion of international aviation and shipping emissions within the net carbon account?

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Minister on taking up her new role, which combines energy with her previous role of business. I declare an interest: as a civil servant I took part in the drafting of the Climate Change Act. I am delighted to see that these orders are tabled today.

The Climate Change Act is, I believe, a world leader. Its depoliticised structure gives it flexibility and strength; it can bend, so it does not need to break. The level of the fifth carbon budget was announced on 30 June, one of the most extraordinary days in one of the most extraordinary weeks in British politics. The reason is that the Climate Change Act creates a legal metronome, providing a long-time structure that rises above such short-term perturbations, even when they are so all-consuming.

In this context, the Government are to be praised for agreeing to the targets proposed by the Committee on Climate Change and on setting a budget that is on average 57% below 1990 for the period around 2030. However, there are many unresolved issues surrounding the carbon budgets and how they are accounted for.

During the recent Energy Bill, we had a long debate about the fact that, after 2020, there will no longer be any specific targets that require us to continue investing in low-carbon energy infrastructure. This is because the EU targets dictating the build-out of renewables will cease to apply. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, alluded to this in his speech, and indicated that we might be overcomplying with our renewable electricity target. I point out to the Minister that we are underdelivering on the two other portions of that target, so it is not right to say that we are going to be overcomplying with the EU legislation.

That aside, the fact that there are no renewables targets may not be a bad thing, but we need targets that will help to ensure that we see investment in low-carbon technology across the spectrum, including nuclear and carbon capture and storage, where I know there is more common ground between both sides of the House in supporting those technologies.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also alluded to that issue and mentioned the EU emissions trading scheme, which will of course carry on. As things stand today, we will continue to use that trading mechanism to count towards our budgets—that is to say, we will use the overall allocation of EU emissions allowances as a measure of whether we have stayed within our budgets, rather than the actual emissions occurring here in the UK. We propose to fix that loophole by making clear that for the fifth carbon budget actual emissions will be counted, not offset emissions using EU allowances. A vote on this issue was won twice in this House but overturned in the Commons. I continue to believe that this is a necessary change of policy, and ask the Minister to seriously consider starting an immediate review of the current accounting rules so that early guidance can be given about how the fourth and fifth carbon budgets will be accounted for. That is even more critical, given the uncertainty that has been triggered by the recent referendum.

As things stand, we will not find out precisely how budgets can be met until a statutory instrument is passed after the start of the budget, so in 2029. This provides no clear guidance for those wishing to invest in UK infrastructure and is suboptimal, to say the least. I believe it will prevent actual investment in physical UK infrastructure from coming forward. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has constantly referred to the cost of tackling climate change, but it is also true that one person’s cost is another person’s investment.

Although the Energy Bill sounds technical, and to a degree it is, I stress that this issue is not secondary to the search for a return to true economic growth; it is of central importance. If we find ourselves in a situation where future trade rules are set by the WTO, we will still be constrained in what we are able to do to stimulate economic growth. However, addressing environmental threats justifies government intervention under the WTO. Reinvesting in our energy systems and infrastructure provides one compelling WTO-proof way to rebalance the economy and stimulate real-world growth.

It is not just good economics to take action on climate change; it is also good politics. People care about climate change. Irrespective of what we have heard here today, they care, and it is not just the politicians who—the Minister referred to herself in this context—almost unanimously voted in favour of passing the law in 2008, it is not just the NGOs and it is not just progressive business voices; it is also the general voting public. We especially care when our homes and businesses are flooded or damaged by storms. We care when we cannot escape the stifling heat or unusually cold temperatures.

However, we also care on a deeper level. We want the next generation to have access to opportunities we did not have. We want to believe that we worked hard for a reason. If people believe their lives are going to be worse, their worries greater and their chances more limited by a world destabilised by an unstable climate, that will be a source of anger and frustration. The impacts of unchecked climate change will be felt widely by children alive today, with impacts growing, potentially exponentially, over time. It is our moral duty to act now, in full knowledge of the risks we are storing up, to reduce those risks as fast as possible.

I will briefly echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on the Paris agreement. The fifth carbon budget is our own version of the Paris agreement. It covers the same period and is in sync with the levels we would expect to take under that target. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is looking at me quizzically, but his statements were full of errors, because it is not true to say that all EU member states were expected to take a 40% target. There is such a thing as redistribution of the effort across the member states. Therefore, it is not true to say that everyone would be on 40% and that we are necessarily going further than that.

I end with a question about the Paris ratification. Recent analysis has shown that we are tantalisingly close to seeing Paris become law this year, and the UK could make all the difference. Can the Minister say when her Government plan to initiate the legal process of ratification, and if it will not happen immediately, why not?

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Committee on Climate Change. I remind your Lordships that the committee has a statutory requirement to provide the most cost-effective way of reaching the statutory commitment of cutting our emissions by 80% by the year 2050. I also remind your Lordships that that is not as ambitious an end as the Paris climate change agreement demands. Therefore, far from being ahead of other people, we have a sensible programme to reach somewhat less than will have to be reached under the climate agreement.

My noble friends Lord Lawson and Lord Ridley do themselves a disservice when they suggest that, because Britain has so small an amount of emissions, we do not count. Yet in their arguments for Brexit, their whole point was that Britain counts on its own. I merely suggest that if we say, “Well, other people can get on with it, but we won’t”, we let down future generations in a way which I hope my noble friends will sometimes be concerned about. They are seeking to stop this generation protecting the next generation, which is why the Climate Change Act has been, and remains, supported by all parties. That is why it is so important to have a system of budgets, as we have, so that everyone understands where we are going and the speed with which we hope to go there.

I have no idea whether the new arrangements will be better than the last as regards Ministers, but I warn my noble friend Lord Lawson that he has underestimated the commitment of Greg Clark as Secretary of State. I do not think he has read what Greg Clark said about his commitment to climate change, or the commitment to oppose climate change which is clearly on the record from our new Prime Minister. As the independent chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, I shall keep both of them down to their words. However, I merely remark that there is no way of dealing with these situations unless business is part of it—so I am not instinctively opposed, particularly as infrastructure, too, has to deal with these issues. I am pleased to see that the chairman of the infrastructure commission has made it clear that he will seek to deal with infrastructure within the context of the carbon budget.

I remind the House that we have reduced our emissions significantly, largely in the power sector. These are not exported jobs going somewhere else; we have done it. Sometimes I wish that my noble friends would appear at the presentations from the Committee on Climate Change. They would find that many of the things they have said are just not true. We have shown that there is no offshoring and that the poor are much more damaged by climate change than any other section of the community.

When my noble friend Lord Lawson refers to the poor, I remind him—I have looked carefully at his Budgets—that the poor did not feature large in those Budgets. But those who care about the poor, and the people who talk about the poor because they work for the poor—all those international organisations, from Save the Children right the way through to CAFOD and Oxfam—are quite clear that climate change is the biggest danger to poor people that exists, and therefore we have to deal with it in a cost-effective way.

Of course there is some argument about whether we should have this little bit of flexibility. However, it is flexibility based on the principle that some of the forecasts may not be accurate, because it is a long way ahead, and in those terms the Committee on Climate Change has accepted that that should be so.

I could of course answer each of the points that my noble friend Lord Ridley has made, but I do not want to cut out my other noble friend who sits next to me, so I will finish by saying this. Brexit is important but not central. This is our Climate Change Act—the Act which leads the world and which makes Britain the sort of leader that my noble friends thought we ought to be when they talked in the Brexit debates. I think that Brexit is a terrible mistake, but I know that the Climate Change Act puts us in a position genuinely to make a proper contribution for the next generation, and it is there that the jobs will be.

I end with a very simple point. Economic self-harm would be not having the Climate Change Act. That is what you would do if you did not want new jobs and green jobs, if you did not want to sell abroad because you have green products and if you did not want to be the kind of country that leads the world. Self-harm is denying the Climate Change Act. I am proud that all-party support has today enabled the Government to implement the fifth carbon budget as proposed by the Committee on Climate Change.