Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Worthington Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I echo the comments by the noble Lords, Lord O’Neill and Lord Foulkes, surrounding the tsunami of amendments that we have had to the Bill so far, with more to come on Wednesday, with very little notice indeed. That makes it very difficult for this House to do what it sees as its core activity in this sort of legislation.
I have no issue at all with the managerial nature of the amendments, but I echo the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell. While I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that the key factor here is that we should be able to continue to benefit from our own oil rather than import it, which is important with regard to both energy security and the environment, I hesitate more and more as we go through these energy conversations when it comes to the Minister’s and the Government’s confidence about our ability to meet our own climate change targets, which we all passed into law with the Climate Change Act with cross-party agreement in this House and the other place, and which we all still say we support. We are far from being able to be confident about achieving those targets a few years hence, let alone by 2050. We have to look at all these debates on Report as part of that challenge, whether it is from the United Nations special scientific advisers or from our own Committee on Climate Change. The writing is on the wall that we are moving in the wrong direction, and I think that we should take this concern very seriously.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory comments. As we start the first day of Report on the Bill, it is welcome to hear from the Government a reiteration of their commitment to action on climate change and to decarbonising the UK economy.
I add my voice to those of noble Lords who have spoken ahead of me in reflecting on the way in which the Bill has been conducted. I am probably not alone in not having had much of a weekend; I am sure that the Minister has had similar issues to deal with. I take these issues incredibly seriously, as people know, and it makes me genuinely unsettled and discomfited to know that I am not able to do the best job that I can because of the timescales that we are working under. I think that many noble Lords share that feeling. As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, we are where we are—but it could have been so different.
In these opening comments on Report, I want to reflect on the question of why we are making such haste. Why is such an important body as the OGA being created in such a piecemeal way, with amendments coming forward and new issues arising in a very febrile and fast-changing environment? There seems to be no time for the Government to take stock and review. It is because the timing of the Bill is not about the major portion of it, which is the OGA, but Clause 66 which closes the RO a year early. It was closing anyway in 2017, so we are in rather a rush to make that deadline in order for this not to be a complete waste of our parliamentary time. That is why we are racing through. That is why we have not had enough pre-legislative scrutiny and why there are so many fundamental issues that have not been properly addressed in Committee. That is why we are facing an inundation of amendments now. It is a very regrettable situation and one that I personally take very seriously, as I am sure the Minister does, too. I only wish that perhaps people in other parts of the Government took this issue as seriously as those who are represented here today, because it is not good enough.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will try to deal with the issues that have been raised. First, it is true that the Government have tabled many of the amendments before us, but I would argue that the most of them, certainly in this group, are technical. The nature of business means that some House of Lords legislation has to start in this place, and we should rejoice in that rather than think it should not happen. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, seemed to suggest that a lot of what we are looking at today regarding the Oil and Gas Authority is controversial. I do not agree, but I accept that some of the stuff we will look at on Wednesday is more controversial.
I take the points made by the noble Lords, Lord O’Neill, Lord Foulkes and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell. It is true that we have brought forward amendments, but it has to be said that this is a complex area and we are setting up a pretty substantial body. In seeking to allay the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, I hope she will accept that I have no part in any conspiracy, and if this were not setting up a regulator, I would be very concerned. The first time I heard the word “privatisation” mentioned was by the noble Baroness, so I hope that she will accept that there is no such intention at all.
Baroness Worthington
The last time this legal form was used to create an agency was when the Highways Agency was created, and at the time numerous articles stated that this was a very convenient way to allow a future Government to privatise it. Therefore, there has been a previous discussion about this form of legal construct and this issue has been raised in that context. In addition, it is true that in the current form there would be nothing to stop the Government privatising without returning to Parliament to seek its approval.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I hope the noble Baroness will accept that that is not the intention. She also asked if there were other precedents. There are: the Prudential Regulation Authority is an example of a limited company that is a regulator.
Let me deal with some of the specific points that were raised. First, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I certainly did not take umbrage last week. I pointed out that, as was the case, I had been asked to seek an extra day in Committee and had been unable to get another day in Committee in the House. I offered a recommittal in the Moses Room to opposition parties, Cross-Bench Peers and Peers on my own side and had only one objection, from the noble Lord. I hope he will accept that. However, I certainly did not take umbrage.
My noble friend Lord Howell mentioned the immense pressure and the changing position. That is certainly true, but it underlines the importance of managing to secure this legislation, and the prime objective of maximising economic returns from the North Sea is very much in the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom and in the interests of decarbonisation. Therefore, I am not sure that I accept the underlying thesis of one or two contributions from noble Lords—that there is no urgency about this legislation. It is important, and there is an urgency attached to it. I accept the point about investment certainty and we have that very much in mind, as well as the need to ensure that we have a consensus at least on this part of the legislation. That would be of great importance for the industry, for our decarbonisation plans and for securing the best economic return from the North Sea.
I was asked about issues relating to the contracts of employment and whether these people would be civil servants. To address some points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, many people will be transferred from the government service and it is entirely right that they can expect to see their conditions of employment continue in the same way as previously. It is obviously the desire to ensure that we have a scheme analogous to TUPE. I believe that they are also entitled to the same pension arrangements, and that is why these pension arrangements are in place. I do not know of any cases of employees who will be required to move. I think it is unlikely because the people who will be transferred will be in London and Aberdeen—the great bulk of them in Aberdeen. If any are to be moved, I will ensure that the noble Lord gets a response, copied to other Peers, but I suspect that it will be on the existing terms, because that is the aim with the transfer of staff.
On future staff, we felt it right that there should be only one set of pension arrangements, which is why the current arrangements will continue. Of course, there will be the freedom to operate them so that the OGA can recruit as it sees fit in the future. However, as I say, the current pension arrangements will continue so that there is not, as it were, a two-tier system going forward.
Baroness Worthington
So the Minister is happy to have a two-tier system for remuneration but not for pensions. It seems rather odd to insert a clause that carries forward many of the benefits of Civil Service remuneration packages for all employees—the Minister said that it could be for new employees, too—yet we are going to unlock the salary levels at the same time. This seems very imprudent.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
We are setting up a separate body. The analogy the noble Baroness is pursuing is not perfect. Obviously, there are variations in salary at the moment, as there would be going into the future. The OGA will be given some operational freedom because we have set up a separate entity, which I think is entirely sensible. As I understand it, since the pension scheme operates on a percentage basis, that, too, would be variable. Essentially, it will be the existing one, and I think that is wholly defensible.
I believe that I have dealt with the relevant points. If I have missed any, I apologise, and I will pick them up after I have looked at the record. With that, I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I now turn to Amendments 7 and 22, which relate to further functions to be transferred to the Oil and Gas Authority.
The Energy Act 1976 contains important provisions relating to the giving of a consent for the flaring and venting of gas. Consent will be given by the OGA, rather than the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, for the flaring or venting of gas by a relevant oil or gas processing facility within the meaning of Section 82(1) of the Energy Act 2011. The holder of a petroleum production licence will have to obtain the consent of the OGA rather than the Secretary of State to vent gas. Consent to the flaring of gas under a petroleum production licence is not covered by that provision, as it will be sought under the licence from the relevant licensing authority. The matters for which consent must be sought from the OGA are set out in proposed new Section 12A of the Energy Act 1976, which is introduced by Amendment 7.
In bringing these functions within the regulatory remit of the OGA, the amendments make provision to ensure that the OGA can issue a financial penalty notice for a failure to comply with requirements to seek consent before disposing of natural gas by flaring and venting. A financial penalty notice may also be issued where a person has failed to inform the OGA of the disposal of natural gas by flaring or venting where it was not possible to obtain the consent of the OGA because there was a risk of injury to a person and the relevant criteria were satisfied.
Amendment 22 would allow the OGA to charge fees for the issuing of consents in relation to the disposal of natural gas by flaring and venting. This is consistent with the “user pays” principle and is in line with Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these amendments. The extent to which operations across the UK can conduct flaring or venting is important, and it is clearly right that there should be an ability to issue a financial penalty if there is a failure to comply. Therefore, many of the provisions introduced here appear to make sense.
I have one question. Venting and flaring would require careful correspondence with the environmental aspects of the regulation of the North Sea, in particular, and indeed of onshore oil and gas operations. Has the Environment Agency been involved in and consulted on these amendments? How would the proposed arrangements work in relation to the requirement to include the venting and flaring of gases under the European Emissions Trading Scheme, which is administered by the Environment Agency?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments on these amendments, which, like me, she accepts are important in relation to fee-charging. I will have to write to her on the specific issue of whether the Environment Agency has been consulted—I would anticipate that it has—and on the related point about the European Emissions Trading Scheme. Of course, the Oil and Gas Authority would be bound, as are other institutions, by environmental law, and I anticipate that the proper liaison would therefore take place. However, as I said, perhaps I may write to her on the specific issues she raises.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I confess that I do not have an exact understanding of all the details in relation to this issue—I hope I will be forgiven by any Members who do, if there are any—especially in relation to the devolved Administrations which inevitably seem to complicate matters. Can the Minister answer one question in relation to fracking? What is the position of the Scottish Government in terms of permissions for and control over fracking now, and how will it change if we pass this Bill?
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for presenting these amendments. I have no real questions on their detail, but I suspect that this is not the part of the Bill which has the most controversy in relation to devolution, and it is not Wales and Scotland that will be the most contentious aspects. However, I reiterate the question of my noble friend Lord Foulkes about fracking. If we could have an answer from the Minister, that would be welcome.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments. On the specific question about fracking, I have to confess that I am not certain about the position, but I am endeavouring to find an answer, and perhaps I may come back to it during the course of the debate.
Baroness Worthington
“Transportation and storage of greenhouse gases
In section 9A(1) of the Petroleum Act 1998 (the principal objective and the strategy), for “recovery of UK petroleum” substitute “return of UK petroleum, while retaining oversight of the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure, and securing its re-use for transportation and storage of greenhouse gases”.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, in moving Amendment 11 I shall speak also to Amendments 27 and 28 and to government Amendment 26, which is in this group. The Government’s Amendment 26 is a welcome concession. It is obviously a response to the debate held during the passage of the Bill where a number of noble Lords from different sides of the House raised the very important issue of whether the OGA’s powers, and indeed from my perspective its principal objectives, were fit for purpose. There was a strong sense that a review ought to be provided for in the Bill which the Government would undertake and then report back to Parliament. We are pleased to see that an amendment which would at least introduce a review has been tabled. I would say, however, that the review is of performance alone and not of purpose, and certainly makes no mention of a review of the primary objectives of the Bill. It is those primary objectives which are causing me the most concern. If noble Lords will bear with me, I should like to spend a little time articulating why that is, which will explain why we have brought forward Amendment 11 to change the principal objective of the OGA.
Noble Lords will be aware that the OGA was first created as a temporary executive agency under the Infrastructure Act 2015, and the intention was to implement the recommendations made by Sir Ian Wood as set out in the Wood review, which coined the phrase, “maximising economic recovery”. The eagle-eared among us will note that often when the Minister refers to MER, he actually describes it as “maximising economic return”, which is quite a significant difference. It may just be one word, but it indicates a subtle shift in focus that has happened since we received the Wood review in 2013. It has been eloquently alluded to on many occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and my noble friends Lady Liddell and Lord O’Neill, and others. There has been a significant change in the North Sea in particular since the Wood review was published and now, when we find ourselves looking at the detail of the OGA and how it will go about meeting the objectives of MER.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful for that very thorough response from the Minister and for the contributions from noble Lords in this debate. I am afraid I am not reassured. Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear in my introduction of Amendment 11 about the root of my concern. This is not to do with whether we can review the functions of the OGA or whether the performance of the OGA as set out in the Energy Bill is sufficient. I am referring to the primary objectives of the OGA as set in the Petroleum Act as amended by the Infrastructure Act. As I read out, those primary objectives are very odd for a regulator, for a body that is meant to be providing stewardship and oversight to an industry in the private sector part of the economy. It is that which causes me the greatest concern about this aspect of the Bill.
I am not reassured by the Minister’s references. In fact, I found myself questioning: which is it? Is it the case that this is not needed and that Amendment 11 is simply unnecessary? All these decommissioning references and CCS references were concessions we won from the Government in Committee. When the Bill appeared before us, there was no explicit mention of CCS or decommissioning. We had to extract that from the Government in Committee. Having done so, I contend that the primary objectives of this organisation do not fit those new powers.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I hope the noble Baroness accepts that the acceptance at Second Reading of the importance of CCS was not grudging. It was readily acknowledged, so there was nothing grudging about the concession, as she terms it. I hope she accepts that we have moved forward together on that.
Baroness Worthington
Absolutely. I pay tribute to the Minister for the manner in which he has conducted those discussions. However, it is true that the Bill that appeared before us read like something from a time gone by. There was no reference to future challenges or, indeed, present-day challenges. We have improved the Bill through the process of collaboration. We need to continue that process and look at the primary objectives.
Earlier today, the Minister was kind enough to give me an example of another regulator which is a private company with a single shareholder. It was the Prudential Regulation Authority. My understanding is that that is merely a temporary measure and that the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill, which will come before this House very soon, changes that temporary arrangement. It is therefore clear that regulators are not commonly private companies with very loosely defined objectives that do not refer to any kind of stewardship or regulatory function but merely refer to conducting, developing and investing in equipment and bringing people together to collaborate. Those are not the primary objectives I wish to see for a regulator of this size and complexity. It is for that reason that I am minded to test the opinion of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, agrees that decommissioning should be included in the primary objectives—it is not at the moment—but disagrees on CCS, so we are halfway to accepting that these primary objectives are not fit for purpose. The Government seem to be saying that the amendments are not needed and, at the same time, that to put them in the Bill would cause huge amounts of change. Those two things cannot be true. This is merely a way of making sure that the objectives match the functions we expect the OGA to undertake. This is such a significant issue for this aspect of the Bill that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for introducing his amendment, to the other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and to the Minister for introducing the government amendments starting with Amendment 12.
I do not wish anything that has happened today to undermine our great welcome for the way in which the Minister responded to our debate on CCS. The amendments that we are debating are testimony to how much the Minister has listened and taken on board the comments that were made. We very much welcome the measures, specifically the changes on making explicit the use of sampling and on the sharing of information and, indeed, the addition of government Amendment 12 to Clause 4, which sets out the matters to which the OGA must have regard. The amendment has both an explicit reference to carbon dioxide and the meeting of climate change targets. This is indeed very welcome and I certainly support the amendment being added to the Bill.
Because the Government’s amendment is comprehensive, we will not pursue Amendments 13 and 14 any further. We are delighted that those measures will now be included. I wish to speak also to Amendment 72, which the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, tabled and to which I was very pleased to add my name; and to what was my own Amendment 78, to which the noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Teverson, have added their names, which is replaced by a manuscript amendment. I apologise for that but we felt that it was important to clarify a change of wording for that amendment. I shall come on to that.
As we are considering in more detail the environmental and climate change aspects of the Bill, I should declare a potential future interest, as I did in Committee. As many noble Lords may be aware, I shall be stepping down from the Front Bench in a matter of weeks. I am in negotiation with a charity that works on climate change issues, so I felt that I should declare that potential future interest.
Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, would require the Government to undertake and develop a national strategy for carbon capture and storage. This amendment has a great deal of merit. It was excellent to meet the Minister and officials from his department. As has been mentioned, Stuart Haszeldine from Edinburgh University was present. It was a very good meeting and it became clear in the debate that there is an awful lot to do in the world of carbon capture and storage. However, “carbon capture and storage utilisation” is possibly the phrase we need to start using. That addresses some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the fact that there is not just one version of carbon capture and storage but potentially many with different attributes, in the same way that there are many renewables technologies with very different attributes.
Carbon capture and storage is a grouping of technologies with different aspects, technologies and uses and different storage end points, some of which are stored underground, some of which might be onshore and some of which might be offshore in disused oilfields or, indeed, in oilfields that continue to be used through enhanced oil recovery. However, there may be other forms of storage, including in mineralised aggregate and as a chemical feed into various other processes. I sense a mood change within industry towards wanting to have a much more in-depth discussion about the use of CCS going forward.
As we face our climate change targets going forward, and in particular the embodiment of those targets in the emissions trading scheme, which creates a hard cap on our industrial sectors that declines over time, we will have to develop a technology to enable us to maintain primary production in this country to keep a thriving and, we hope, growing industrial base. It is going through some difficult times at the moment, but we need to find a policy that will enable us to attract inward investment into industry to help it decarbonise, in the same way as we have done for renewables in the power sector. A strategy is definitely needed, particularly for those industrial players. Although it is welcome that we hope to have two demonstration projects proceeding in the power sector, which will potentially open up useful infrastructure that can be reused, there is very little in the way of policy for industrial players that helps them to decarbonise. They have an incentive to decarbonise in the shape of the carbon price but that is often softened by receiving compensation payments. However, there is no carrot. There is a stick and then there is compensation but there is no bankable, investable policy that would cause them to make a positive investment.
That is an urgent challenge for the UK to get its head around; otherwise, my fear is that we will see more closures, as we have seen at Redcar with SSI, which was meant to be a big element of the Teesside decarbonisation cluster. That closure removes one of the elements of that strategy, which would have led to a carbon capture and storage hub, which would have decarbonised our industrial bases there and, I am certain, would have attracted investment from Europe and elsewhere because it would have been future-proofed. You could locate there, reinvest in industrial manufacturing and production, and be confident that you had a place to store your CO2 and therefore not just be compensated but actually avoid the need to pay carbon prices. So a strategy is definitely needed for industrial sectors.
Some ideas have been floated. One is that, just as we have a contract for difference in the power sector, it would be possible to have a contract for difference in the industrial sectors. You would not be able to do it off the power price, clearly, but you could do it off the carbon price. You could give some investor certainty that you will be compensating for the fluctuating carbon price and give a degree of confidence so that an investor could go to the bank and say, “On the back of this I am going to receive compensation from these contracts and we should go ahead and invest”. Those are the sorts of things we need to see in this strategy as we go forward.
Our strategy on the capped sectors—those subject to the EU ETS cap; that is, power and industrial—still leaves more than half the economy’s emissions uncapped and very little in the way of a wholesale comprehensive policy to decarbonise those sectors. Those uncapped sectors are largely serviced by the oil and gas industry; that is, the transport and heating sectors, in so far as heating is used in buildings, as opposed to primary manufacture and production. Those uncapped sectors, which affect the oil and gas industry, are a very important part of what we need to get our heads around and what we need to address as we look at our targets, because clearly our targets are economy-wide. They are set out in the carbon budgets we have set ourselves to meet our requirements under the Climate Change Act.
In the way we currently treat the carbon budgets, the uncapped sectors actually cause us the greatest difficulty because we do not have an EU-wide emissions trading scheme or low-carbon incentives in the form of CFDs, and we have fewer levers. We have the renewable transport fuel obligation and the renewable heat incentive, both of which, as the names suggest, incentivise investment only into renewables. They do not do anything for carbon capture and storage in those transport and heat sectors, and nor would they for nuclear. I happen to believe that in the future, we will probably be able to deliver nuclear into those sectors. We are not there yet, but we are close to being able to see how CCS could contribute in those sectors. I should say again that CCS is the broad technology that includes CCU, which would give us a number of technologies to work from.
We have a curious situation where we have a relatively challenging target on the uncapped sectors but almost no comprehensive policies to incentivise decarbonisation. This is where Amendment 78A comes in. This idea was discussed in Committee. It may be ahead of its time and we may need some more discussions. I very much look forward to the department facilitating such discussions after the Bill leaves this House. The fundamental question is: how can we get to a more market-based form of incentive to help decarbonise heat and transport? I do not think we can rely on renewable heat incentives paid for by taxpayers, and nor is the renewable transport fuel obligation the answer. There has to be something much more technology-neutral and market-friendly, whereby industries and the private sector can find and select the best projects to help with that task.
The idea we debated in Committee was that we would ask providers and importers of fossil fuels into the UK—whether they are extracting here from the North Sea or onshore, or importing from overseas—to invest in projects which permanently stored and reduced emissions. We have come back with Amendment 78A as a reworked version of that. It is not the perfect wording by any means—it is still a probing amendment—but we felt it important to re-table it because there is the germ of an idea here which will help the Government, and the UK in its move towards economic growth, to harness the power and ingenuity of the private sector in delivering us least-cost decarbonisation.
Baroness Worthington
Thereby hangs the problem—it is put back into the atmosphere. These carbon-negative technologies would have to be permanently stored and would have to be over geological timescales, or at least decadal timescales, in order to help in tackling climate change. Of course, CO2 is part of the biosphere but we are talking here about fossilised CO2 that built up over millennia and is being released over a much shortened timescale—a massive chemical experiment that we do not yet know the consequences of.
This could be a rich seam for policymakers and the department, which has already moved a long way in improving the Bill. I certainly hope that if we carry on in this spirit, we will resolve these issues of how to get CCS and CCU deployed so that we can save our industries, attract inward investment and reuse infrastructure sensibly. We could do that through a strategy or the creation of a group—there must be many ways in which this can be done. An Energy Bill should be addressing these issues. They are urgent—we are losing our industrial players—but on the plus side many innovative engineers around the country are coming forward with great ideas. We need to capture that, turn it into something tangible, use it to comply with our obligations and show that we can do decarbonisation at least cost while preserving our industrial might. If we can do that, we shall have an example to show the Premier of China, whom I am sure is grappling with this too.
There is not a single industrialised country that does not now have in its mind how it is going to create steel in a low carbon environment. How is cement going to be produced? What about plastics? We cannot simply ignore that aspect of the decarbonisation challenge. I am not saying that the Government are ignoring it, but we do seriously need to get going now in thinking this through—sooner rather than later—so that we do not see any more unfortunate examples of employers in our heavy industries leaving these shores. We need to keep them here and we need to set incentives for reinvestment. CCSU is one of the few groups of technologies that enables us to do that successfully. We must press on.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I shall try to deal with these and then come back to the amendments that I believe were addressed, namely Amendments 71, 72 and the manuscript amendment, 78A.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for his kind comments and reiterate the point about £1 billion being committed to CCS projects. His points on carbon negativity—also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and my noble friend, Lord Howell—are well made. I shall come on to those in a broader context later.
My noble friend Lord Howell asked about the need for the government amendment in the light of the item under Clause 4(1) which already refers to innovation and working practices in general terms. The point here is the need for specificity. Clearly in the context of the North Sea there is a particular point about CCS, hence the government amendments. These strike the right balance. Without picking winners, we need to recognise that there is a particular opportunity in relation to the North Sea and particularly in relation to decommissioning—an almost unique opportunity for the United Kingdom to ensure that we focus on CCS. That is something that the OGA and its director, Andy Samuel, recognise, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was at his disarming best. I find that that is when he is at his most dangerous, so I have to be careful. I thank him for his kind comments, share his upset about both rugby matches and recognise the particular point about Scotland being robbed. That is absolutely right.
The noble Lord asked about China and the meetings that the Secretary of State would be having during the course of the next couple of days. She already has met with the Minister for Energy to discuss particular issues. From what I can gather, that process will be going on over the next couple of days. Additionally, it is important to note that this contact with China is not isolated. Members of its rough equivalent of our Committee on Climate Change were here recently. The Secretary of State met with them, as did I and my noble friend Lord Deben. Clearly China is a massive player in relation to energy so it is important that we have this continuing dialogue. It is certainly happening. If I have any more specific points about the Green Grid alliance I shall write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, agreed with the thrust of the non-government amendments and the broader environmental considerations. As I have said, we have done our best. I shall deal with these more specifically to ensure, as I believe is already the case, that environmental considerations are covered. I shall touch on that shortly.
As I said previously, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, well in her new role, as I am sure the whole House would want to do. I could sit and listen to her for a long while on energy because I think that she knows far more than any of us in this House. I am sure that her commitment and her knowledge will be a massive plus to the organisation to which she is going. I know that she will have a continuing important role in this House so that we will not lose her considerable, massive expertise in this area.
The noble Baroness referred to the steel issue. I was at the summit in Rotherham that the Government held on Friday. The steel issue in relation to the United Kingdom is very complex. At its root, perhaps, is overproduction in China, which is more than twice total EU production. That sums up the problem. There are many aspects to it, and one is procurement. The procurement rules in Europe have been relaxed considerably in our favour. We are the first country to sign up to those new rules, so I hope that we shall be in a position to benefit from that. However, I do not pretend that that is a silver bullet. It is not. There are clearly many issues there. I agree with many of the points that she was making.
The noble Baroness asked about decarbonising industry and particularly mentioned Teesside. We are currently reviewing the findings from the Teesside feasibility study that was published in July and will work with industry on the policy framework on that.
Let me turn to some specifics on Amendments 72 and 78A. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for speaking to Amendment 72, which seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to produce and implement a CCS strategy. As the Government have set out, and as the noble Lord rightly underlines, CCS has the potential to play a vital role in decarbonising our power and industrial sectors. The Energy Technologies Institute estimates that CCS could halve the cost of meeting our 2050 emissions reduction target from £60 billion to £30 billion.
Plants fitted with CCS technology could reduce CO2 emissions from coal and gas power stations by around 90%, enabling clean, dispatchable power powered by coal or gas to play a role in a decarbonised UK economy. This would contribute to secure, resilient energy supplies for consumers. That is why the Government have in place one of the most comprehensive CCS programmes in the world, as recently recognised by the independent Global CCS Institute and to which allusion has been made. Our commitment to supporting CCS is clear. The CCS road map published in 2012 set out the long-term plan to support CCS through the CCS Commercialisation Programme, research, development and innovation, electricity market reform, a strong regulatory environment and international collaboration. Our CCS competition is potentially providing up to £1 billion support, as has been acknowledged.
We have invested over £130 million since 2011 to support research, development and innovation to foster the next generation of CCS technologies, including £2.5 million in a recent project to scope promising CO2 storage sites—key to developing a viable CCS industry here in the United Kingdom. We also recognise the real potential offered by CCS as a long-term route to help United Kingdom industries such as iron, steel and cement to decarbonise. We invested £1 million to explore the business case for industrial CCS on Teesside. We are also looking ahead. The CCS policy scoping document published last year set out the key issues for the medium-term development of CCS in the UK. We are actively engaging industry on the challenges facing future projects and how Government can best design a framework to overcome them.
I understand that noble Lords are keen to support the deployment of CCS in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, expressly mentioned the need for a government response. That is why, in one of the meetings that we held looking at CCS, I suggested setting up a CCS Peers’ group as a sort of ginger group. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, to chair that group. That would be a good way forward. I should be happy to look at advice, obviously without commitment. It would be a way of feeding in the expert advice which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has quite rightly said exists in this House. It would help to shape what is, as I think that we all agree, an important area of policy.
I hope I have reassured the House that we are serious about realising the potential of CCS in the United Kingdom and that we have in place a robust support framework. Our proposed amendments on the role of the OGA with regard to CCS underline this.
Baroness Worthington
By way of clarification, I do not think that I stressed enough that this would apply not just to UK operations but, significantly, to the increased importation of fuels in the oil and gas sector. Obviously, it would be excellent if the Treasury could use the funding that would flow from that to invest in UK infrastructure for decarbonisation. This is not intended as a punitive measure for UK operators but as a way of addressing the fact that an entire half of our economy—fuels that we use for heat and transport—is uncapped, with no explicit carbon price. This would be a way of dealing with that and having that money flow from the ultimate sources of these imported fuels, which are overseas, into UK infrastructure.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness for the clarification. She identifies a problem that does exist. We are looking, as I think I indicated previously, at regulation in relation to the transport sector, which is probably more realistic and a more likely runner at the moment. I accept the spirit in which she has tabled the amendment, but I do not think that we are in a position where we can accept what I would see as additional cost burdens on industry at this stage. That said, I believe that the offer to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has been accepted, subject to his busy diary, and I hope that we can move forward with that. Perhaps in that context we can look at proposals like this and at possible developments in the industry. I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.
Renewable Energy: Solar
Baroness Worthington Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, sadly it is a feature of life that we do not get as much sun as some countries. The good news on solar panels is that of course they can deliver significant advantages in Africa—which my right honourable friend Justine Greening is looking at through international development funds—and are delivering significant advantages in China and India as well.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, is the broader point not about investor confidence? Perhaps the Minister could tell us in which of the zero-carbon technologies the Government want to see investment and which of those will deliver UK jobs rather than ones potentially in France or China?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is refreshing to see the noble Baroness talking about British jobs and investor certainty in view of the difficulties that she must be having with her leadership in another place. I know very well that she supports new nuclear. Her leader does not.
Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Worthington Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deben
My own view is that there is a significant argument as to whether that was “the promise”; it was the mechanism that was put forward. My concern now is about a perfectly reasonable assumption that the Government, in looking at the circumstances, have decided that the way in which the system works has to be severely altered. In doing that, I am concerned that we do not deal unfairly with companies that have entered into significant costs on the basis of what the law appeared to them to be. Why do I say that? I do not have a position to argue on behalf of the companies but I have a duty to argue on behalf of the future of our policies towards climate change. That means we have to ensure that the British Government are always seen as absolutely dependable. I warn that if we do not get that right, we will find ourselves in the position that some other Governments appear to be in. In general, the Government seem to have done precisely what they ought to in these amendments and I commend the Minister for putting them forward in this way. I speak in support of what he has done here.
However, during the course of the debate and discussions, the Minister will have heard a number of particular examples which sound as if they fall on the wrong side of the lines that have been drawn. My experience from many years as a Minister is that having one occasion which looks pretty unfair causes very considerable angst, not just to those people but much more widely, so that that one occasion begins to undermine the way in which the Government are seen. I want the Minister to look carefully just to make sure that where some of the examples which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, presented earlier are reasonable, we should find some way through.
Secondly, I do not know how much the Minister has to do with planning permission personally. I declare an interest in the sense that I help people to do planning permission for sustainable development—not anything to do with energy but on other things. Planners can take a very long time and when one is trying to work with them on a joint agreement, all these rules about having to provide an answer in four months can so easily end up as 14 months, and sometimes as 24 months. But you do that because you really want to get an answer which everyone is happy with. I therefore hope the Minister will recognise that if there are circumstances where it appears that another arm of government has made it impossible for people to meet the real and sensible restrictions which he is laying to achieve his ends, he will look particularly carefully at those circumstances. One area where people feel very unhappy is if they feel that one bit of government has made it impossible for them to meet the arrangements which another bit has perfectly properly put forward, so I hope he will look at that.
The third thing I hope the Minister will do is that when he talks about these things he will remind people of the enormous success of the policy, as I mentioned earlier. This policy has achieved a great deal. Britain was hugely at the bottom of the heap in the amount of renewable energy it had. We have done extremely well, which seems something to be very cheered about. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Howell, as he always does, referred to this great industry. The renewables industry is a great industry and has emerged from circumstances in which it was rather laughed at by many people. It is now a serious industry with serious results and, importantly, providing for the absolute demand that we have to combat climate change—which, as I think almost all of us accept, is the biggest material threat to mankind.
As I have said on earlier occasions, these amendments—although they may not all be right—are important in order to emphasise that the Government have to follow what they have already done with their own amendments. They have to make sure that at no point does it look as though they have let people down, because it is very important for future policies that that does not happen. However, they are also important because they are testament to the fact that this Government have achieved so much, and I think that it is necessary for the wider community to become more interested in ends than in means.
I finish by saying that assessing Governments’ commitments on the basis of whether they happen to accept a particular way of doing something rather than on whether they are achieving the end that you want is a great mistake. We ought always to recognise that it is difficult to be government and it is easy to be opposition; it is easier to be green in opposition than it is in government. The judgment must be: have the Government achieved the end to which they have committed themselves? At the moment, the jury is out because we do not know the alternative ways of proceeding. However, it is perfectly reasonable for a Government to decide that it is no longer sensible to subsidise in one way rather than another or to subsidise in one way rather than have no subsidy. All that matters is that the Government can stand with their head held high and say, “We have met our obligations”. There are some examples here which I think it would be a mistake not to look at very carefully; otherwise, all the good intentions of these amendments might be much undermined.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this session of the Committee. I should start by declaring an additional future relevant interest. I am in negotiations about taking up a position with an American charity that will be working on climate change and energy. I have not signed anything yet, but I think that it is material and that therefore I should declare a potential future interest.
I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate and, again, to the Minister for his introduction to these clauses. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for—as has been said before—his forensic description and critique of the amendments as we see them today. I say at the outset that we are, as I am sure are the Government, committed fully to decarbonising the UK energy system at least cost in a way that ensures that we maintain security of supply and, one hopes, engenders an industrial revolution that we can be proud of and export to the rest of the world. Within that, people will know that I have no particular love of any particular technology. I take a very broad view towards the groups of technologies that should be considered as we go forward in this endeavour.
In that spirit, I want to ask the Minister some specific questions relating to the amendments but also to a wider context. I am sure he appreciates that we are dealing with a somewhat febrile environment. There is now sufficient investor disquiet that people are watching very carefully for signals from the Government that this is not about the wholesale disruption of the renewables industry, and we must do everything that we can to reassure the industry that that is not the case.
I shall start with the more specific questions relating to the amendments. As was raised earlier, there are some anomalies. They may arise from the fact that it feels, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, as if we are in a liquid legislation situation, where we seem to be getting rather large chunks of detailed and complex legislation with relatively little time to assess it. I am therefore genuinely looking forward to the Minister’s responses because some of these anomalies seem to be substantial and we need a response.
The Government made this announcement on 18 June, in the first few weeks of government after the election, and then set about consulting. That is not normally the way around that we would expect a Government to behave, but there we are. We are where we are. Then, in the Minister’s own words, they consulted industry and hundreds of stakeholders. To my knowledge, however, although maybe I have missed it, we have not seen the synthesis of the results of that consultation. In normal proceedings, the Government would conduct a consultation and get the results back, and we would all be able to look at what everyone had said. As far as I am aware, we have not had that. That puts us at a great disadvantage. There is distinct informational asymmetry since the Government have been involved in all these conversations but Members of Parliament from other parties have not had that luxury. We have therefore found ourselves, in the past few days since these rather detailed amendments came forward, having to consult a large number of people to absorb their concerns, even though we have very little to go on in terms of being able to place them in context. Noble Lords will have noticed that we have not tabled any amendments to the amendments. This is because until this morning we have been receiving people’s feedback on these complex issues.
As the Minister said, this is a complex issue. Had the draftspeople who were writing the manifesto in April and May before the election realised quite the implication of those few words in the manifesto, would we have seen them appear? Regrettably, they have led to this huge amount of complexity and disquiet and a feeling among some investors that they have not been handled with due respect. They have seen what they thought were very sensible investment decisions being completely undermined by what to them was a very sudden and surprising announcement with very little signalling that it would take place.
The government amendments are intended to clarify, but unfortunately they just raise more anomalies. This has been raised already, but it might just be worth reiterating a couple of points. We have a situation now where the grace periods will apply to projects that have had a negative decision in planning overturned at appeal. That seems to fly in the face of Clause 65, which says that local people should have the final say. Here we have a situation where a project that clearly was not very popular has been appealed and is now going forward. Such projects will continue to be eligible. However, where we have the reverse—an approval by local planning but no written documents, so we have gone through the democratic process and had approval but have not yet received the written information—the guillotine comes down and you cannot go forward. That seems to be a very odd situation. Similarly, you may have got your approval, but if you have asked for a variation and are waiting for clarity on it, that too falls foul of this artificial 18 June deadline. I would like the Minister to respond to those concerns and explain why the guillotine is being interpreted in this way, which seems to conflict with the overall desire of the Government to keep local government and local decision-making at the heart of this.
Then we move on to the issue of whether investment has been frozen out by the uncertainty created by bringing forward this clause. Again, as a general point, this could have been so different had we not embarked on this endeavour, but there we are. We are where we are. I am repeating some of the technical questions that have already been asked so eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. We question why only lenders who have investor-grade credit ratings qualify. That seems quite restrictive and could freeze out very good potential creditworthy lenders who happen not to meet that particular criterion.
We would like to know exactly how the investment freezing will be interpreted. Do you have to prove that you have been frozen out for the entire time of the legislation from the start to Royal Assent, or just a part of that? How much of the delay counts and what does not count?
My final point has already been raised. Once you have proof that you have been frozen out, you have to show this by a certain date—I think it is March 31 2016. How long will it take before you get a reply? You have to have already built your project by December 2017. There is nothing in here to say that there must be a time limit by which any final decision is made. It could drag on. It has been said before that some of these things drag on for reasons outside government control. We need more clarity on how that will work practically. I know that it seems slightly odd to be arguing over and/or, but it is material about whether we are talking about a grace period for grid and radar delays or whether it is just grid as one category and radar as another. We need clarity on that.
Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Worthington Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am waiting for my noble friend Lord Ridley to give his limpid views on the future of onshore wind and, indeed, on the role of onshore and offshore wind power in the tasks of reducing emissions worldwide and producing a balanced energy policy for the British people. No doubt he will enter into later debates on the next clause which will cover very much the same ground.
I admire the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his frank admission of the dilemma he faces. On the one hand, localism is the flavour of the month, the year and the time, and there is a great desire to move from central administration in every area of policy, certainly including energy, into a greater role for local people, local planning and local authorities, yet he is also worried about inconsistency and fears that in some way the onshore wind cause is being abandoned. I do not see that. If you look at the proposals and the argument in the impact assessments behind the Bill, it is perfectly clear that, first, onshore wind has had a fantastic run over recent years. Some would say it was possibly too big a run given the very considerable economic advantages it brought to many wealthy individuals, gigantic corporations and energy companies and to those who are benefiting in all sorts of other ways from the proceeds and the subsidies, which are, of course, paid for by the consumer. In many cases, we know it is the poor consumer, and it is certainly the competitive consumer in industry. It is clear that subsidies have created this great growth. There must be a limit, as has been set quite clearly by government, and it is going to be exceeded unless the brakes are put on. There is a limit in two senses: first, the sheer weight of subsidy required to maintain the industry until it can get its costs down. I will come to that in a moment because there are real problems in getting costs down.
Secondly, there is managing a balanced grid system which can absorb the intermittency of wind. Every country that has gone into this business in a big way—Denmark is a good example—has found enormous difficulties. That is one reason why Denmark wants to have an interconnector with Britain for electricity. Intermittently there will be no charge at all for the electricity it supplies to us because it is a danger to it and an advantage to us. Spain has found enormous difficulties in going too fast and beyond the limits of engineering and electronic management in organising its grid when the wind blows too hard or too regularly.
Thirdly, there is the intermittency problem, which we all face. One day we will get over it because the storage will come at lower costs and intermittency problems will be much reduced. In the mean time, though, intermittency requires back-up, and back-up requires gas. There are other devices but gas-generated electricity is the area where most people in Europe, certainly in this country, think the gap can be filled. Far from being inconsistent, then, it seems to me utterly consistent that at this point the contribution of onshore wind should be restrained in the ways that are proposed.
As for the emissions angle, we know that we are driven by the European requirements for renewable energy, the formidable target of 15% of our energy from renewable sources by, I think, 2020, and Europe’s target of 40% by 2030. It is quite clear from the present pattern that we are not going to meet that target, and that even if we were to double the onshore wind power we still would not get near it, even if we took into account merely the emissions that emerge from the production of energy. In fact, the emissions that emerge from our capital consumption of energy per head, and from all the vast imports that we suck into this country from countries with much lower standards with very high emission content, have not fallen very much at all; indeed, many would argue that they have increased greatly since 1990.
So the real problem is that the present policy is not actually working. Those of us who are concerned about climate change look at what is happening throughout Europe, notice the contrary tendencies in delivering emission reduction—much more coal burning and a failure of the heavy concentration of wind around the islands, like the one that we are living on—and ask whether we should not begin to think about an entirely new and different policy. I see no inconsistency at all. No doubt we will debate this a little further on in the afternoon in more depth and detail.
I worked very closely with my friends in the Liberal Democrats in the last Government and enjoyed doing so, but I find their stance on this almost impossible to understand. They seem to be favouring a system that does not do much for emissions, distributes money in massive ways from the poor to the rich and apparently produces all kinds of tax advantages that are going to be exploited. This is one irony of the situation: even with this restraint, it looks to me as though we are going to have continuous investment in onshore wind, even without the subsidies, because of the big tax advantages that are built into the system. Should we not be looking at those before we take a position on the question of local powers and so on?
It is a puzzle to me that we do not look in a more balanced way at what is being done. It seems utterly consistent. I do not think that I want to be a supporter of anything that promotes further a system that is unfair to the poorest people and consumers, and which delivers considerable tax advantages to clever people and yet does not do very much at all for emission reduction. It seems to me to be a sad mixture, and it is about time that it was changed.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for introducing this clause stand part debate, and to noble Lords who have contributed to it. I shall make a few comments. As we enter the third day of Committee, I am grateful to the Minister for having agreed to extend the Committee for an extra day. I think that this has arisen because we felt—I have probably made myself fairly clear on this—that the handling of the Bill has been slightly suboptimal, and we are expecting more amendments to come to us before Report. We are very grateful that we now have an opportunity to discuss those in Committee before then.
Today we move on to Part 4, which it is fair to say is the more controversial aspect. People on both sides of the Committee may have different views about the benefits or disbenefits of particular technologies, but we must strive to ensure that we have a good policy and governance regime that will help investors not to waste their money. One of our concerns is that any manifesto, no matter how good the drafters, is prepared relatively hastily and usually without a great deal of thought for the detail. Yet here we are, just months after that manifesto was put into print, hastily enacting some of the statements in it and I think that we are still lacking some of the detail.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the so-called extra day in Committee and, for the first time, I thank the noble Baroness for getting back to me. I hope she accepts that twice over the weekend I tried to contact her and left a message. It would have been good to hear from her that the situation is fine—only now am I am hearing for the first time that it is.
Baroness Worthington
I communicated through our Whips this morning that it was acceptable. They are in communication with the noble Lord’s Whips. Therefore, I have gone through the normal channels.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
We had corresponded directly earlier but I accept that the situation is fine. Technically it is not another day in Committee, which I believe is causing the clerks consternation; it is a day for recommital in the Moses Room, and I think that that is understood. I hope that noble Lords will accept that we have endeavoured to accommodate people’s wishes in relation to the subsidies that we will be looking at.
It is very good to see the noble Baroness still in her place. I suspect that she and I will be agreeing much more than she will be agreeing with her leader, and we will perhaps come to that later. We will come on to decarbonisation in relation to nuclear policy. It is important that we have a responsible Opposition because they are an alternative Government, so we will come on to that and it is absolutely right that we do.
Baroness Worthington
“( ) In section 32LA (1) after “order” insert “subject to subsection (2A)”.
( ) After section 32LA (2) insert—
“(2A) The power to make a renewables obligation closure order applying to Scotland may only be exercised by Scottish Ministers.””
Baroness Worthington
We now pass to the second relatively controversial aspect of this Bill: the decision to close the renewables obligation a year earlier than had been originally legislated for in the Energy Act 2013.
Many of the people involved in the Energy Act 2013 will be aware of discussions that were had at the time when we debated the rights or wrongs of closing the RO. This amendment would return powers to control how the RO was dealt with in its final years to Scottish Ministers. We tabled this amendment to give ourselves an opportunity to state, for the record, that when we were debating the RO closures in the House of Lords—the power to close the RO was introduced by amendment in the House of Lords—it was under quite an unusual set of circumstances. The Minister was not present, so I hope it will be helpful if I give him some context.
Before the Energy Act 2013, Scottish Ministers had full control over the renewables obligation in line with the Scotland Act 1998, which devolved powers to the Scottish Government in respect of supplying electricity from renewable sources. The Energy Act 2013 took back this control through a government amendment tabled in this House, giving the Secretary of State the power to close the RO, including in Scotland. The justification for this change in the law was that it would facilitate a coherent and transparent closure across the UK and a move towards the new contract for a different system. However, that was not without concerns, and concerns were certainly raised in the other place. Fergus Ewing MSP was particularly vocal in his concern that the way this had been chosen to be dealt with was the stripping of Scottish Ministers’ powers in this area of discretion.
Since then, we were all working on the assumption that it would be an orderly transition from the RO to a new system of support. As recently as January this year, we had a statement from Ministers that there was no intention to review the RO and that it would continue as was planned. Then we saw the manifesto from the Conservative Party. I know that it is stating the obvious, but manifestos are not a document of government; they are a document of a political party. While you can claim that you can use the Salisbury convention, this is a rapid change in policy with significant implications not just for investors in the private sector—and the knock-on effect for all investors who are looking to bring their technologies and their investment to the UK—but particularly for Scotland, where there has been a real need for inward investment and a greater role for the private sector in creating jobs. For that to be so significantly affected by this manifesto commitment is truly regrettable, and I know that the Scottish aspect will be talked about in great detail when the Bill leaves this place and enters the other place.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for moving the amendment and noble Lords who have participated in the debate.
First, I shall set out the Government’s position and then deal with the points raised by noble Lords. The purpose of the amendment is to enable Scottish Ministers, rather than the United Kingdom Government, to close the renewables obligation in Scotland in relation to onshore wind.
For background, the legal powers for the Government to close this, as has been rightly said, were included in the Energy Act 2013. The reason for that was to ensure that consumers and the industry had clarity on the closure arrangements associated with the renewables obligation as part of the transition to the contracts for difference regime, and the confidence that closure would take place consistently across Great Britain during this process of transition—a point made by my noble friend Lord Ridley. The energy situation is on a GB basis and it is best that we move on that basis. These reasons still hold firm today.
Furthermore, energy policy across Great Britain is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Smith agreement, which are forthcoming in the Scotland Bill, and we are doing that throughout that Bill. We are doing it based on the Smith agreement and the agreement within that process of the five political parties of Scotland—the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. However, transferring legal authority to close the renewables obligation in Scotland to Scottish Ministers goes considerably further than this. My department has engaged and will continue to engage with Scottish Ministers and officials, as I do, throughout the development of this policy, in line with the spirit of the Smith agreement.
Finally, this proposed change could prevent the United Kingdom delivering on its ambition to end new subsidies for onshore wind. I appreciate that this is not popular throughout the House but it is, after all, based on a change of Government and on policy enshrined in the manifesto at the other side of a general election. It could also have wider impacts on the management of low carbon spend with possible increases to consumer energy bills.
To deal with the points made on the history of this, I appreciate that they were made absolutely correctly by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, of whom I am a considerable disciple on devolution issues, as he knows. The noble Lord was at his disarming best, which is considerable, and I appreciate what he was saying about the need to keep Scottish Ministers involved. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his kind words on consultation and what he said about the need to keep the Scottish Government involved. It is common ground between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government that the currently integrated GB-wide energy arrangements are in the interests of everybody, with Scotland being a net beneficiary of that. That is very much at the forefront of our thinking on this issue and it influences our thinking.
I take seriously the points made absolutely correctly by my noble friend Lord Ridley—I am very pleased that he is here today—on the importance of acting on a United Kingdom basis. That is what is behind this amendment. It is certainly not to do down Scotland—far from it. As noble Lords appreciate, this party—as are others here—is very much committed to ensuring that Scotland gets more than a fair deal within the United Kingdom. That is clearly important. With that, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness if she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and for the contributions from other noble Lords in this debate.
This is an issue that will not go away; it will come back and be debated with different amendments. As I said, this is a probing amendment, which is designed to enable us to have this debate. It is a very important debate. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has well-known views on this, but surely it is a matter of some subjectivity whether one considers the landscape to be ruined. Perhaps we should be weighing that against the economy being ruined by destabilising a very important, growing industry in a country that desperately needs inward investment and jobs. Comments were made, but it is the job of government to run the country in a way that tries to enable a good and sound policy environment that people can understand and act on in good faith.
We will spend the rest of the afternoon discussing these clauses—there is plenty to get at—so I will not make some of the points that I will make later, but I will flag in particular that the Minister has talked about a transition. I have sufficient concern that we are transitioning to something very uncertain. We do not know when the next round of CFD auctions will be held. We have seen a departure from the expected schedule already, very soon into the new Government. That will cause considerable concern and we will come to it.
The justification is that this is about an orderly transition. That masks the political nature of these clauses. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, this is quite a political amendment and quite a political part of the Bill. I do not think the Government will be able simply to brush this off and say that it is all for the good of the UK. Clearly, we have the Scottish Parliament for a reason. When it comes to these matters, where it has had powers in the past, it seems to go completely against the trend that there should be no concession from the Government on the Scottish Parliament having some say in this, particularly in this case, where the Government have taken the Salisbury convention and stretched it to its maximum. It is true that there is nothing specific in the Government’s manifesto about the sudden alteration of a policy that was discussed at length following a great deal of consultation not that long ago.
On the basis that we will return to this, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Baroness Worthington
Baroness Worthington
In moving Amendment 34B, I shall also speak to Amendments 34C, 34D and 35D in this group on the detail associated with the closure of the renewables obligation as we see it in the Bill. We have tabled a number of detailed amendments because we have been promised that the Government will bring forward detailed amendments to help to create some level of understanding and detail of how this provision of the early closure will work in practice. It is one thing to write a sentence in a manifesto, but something else to implement it in a way that does not cause great uncertainty or see people who have invested in good faith lose money because of what is essentially a political decision taken by a party that has been given the opportunity to form a Government. Being in government is very different from writing a manifesto, as I have said previously and will no doubt say again.
The amendments are designed to put some detail into this part of the Bill. They relate to the grace period, meaning how we will strictly define in law which projects are deemed to be sufficiently advanced to be allowed to continue under the RO, and the dates by which that will be judged. Amendment 34D would extend the renewables obligation accreditation period to 31 March 2017 for those schemes that submitted a planning application by 18 June 2015—the date on which all this was made public by the Government in their announcement.
Amendment 35D relates to the RO closure and grace period. Proposed new Section 32LD requires the Government to set out the grace period in regulations. This is just a placeholder while we await the Government’s promised amendments, which I hope we will be able to debate after the recess when we have the recommital to Grand Committee. We have gone into detail about what should happen in the event of variations of planning permissions and set out circumstances by which planning permission will be deemed to have been granted where there has not been a clear resolution. Proposed new Section 32LH sets out a means by which the grace period would start only once the clause has commenced.
These opposition amendments are rather detailed due to the absence of detail as yet from the Government. I have further comments to make about the clause which I think we will be given an opportunity to discuss when we discuss whether Clause 60 stand part. Therefore, I will keep my comments on the generality of the clause until then and move Amendment 34B on the grace period. As I say, I do so in the absence of the Government’s own amendments, which we look forward to seeing.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for speaking to these amendments regarding the grace period. We will come on to the principle of what is happening but I think it is recognised that there are important reasons why there should be a grace period, not least because of reasonable expectations that have been raised within the industry. If those are ditched, a stream of litigation could follow in its wake. Obviously, it would have been far preferable for the Government to bring forward their own amendments, although we recognise that that will happen. The Minister has indicated that he will seek a recommittal of some clauses. Can he give us any indication of a timescale of when the amendments might be tabled? It would be very unfortunate if we got them only some 48 hours or less before we had to consider them in detail.
We know from the impact assessment that has been made available that there has been an engagement exercise with hundreds of industry representatives, developers, investors and supply chain representatives right across Scotland, Wales and England, which concluded on 31 July. I am sure that the issues around the grace period must have featured prominently in those discussions. If the Minister can give us a flavour of the representations the Government have received, that would be very useful.
The comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on the opposition amendments were helpful as they indicated some of the things that we can reasonably expect to see in the Government’s amendments when they are brought forward—for example, that the grace period should be extended by an equivalent period of time as between 18 June and Royal Assent where projects have not been able to make a credit commitment prior to Royal Assent in cases where otherwise the project would have been capable of generation by 31 March 2017.
One of the things that the industry finds very difficult to grasp is why the requirement appears to be that planning permission has to be granted rather than sought. I think I am right in saying that in some of the solar cases the requirement was that an application was pending. There is a whole range of reasons why consent may not have been given, many of which are beyond the power of a developer to do anything about. Therefore, it could be somewhat arbitrary to say that a planning application had to have been consented to as delays could be beyond the developer’s control—for example, a rather tardy planning authority could be involved. What is the position if there is an appeal? Clearly, planning permission will not have been granted but an appeal may well be made on very solid grounds and could subsequently be granted.
One of the other issues that has been raised concerns delays to grid connections. Delays are sometimes caused due to aviation concerns coming into play. From my previous incarnation as a Scottish Minister, I know that these were often pertinent reasons that could delay an application. Even where planning permission and a grid connection contract are in place, there may well be delays due to the timing of the connection—for example, where there is a long wait for a significant line reinforcement and upgrade. I have had specific representations on that. I do not think that it would be helpful or proper to air those and name companies on the Floor of the Chamber but I will write to the Minister and I would be grateful if he would respond to the points made in that regard. That is the flavour of issues that we look to the Government to respond to when they bring forward their amendments. In the mean time, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for flagging up these issues.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and for the contributions from other noble Lords. As I said, we will have the opportunity in the next debate to discuss the principle of this clause. Here, though I am tempted not to, I will keep my comments to the grace period issues. I am very grateful to the Minister for giving us an assurance that he will give us sight of those amendments with more than 48 hours’ notice. That would be absolutely correct. The noble Lord may find it annoying to keep us posted with a running commentary but it is not as annoying as we find having to respond to huge amounts of information that is very delayed and late.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I hope I did not give the impression that I find it irritating to give a running commentary. I do not. It is absolutely appropriate that I should and, as I indicated, I am very happy to do so on where we are on the grace periods. I indicated that I will seek to ensure that the House has reasonable notice of those amendments. Furthermore, I will give an indication that we are or are not on course for that. I hope it will be the former case.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the noble Lord. The grace period is incredibly important. We are talking about sunk costs of hundreds of millions of pounds that people have put in, in good faith, on the back of the Energy Act 2013, which has been changed rather intemperately with very little notice and no consultation. You can see why people are concerned about getting the detail and getting it early. We have had two months since the Bill was introduced in which to have these amendments come forward, and it is regrettable that we still do not have them.
As I said, the next debate will give us the opportunity to discuss the broader context and particularly the impact assessment and what it tells us about the logic and rationale for this more generally. Given that we will have the opportunity to discuss these amendments in the Moses Room after we come back from recess, and that we will have good early sight of them, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Teverson
I absolutely agree about the failure of gas to drive out coal. That is why I have been a major advocate of emissions performance standards, which we brought in with the Energy Act 2013, but we have delayed actually doing that. I wish that I had the numbers with me. My noble and learned friend is showing me a document but I do not have my glasses on, so I hope I will be forgiven for not being able to read it. I do not know what the CO2 figure is—I am sure that government documents from DECC have said what it is and I shall have to look it up—but I am absolutely certain that through the increase in the proportion of energy transmission through renewables the levels have gone down, because renewables, which are zero-carbon technologies, are a much bigger proportion of our generation. Over the same time, I am pleased to say that energy efficiency has gone up by 2% per annum, or whatever the figure is. I look forward to finding out that information and informing the noble Viscount. I do not necessarily recognise a lot of his figures within the context of what he is talking about but I am sure that they are as good as any quoted in the House.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for opposing the Question that the clause should stand part of the Bill. It is tempting to engage on the many points that have been made about the principle of onshore wind in general, but I would rather stay focused on Clause 60 and say why I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord’s proposal that it should not form part of the Bill. That is mainly due to the process by which the Government have conducted themselves. I do not wish to misquote the Minister but he said that he needs time to think things through in relation to the grace period, and that is quite a telling statement. It is clear to me that this clause has not been fully thought through and that it has been put in hastily, without due consideration of the full implications and without due consultation. For those reasons, I am very supportive of the idea that we should simply take the clause out, do the thinking and consulting, and then come back with something that is fit for purpose.
With regard to things being fit for purpose, during the course of the Bill we have had exchanges about the impact assessment. We now have an impact assessment in relation to this clause, but I have to say that it was not exactly worth waiting for. It does not cover some of the most important issues in enough detail. It is incredibly lacking in proper detail in its attempt to make a net present value calculation of the implications of introducing the clause, and I find that it has significant weaknesses.
My overall impression is that the department is building the aeroplane as it takes off from the runway and that not enough thought has been given to this clause. It all seems to hinge on two words in the Conservative Party manifesto: “new” and “subsidies”. There is a great deal of subjectivity in interpreting the phrase “new subsidies”. It cannot be claimed that the RO is a new subsidy—it has been in existence for a number of years—and it cannot be argued that the RO provides, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, subsidies for ever and ever. It does not do that. It does not create an unending subsidy. The RO is closing. It will close, as we agreed in the Energy Act 2013, in March 2017. That is not far away—in the grand scheme of things, it is about 12 months. In their haste to generate some kind of political benefit from this attempt to destabilise onshore wind, in those 12 months the Government are destabilising investment across the energy market, and that is deeply regrettable. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for stating the wider implications of what the Government are doing here. There is a question of how we deal with industry and how we encourage people to invest in the UK.
I raised a general point about my disappointment with the impact assessment. I made it clear in a letter to the Minister and on the Floor of the House that we wanted to see the impact assessment properly make the case for the Government’s concern about the levy control framework running out of money or not having sufficient money. I am afraid that there is insufficient detail in the impact assessment. It does not give us any sight of the Government’s numbers on this or explain why they are so concerned.
More than that, the impact assessment makes me fear that the department does not even understand the energy policy that it is governing. When it comes to considering the benefits and costs of this intemperate change to policy, which was changing anyway, it considers only the positive benefit of a reduction in resources—by which I assume it means the amount of money that has been spent on onshore wind—and then it sets against that the increased cost of the EUA purchases. It makes very precise calculations over a period of 24 years to 2040. I am in the business of monitoring the carbon market in Europe and not a single analyst can give you any degree of confidence about the numbers relating to the carbon price over that period. I am afraid that the table on page 15 is really a work of fiction.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness, at least for her very last point about how she is looking forward to my response. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for tabling his opposition to the clause, as it provides me with the opportunity to explain why Clause 60 should stand part of the Bill. I will then turn to specific points made by noble Lords during the debate.
Clause 60 would close the renewables obligation to new onshore wind projects in Great Britain a year earlier than originally planned. On the one hand, we had some noble Lords saying that it is only a year; on the other hand, we had some talking about it as though it were the end of civilisation as we know it. Therefore, there is something of an inconsistency in some of the arguments being deployed.
There are two key reasons why I believe that closing the RO is the right approach. I should say, first, that onshore wind will remain important and will remain massively deployed. We will spend more on onshore wind next year than we are spending this year, so, again, that needs to be accepted. Jobs are, and will continue to be, provided by that industry. Perhaps I may pick up on one point about jobs uncertainty. It is because we are still considering the situation in relation to the grace period that we are unable to say with any degree of certainty what the jobs position will be.
First and foremost, I am committed to delivering on the Government’s ambition to halt the spread of onshore wind while continuing to combat climate change. Secondly, it is essential that the Government keep domestic energy bills as low as possible for consumers and act when necessary to ensure that costs are contained and remain within our low-carbon spending cap. That is not to say that the Government do not recognise the need to strike the right balance in taking developers’ interests into account when implementing this policy. I have indicated what we are doing in relation to the grace period and the engagement exercise that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is engaged in. I will explain this further in due course.
Let me set out why the Government are taking the necessary steps to close the renewables obligation to new onshore wind projects. The Government’s ambition for onshore wind was made very clear within our manifesto. I know that many noble Lords understandably regret the outcome of the general election, but there was a general election; it was a manifesto commitment and, of course, we remain committed to implementing it. That is what democracy is about. The essence of that is choice and people made their decision. As such, we now have the mandate to halt the spread of subsidised onshore wind. Clause 60 aims to deliver part of this pledge by closing the renewables obligation to new onshore wind from 1 April 2016—a year earlier than originally planned.
I would like to provide reassurance to noble Lords that by taking this step, the Government are not shying away from their commitment to tackle climate change. We are confident that we can meet our 30% renewable electricity ambition by 2020 without additional onshore wind, other than that already deployed. Indeed, we are running ahead of the projections.
Baroness Worthington
We will consider this matter later but it is simply not true that we are ahead of our European renewables target. That target relates to all energy and we are not on track in regard to it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I hope the noble Baroness will agree that we are on track in relation to the electricity ambition.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, onshore wind has deployed successfully to date and is an important part of our energy mix. Our analysis demonstrates that when we take early closure of the renewables obligation into account we still expect total UK deployment of onshore wind to fall within our Electricity Market Reform Delivery Plan projections of between 11 and 13 gigawatts by 2020. This is our best estimate of what we would need to meet our 2020 targets and what we can afford under our low-carbon spending cap. In fact, the department’s projections relating to the 18 June announcement estimated that by 2020 onshore wind deployment, in the absence of intervention, could be between 12 and 15 gigawatts. The upper end of this range is significantly higher than the 11 to 13 gigawatts set out at the time of the delivery plan. Without any action, we could deploy beyond this range. As the 18 June announcement made clear, we therefore considered it appropriate to curtail further deployment of onshore wind, thereby balancing the interests of onshore wind developers with those of the wider public.
This takes us on to my second point: affordability. My noble friend Lord Ridley referred to the trilemma and the fact that the Government are seeking three things, as the previous Government did: to ensure affordability, security and carbon-free. That very much remains the aim. Tackling climate change must be done in a cost-effective way. We want to ensure that consumer energy bills are kept as low as possible while we cut carbon emissions.
The Government have provided vital financial support to the renewables sector, which has helped new and innovative technologies, reduced our emissions and increased the amount of low-carbon electricity that powers homes and businesses across the United Kingdom. In short, subsidy is necessary to give some impetus to development, and that is what we have done, but we have to keep the costs under review and control.
However, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest projections show that subsidies raised from consumer bills are currently set to be higher than expected when the schemes were set up under our low-carbon spending cap, the levy control framework. This is due to a number of uncontrollable factors, including lower than expected wholesale prices and greater than expected renewable generation. The revised levy control framework forecasts indicate that spending in 2020 is projected to be £9.1 billion in 2012 prices for low-carbon generation. The Government set a limit of £7.6 billion. As such, the current forecast is £1.5 billion above that limit. These additional costs could be met through increases in consumer energy bills. It is therefore only right that we now look at ways to protect value for money and affordability under the levy control framework. My department has announced a package of measures to deal with the projected overallocation of renewable energy subsidies. The onshore wind measures are therefore part of a co-ordinated approach to managing spend under the levy control framework.
Baroness Worthington
I am sorry to interrupt but this is an important part of the Bill. Can the Minister explain how it will be possible to spend less under the levy control framework by removing the ability for more and cheaper renewables to come forward? Either we miss our European targets or we will be using more expensive renewables to hit our targets, which will run through the levy control framework even faster. I simply do not understand how one can use the framework as a reason to remove one of the cheaper forms of renewables. If affordability is our goal—which I agree it should be—then surely we should enable technologies to compete fairly on price and not rule out some of the cheapest versions.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
On that specific point, the noble Baroness will know that the costs of deploying some renewable technologies is falling. That is certainly true of onshore wind; it is also true of solar. It is important but I have to say to the noble Baroness that, in reaching our decarbonisation targets, nuclear remains a vital part of the mix. I see that she agrees and it would therefore be interesting to hear at some stage whether the Opposition are committed to backing the Government in relation to that important point, as they have done previously.
That brings me to the issue of investor confidence. It is a fair point to make. I can understand that there is a need for certainty but it must be balanced against the need to get it right in relation to the grace period. That is why we have taken somewhat longer than expected and why we are to have recommittal to a fourth day in the Moses Room to consider that issue. We cannot rush engagement on the grace period and get the intention right in relation to investor confidence. I come back to the point that no one should have been taken by surprise that the Government were going to alter the position in relation to onshore wind; it was in the manifesto. I do not therefore accept the uncertainty argument that somehow people are taken by surprise. I have indicated that we will bring forward amendments on grace periods and will ensure that noble Lords receive them in a timely manner, ahead of the recommittal stage in the Moses Room.
I shall seek to deal with some of the points made by noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly said that business confidence was an important part. I agree and I hope that I have dealt with how we regard that as important, but we want to get it correct.
My noble friend Lord Ridley made telling points about how we have to balance interests in relation to the trilemma and our commitment in the manifesto. He reminded us of the fact that there are sometimes no easy ways in which to deliver, even in relation to onshore wind. As he said, there are carbon costs and costs in relation to the manufacture of turbines and so on. There are no easy answers.
My noble friend Lord Howell correctly reminded us of the need for back-up facilities, which takes us back to nuclear. Many renewables are intermittent in nature and we therefore need back-up to them. That point was well made.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, correctly said that there were things to be done on the demand side that were not in the Bill. I accept that but I can reassure him that work is continuing in the department on innovation, improvements in white goods and regulation. The important programme of smart meters, which started under the previous Government, is continuing apace. All these are important points that we take on board.
I accept the point that the noble Baroness made: this is a political position—there is no doubt of that. It was a difference between parties in their manifestos. On that basis, I remind noble Lords that it was in the manifesto and therefore respectfully beg that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble and learned Lord has correctly identified the part of the impact assessment that deals with this. It could be a saving of up to £3.40. I accept that that is not a massive amount, but it has to be taken account of in the context of the fact that we are seeking to keep within the deployment estimates that we put forward. I do not think it should be sniffed at: this does not appear, on the face of it, to be a massive amount, but it makes quite a considerable difference to some consumers that we are reducing bills by that amount. That is what we are seeking to do and I make no apology for it. However, that is only part of the consideration.
Baroness Worthington
As I said, the impact assessment is really rather lacking in detail. It may make those assumptions, but it does not give any detail as to what the ingoing parameters are on those numbers. If instead of onshore wind we build offshore wind to compensate for the lack of delivery on the target, there will be a net increase to customers’ bills under this clause.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I accept that obviously there is a question about what is used instead. However, I remind the noble Baroness and the House that, even with this action, we are well above the deployment estimates that were made in relation to onshore wind.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, it is not for the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change to comment much on the means whereby we reach the targets which have been set by the committee. That is not its role. The committee’s role is to set the targets and to insist that they are met. That is one of the difficulties of being the chairman because my instinct is to comment on all these things with enthusiasm and some pretty clear views, but that is not what I am statutorily allowed to do.
However, it might help the Minister if I say this. This may be a formulation that works; I am not sure. There are complications in it which might lead the Government not to want to do it. I want to say a word about a decarbonisation target, which the Committee on Climate Change has recommended. It has done so because a decarbonisation target would give security to those who are investing in low carbon technology, and above all in low carbon generation. One of the problems that all Governments have to face is that the timetable of private industry is very tight. First there is the timetable for how long a particular managing director will be in place and what is going to happen over the next two or three years—I am told that it is generally about three years. The second timetable is an important one, covering the length of time major investment takes between thinking about something and actually delivering it.
One difficulty—it is one which the Committee on Climate Change emphasised in its report to Parliament this year—is that most of the measures we have in place will fall off the cliff in 2020. We are now talking about “tomorrow” in the investment cycle because people often have an investment cycle which lasts certainly for five years and very often for seven or eight years. The committee sought to ask the Government to ensure that we knew where we were going to be in a progressive way after 2020. The Government have made it clear that certain things will continue, but not how much and how long. That security is important for investment.
The second point is that it is occasionally the belief of all politicians that if they promise something in 2050, everyone will believe it and proceed to get there. But I remember an embarrassing debate in this House when I pointed out that the previous Labour Government had an energy Bill from which they had removed every date except 2050, and I worked out that there was not a Member of the Government who was likely to be alive when the one promise that had been made would be delivered. That is a dangerous position because if we are to be taken seriously, we ought to make promises that will be delivered at least in our likely lifetimes.
What I want to put to the Minister is simply this: we need to have some sort of interim point between 2020 and 2050 towards which people can work with some confidence, and we have suggested a carbon intensity target for 2030 entirely on that basis. I hope that the party opposite will not be upset by this, but one of the reasons I want the target is because I am a capitalist and I do not want to judge what is going to be the best way of achieving it by 2030; in other words, I want to be as unrestrictive as I can. I just want to deliver the ends, and that is why I always talk about targets, not means. I do not know what mixture of means will enable us to reach the target, and that is why I am less enthusiastic about those who insist upon this proportion from renewables, that proportion from other low carbon technologies and this proportion from nuclear. I have always felt that a portfolio is what we want, and if possible I want an unprescriptive target because we do not know the ways in which we are going to achieve it. But we must give people the confidence that if they pursue those ways, there will be a proper return from the market on the investment that they have carried through. That is why a carbon intensity target is a valuable thing. I hope that the Government will wish to do that in 2016, for reasons we all now know. A carbon intensity target would be unprescriptive, but it would give real confidence.
This amendment, on the other hand, is much more precise. It gives a role to the Committee on Climate Change, for which I thank the noble Lord, and I am sure that if we were asked to carry through this role, we would do it to the best of our ability. But I wonder whether this particular mechanism is the best one. There are complications which the Government might want to think about, but I hope that in discussing it, the Government will not cast aside the need—I think it is that—for a decarbonisation target for 2030 to give people the confidence to plan. It is no good saying that they know that our emissions must be cut by 80% by 2050. Frankly, it is true and statutorily based, and we all think it is important, but it is not going to drive investment. That is why a decarbonisation target for 2030 is important. I doubt whether this is the right way forward, but I am pleased that it has been tabled as an amendment, not least in order to ask the Government to think hard about the needs of investment and confidence.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for introducing this amendment and to the other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it—or if not directly in favour, at least in favour of us having a debate about decarbonisation. I recall that a similar amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan during the Committee stage of the Energy Bill in 2013. We had a good debate at the time, and the arguments which were put forward were important then and are even more important now. I say that because we all engaged with the Energy Bill in good faith. We raised our concerns and we went forward on the basis that we hoped that we had a system that may be a transition to something more market-based and slightly less interventionist in order to encourage us to decarbonise our electricity system.
I apologise for stating the obvious, but the reason electricity is so important is that once it is fully or substantively decarbonised, it can then be used to decarbonise transport and heat in an effective way. It is not the only way, but it is one way. It is the sector with possibly the most commercially available technologies and certainly the widest range of known technologies, certainly at this stage, to help us. That is why electricity is focused on and why we have a 30% target for renewable electricity as opposed to 10% or 12% in the heat and transport sectors. It is right to focus on electricity.
This idea is definitely worthy of merit and I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, when he says that we have in the past debated a broader definition of the decarbonisation obligation or decarbonisation target. In fact, that was rather exhaustively dealt with in the debates around the Energy Bill in 2013. The way it was left was that the Government may introduce a decarbonisation target for 2030 in line with the fifth carbon budget being set. I very much look forward to hearing some strong words from the Minister stating that that is still the Government’s intention: that a decarbonisation target will be set in 2016 once we have that fifth carbon budget in place.
For all the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Deben, Lord Teverson and Lord Whitty, we lack a moment of clarity to help shake people’s investment decisions beyond 2020. We have renewable targets to 2020, as part of the European renewables directive, but beyond 2020 there is big uncertainty as to what low-carbon technologies, if any, will be supported by the Government. Therefore, there needs to be a framework. Why I like the idea of a decarbonisation obligation on the Government and on suppliers is because it does exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, which is to create a market-based system.
I often find myself wondering whether I am Alice who has stepped through the looking glass. Here we are in a world where the Government—a Conservative Government—are presiding over virtually the renationalisation of the energy system. There is no element of the energy system that is not now reliant on the Secretary of State to sign a contract of some sort or another, perhaps with the possible exception of some of the interconnectors, but even there it is quite highly regulated. Now any new clean capacity needs to be signed off by the Secretary of State with a contract for difference, and all the existing capacity receives capacity payments also through the Secretary of State’s gift. Here we are, very oddly, presiding over pretty much a state-run energy system, and here I am on the Labour Benches saying that we need a much more market-based system that allows more choice and for capital to flow to the most cost-effective ways.
It is an odd situation but that is where we are. So I press the Minister to help us to understand whether the Government share our objective, which is to move towards a slightly less interventionist system with more ability for a broader set of players to dictate how we meet our targets, which means the Government setting the framework, and being clear about our objectives, but allowing a wider pool of people to find those solutions for us at least cost.
Amendment 35A is an interesting idea which proposes that rather than the Government taking on the obligation and the target, they should be passed down to the supply companies. It has some merit. It is worth noting that suppliers have been obliged to report on the carbon intensity of their electricity supply for some years now. They have a fuel disclosure requirement and an infrastructure and reporting mechanism that enables them to do that with certificates of origin. That enables them to calculate the carbon intensity of their electricity annually and report to Ofgem. Those numbers then probably sit on a website or in a document. Very little attention is paid to them, which is a great shame because we are encouraging these data to be collected but doing very little with them. If we were to look at those numbers, sadly we would see that carbon intensity has remained stubbornly similar over the past decade. We did very well in decarbonising when we had the dash for gas and replaced a lot of our old coal, but since then carbon intensity has just moved around, largely dictated by commodity prices where gas prices are higher than coal or vice versa. So there has not really been a grip on carbon intensity.
An obligation such as this would address that problem and mean that the full range of decarbonisation options, including fuel switching and phasing out of coal, would be incentivised in the most logical way forward. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He and I have worked previously on the phasing out of coal and the use of performance standards to make sure that our old coal, in particular, is phased out in an orderly and certain way so that we can make room for clean investment. A decarbonisation obligation would help us to ensure that that transition out of coal took place. It is not the only way it can be done, but it would be a market-friendly way to meet the obligation because there would be an incentive not to purchase the coal that would count against the target. It would help to make it harder to hit the targets. The other benefit is that it would help renewables to stand on their own two feet and compete alongside other technologies. We would genuinely see which are both affordable and able to be supported by the general public.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
No, my Lords. I was saying that we would not support additional power sector targets. As I understand it, that target is already in existence.
Baroness Worthington
The target is not in existence. The power was created in the Energy Act to allow the Secretary of State to set a target, but it prevents the Government setting a target until 2016. That is the only thing on the statute book. I encourage the Minister to be very precise in his wording. I will have to read back over Hansard. The expectation is that the Government will set a target, but they certainly are not required to. We would like clarity on what the intention is.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I appreciate that point. On the clause as set out, I have made it clear that we will not come forward with this additional obligation. The manifesto is absolutely clear that there will be no power sector target. That is the position of the Government.
Baroness Worthington
“Statement on costs of non-compliance with EU renewable target
Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament on the estimated cost to the taxpayer should the United Kingdom not comply with the 2020 EU renewable target.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, that was an interesting debate. It has slightly changed the context for the next two amendments, if that does indeed transpire. We look forward to getting clarity on this. It hinges on the word “new”. In fact, so much of the Bill hinges on the word “new”, because it was a manifesto commitment to have no new subsidies for onshore wind, which could have been interpreted in lots of different ways. I think there was a manifesto commitment that there will be no new targets. We need to start to understand how the Government use that word.
As I have mentioned, Amendment 35B seeks to make up for one of the biggest holes in the impact assessment, which is to consider the implications of this new change of policy. Indeed, when we come on to talk about the last amendment, our concern about the transition to the contracts for difference regime is that this will have an impact on the taxpayer that is not yet being monetised, described or communicated by the Government.
Amendment 35B would simply require:
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament on the estimated cost … should the United Kingdom not comply with the 2020 EU renewable target”.
Of course, the wording is not written in a way that it should be in a final version. However, it is an appropriate moment to raise the point that it is not the case that we can simply change our policies without due concern and reference to the implications if we were then to miss our EU requirements. As I have said in previous debates, there would be two implications. First, we would be forced to purchase renewables certificates from other countries. Let us just think about that for a second. That would mean us sending our money to other countries to purchase their investments, which would make them have more jobs and supply chains, and help them to decarbonise. We would be spending our hard-earned cash on their development of a very successful renewables industry. That does not seem like sensible policy to me, but that is what would happen if we decided simply to buy our way out of this target in the mistaken idea that this would somehow be better value for money for the Government. I would like to hear from the Minister whether there is any truth in the speculation we have seen in the media that that is one of the Government’s ideas—that they would be prepared to buy their way to compliance in terms of the targets, and what that would cost us. Secondly, we may be fined if we are in non-compliance. I would like clarity from the Minister on what the penalty regime looks like if we fail to meet our EU renewables target.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for moving this amendment. She is right: we are continuing to make progress towards the 2020 renewables target of 15% of final energy consumption from renewable sources. The provisional figure released on 25 June showed 6.3% of final energy consumption for 2013 and 2014 came from renewable sources, against a target level of 5.4%. The Government set out their plan to meet the target in 2010. We are on track to meet the next interim milestone. In fact, as I say, the provisional figure indicates that we are ahead of it. We have a clear plan for meeting the target. I wish to say something about the specific areas of heat and transport which the noble Baroness mentioned, where there certainly are challenges. First, in relation to heat, under existing schemes the Government have supported almost 33,000 homes and 10,000 businesses, schools, farms and other organisations with new renewable heating systems. That is on top of the generation of 3.4 terawatt hours of eligible heat—enough to heat the equivalent of more than 225,000 United Kingdom homes for a year.
On transport, the Government are investing more than £500 million over the next five years in making ultra-low emission vehicles more accessible to families and businesses across the country. I think our record on this bears comparison with other EU countries, and across government departments we are putting in a lot of effort on this. As noble Lords will appreciate, the lead department on ultra-low emission vehicles is the Department for Transport but the Department of Energy and Climate Change is, of course, represented in that process and we are pushing forward with it.
We have a clear plan for meeting the target and already have many reporting requirements. I cannot accept the amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response although I do not believe that it adequately addressed the points that I raised, particularly on vehicles and fuel which are obviously two separate things when it comes to energy. We can have as many zero-carbon vehicles as we like but if they are powered by electricity that is generated at 400 grams per kilowatt hour, that is not a solution. Equally, it is true that the escalator is frozen. I heard nothing about whether or not that will be lifted in order for us to hit the 10% figure. I hope the Minister will write to me giving a detailed response to the points that I made. I do not believe that I got the detail I sought.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I will certainly write to the noble Baroness on those points.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister. On the basis that we will continue this discussion and I will be in touch on the impact assessment and the absence of detail within it, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Baroness Worthington
“Contracts for Difference
After section 13(3) of the Energy Act 2013 insert—“(3A) An allocation round must be held no less than annually in each year in which the UK is not on target to meet the 2020 EU renewable energy target.””
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, Amendment 35C would insert a new clause after Clause 60 to require that an allocation round should be held for the CFD—contracts for difference—process at least annually for each year that the UK is not on target to meet the 2020 EU renewable energy target. As is evident from the previous debate, there is some debate about how we measure that, but we still have to make quite a bit of investment to get to our targets, and we must ensure that we have a policy framework that is fit for purpose to enable that investment to be made.
In the Energy Act 2013, we undertook to transition from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference. There was cross-party support for the idea that contracts for difference would be a material improvement: they would give greater certainty for investors and enable us to move to a technology-neutral auctioning system, which would allow costs to come down. On that basis, the Energy Act received cross-party support and Royal Assent. However, things have changed; as has been pointed out, the Government have changed. Maybe we should not be surprised about what the Government are now doing but that certainly does not mean that we should agree with it. I feel that there is quite a degree of concern across the different parts of the House about the Government’s current trajectory.
We have been told that there will be a statement on whether there will be a contracts for difference round this year. My understanding is that if we were to be ready for an auction in the autumn, we should have already made announcements, so I would specifically like to hear from the Minister when we will have a statement on contracts for difference allocation rounds this year and what the likely date for the next round is. Here, we get to the nub of the interpretation of the word “new” and, indeed, of the word “subsidy”. If the Government are going to stick to interpreting their manifesto commitment to mean that no new subsidies for onshore wind includes contracts for difference, we need to know that now, or sooner rather than later, because it will have huge implications. State aid clearance was gained for the contracts for difference system, but that was worded in such a way as to encourage the Government to move to technology-neutral auctions as soon as possible. It would be highly problematic if the Government ruled out one of the least costly forms of renewable energy from the CFD system; the European agreement to give it state aid clearance would need to be looked at again if there were to be such a substantial change. That would cause delay across the piece. Nobody wants to see yet more uncertainty introduced into this picture, and it worries me greatly that we are going to hear in the autumn that there will be no contracts for difference for onshore wind from now on. If that is so, we need to hear about it sooner rather than later. Onshore wind should continue to be considered, alongside all the other technologies, in those hopefully technology-neutral auctions and we should move towards that as soon as possible.
We need to see onshore wind continue within the CFD process, not least because there is possibly a misunderstanding that onshore wind will continue to keep producing for ever more once it is put into the ground. In fact, that is not the case. The commercial reality is that, once you have a wind farm, you are quite able to upgrade it: you can use the existing footfall and the existing site but then upgrade either the nacelle or the entire turbine to get more power out from the same land area. These sorts of recommissioning projects could be completely ruled out if onshore wind renewables do not survive into a contract for difference regime. That risks around 1.5 gigawatts that is currently being generated from onshore wind coming offline by 2025, with no ability to repower. For that reason alone, we need to see some clarity about the role of onshore wind in the CFD regime going forward. However, it is not just the repowering; there are definitely options for continuing cost-effective deployment of onshore wind in those communities that are happy to accept it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for moving this amendment. She will know that, as I indicated by my letter of 6 September, we are looking at decommissioning on Report, so there may be an opportunity to look at some of the specific points that she raises then. I am certainly happy to do that.
In relation to Amendment 35C, I acknowledge that it is important that developers and investors have some foresight as to the frequency of contracts for difference allocation rounds. However, this must be balanced with the levy control framework budget available, which, as noble Lords know, is funded by a levy on consumer bills. The United Kingdom continues to make progress towards the renewables target, but the interaction of those two is important.
Committing to annual contracts for difference allocations rounds, even only in certain circumstances, would inhibit the Government’s ability to respond to evidence on levels of deployment in renewable electricity generation, costs to consumers and opportunities in other sectors. That said, as the noble Baroness rightly said, we are committed to a statement in the autumn, so that decisions on any future allocations of contracts for difference will be taken in due course. On the specific point on state aid approval, we remain consistent with the contracts for difference state aid approval. If our future plans should have an impact on our state aid clearance, we would seek an early discussion with the European Commission. However, as I understand it, that is not the case at the moment.
The noble Baroness’s amendment would unnecessarily commit the Government to a course of action which would neither benefit the consumer nor provide any certainty to renewable energy generators or investors. I have indicated that I am happy for us to look at the specific point about decommissioning on Report. We are committed to our energy targets and continue to make strong progress towards meeting them. I do not know the specific date of the statement we will be making in the autumn—indeed, I do not think it has been fixed at this stage—but I hope that gives reassurance that we will be making a statement about the contracts for difference regime. Our intention is to set out plans in the autumn in respect of the next contracts for difference allocation round, but we do not believe that an annual round is necessarily appropriate.
For those reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment and respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, to withdraw it.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister. I find it quite curious that an amendment asking for greater certainty in CFD allocations is described as creating more uncertainty yet the Minister’s statement, which contains no information at all about when we might expect another round of allocation, supposedly increases certainty. I just do not understand how that works. The autumn is arguably already upon us. I hope that the Government’s interpretation of “autumn” does not mean 31 December and that we will see the information come to us while we are still considering the Bill, in the autumn. That statement needs to be made in respect of and is highly relevant to the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for picking up on the point about decommissioning. However, given that we now have an extra day in which we will recommit to Grand Committee in the Moses Room, I wonder whether we could have those amendments in time for then. It will be only a matter of days before Report. If those decommissioning amendments could at least be made available for that day, it would certainly help to alleviate some of the pressure on Report. I feel that we are stacking up quite a lot of issues for Report.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
On that point, I am happy to endeavour to make the amendments available. What I cannot do, and I had given due notice to Peers who participated in the debate, is undertake that they are debated on that day. That was not in the agreement we have in relation to the recommittal day. I will of course endeavour to table the amendments as soon as possible.
Baroness Worthington
Given that the Minister has been so excellent in communicating with us in Committee, I am happy to take it in good faith that he will do his very best. I am sure that will produce results and on that basis, and on the basis that we will revisit this after Recess, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Worthington Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question relating to new Section 89A introduced by Amendment 34. I drew attention at Second Reading to my entry in the register of interests as a non-executive director of the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult. I drew attention, too, to some interesting ideas that are developing about the use of decommissioned oil and gas facilities in the UK continental shelf for renewable energies, in particular in the area of offshore wind.
Given that the new sections introduced by the clause relate to the powers of the Oil and Gas Authority, would that be a limiting factor given that these renewable technologies are not hydrocarbons? I find it quite a complicated clause to work my way through. I am seeking to ascertain—it may be that the Minister cannot give me an answer today, but perhaps officials could take a look at it—whether there is protection of the possibility in future of previous hydrocarbon capabilities being used for offshore renewable energy. I took some comfort from the use of the word “facility”, which suggests that there might be some leeway there, but given that I am not a lawyer—although there are people in this Chamber who are—perhaps the Minister can give a slightly better answer to those of us who do not have that kind of expertise.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these amendments at the beginning of the second day of Committee. Before going on to discuss them, I am afraid that I want to revisit the issue of the impact assessment. Since our debate on Monday, a partial impact assessment has been issued. The date on the impact assessment as published is 17 June 2015; the date of signing by the Minister is 7 September 2015. What happened in the intervening months? Why was it not made available to us during the Summer Recess? In fact, it could have been made available to us before Second Reading, had it been published closer to the date on which it was presumably drafted.
Now we have it, but it is only a partial impact assessment. We are still missing the impact assessment for the most controversial elements of this Energy Bill—namely, the clauses on onshore wind. Will the Minister give me a strong confirmation that we will have that in good time for our debate on Monday? If that is not the case, we may have to take further steps because this is simply not good enough. The Committee is not being treated in the way that it should be on these issues. This information is important and it is an important Bill. We should not be seeking to rush it through without due scrutiny. That said, I will move on to the amendments.
The impact assessment is interesting, as these things tend to be, which is why we like to see them. It confirms some of the issues that we debated on Monday such as the rapidly changing nature of activity in the North Sea. The impact assessment reiterates that we are seeing a sharp decline in production and investment into the North Sea and times are changing very fast. However, unfortunately, the impact assessment does not give any reassurance that the Government are applying any long-term vision to this issue. On page 10 of the impact assessment, we see that there has indeed been talk in the Government about what to do about these rapidly changing circumstances. Ideas have been discussed and mooted, and four of them are mentioned on page 10. There is absolutely nothing about repurposing the North Sea or considering how it might be reused.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Liddell for her contribution. She talked in terms of reuse for renewables, but I am far more concerned, as I am sure the Minister is now aware, with reuse for carbon capture and storage. There is no mention of repurposing a site for storage and no mention at all of decommissioning within the role of the OGA in relation to this moving forward. We have an impact assessment, but it does not exactly give me any great cause for reassurance. I am hoping that we will continue to revisit these issues when we come to Report. They relate very much to the scope of this piece of legislation.
Turning to the amendments, I want to give one illustration of why the scope issue of the OGA is so important. Under Amendment 33, we are being introduced to the concept of the right to appeal. After Clause 56, the amendment would insert new Section 87A, under which an appeal can be lodged if,
“the information required by the notice is not relevant to the exercise of the OGA or its functions under this Chapter”.
On Monday, we had considerable debate about the issue of the functions and the principal objectives of the OGA. Will the Minister reassure me that yet again this reference to the OGA functions includes the need for information to be made available in relation to carbon capture and storage?
I hesitate to go over the ground we went over on Monday, but we need clarity on the principal objectives of this new body. I request that we have the primary objectives as set out in the Infrastructure Act, which amended the Petroleum Act 1998, stated on the face of the Bill. We could have some consolidation. Instead of having to refer back to pieces of legislation that then amended other pieces of legislation, could we not have some clean objectives clearly stated so that we can then interpret all of these powers and changes that the OGA will be overseeing in light of the clear statement of the primary objectives? Those primary objectives must be fit for purpose. They must cover the issues we have raised in relation to decommissioning and repurposing for use in carbon capture and storage.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond with some reassurances on the general point about the Bill handling but also in relation to that specific issue on Amendment 33. Can he assure me that the appeals will not allow the industry to claim that requiring information in relation to carbon capture and storage activities falls foul of this requirement, being outside the primary objective of the OGA?
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for introducing this amendment, to which I was very pleased to add my name. Like the noble Lord, I would like us to take a step back and think about this debate in context. I am grateful to Professor Myles Allen at the Oxford Martin School and Professor Stuart Haszeldine from Edinburgh University, who have provided some very interesting briefing materials on the amendment. Myles, in particular, has a very interesting way of describing the challenge that faces us. To help us comprehend this issue and that of climate change and the problem of the unburnable carbon, to coin a phrase from the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, let us imagine seven lumps of coal, each representing half a trillion tonnes of available fossilised carbon. That represents what we know to be the available fossil fuel reserve: 3 trillion to 4 trillion tonnes of usable carbon. It might actually be much higher than that. Our seven lumps of coal might be closer to 14 if we include unconventional sources such as shale gas, tight gas and tar sands. So we have an awful lot of stored carbon on this planet.
Over the past 250 years we have burned and dumped into the atmosphere one lump; that is, half a trillion tonnes of carbon. As a result, temperatures have now risen on average by 0.9 degrees globally; there is a time lag so that figure may go up. We should remember that 0.9 degrees globally means very different temperatures at the poles. There might be double the warming—closer to 2 degrees—happening in the polar regions, where of course there are large amounts of ice, in both the Greenland ice sheet and the Arctic itself. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, will speak shortly but this is reasonably uncontested science. This is simply the physics of the additional loading into the atmosphere.
At the rate we are currently burning fossil fuels, it will take us just another 30 years to burn the next lump— the second of our seven lumps of available carbon—which will likely exhaust our safe carbon budget. We can have a debate about “safe” and about the scale but, by and large, in about 30 years’ time we will have emitted as much again as we have since the Industrial Revolution. The third lump will almost incontestably take us over the 2-degree limit. Two degrees is the supposed safe threshold—again, this number will probably be revisited time and again but it seems likely that beyond that point we will be into the realms of an unsafe climate. The next lump takes us to 3 degrees, and so on.
Now, if we have 14 of these lumps and we are burning through them at the rate that we are, the obvious conclusion is that we are going to have to come up with some mechanism for either leaving some of this carbon untouched or burying the associated greenhouse gases back underground, if we want to use these resources. So far most of the debate has been about trying to burn that second lump of coal a little bit more slowly and nobody is facing up properly to the scale of the challenge of what we do with our carbon assets and how we transition into a new future.
I think there is something in the air—sorry to be a little bit cheeky but there are also 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air—and there is a mood shift. It probably is precipitated by the Paris talks. International negotiations provide a useful chance for us as a global community to take stock and assess what we are really doing to address this problem. I hope that Paris will be a success but it is evident that that is just a staging post and the hard work will start afterwards, when we sit down and consider the implications of what we are setting out to try to do in terms of decarbonising our energy systems.
Obviously, we should pay tribute to the companies and individuals and, indeed, all the previous Energy Ministers who have helped us to lift ourselves out of poverty and have a higher standard of living using our hydrocarbon resources, but the game is changing and in the future we are going to have to recognise the risk of climate change and take action to mitigate it. For our generation and for future generations, this is something that we simply have to do.
So, in the run-up to Paris, here we are with an Energy Bill that seeks, on the surface of it, to extract more hydrocarbons from the North Sea—and, as a side issue, to not have any more onshore wind. That does not seem completely in tune with the general sense outside these Chambers, government and Whitehall that we need to take climate change seriously. What we are trying to do in these Committee sessions is to make sure that this Bill is fit for purpose in terms of the challenge it is trying to address and is making good use of our parliamentary resources.
I happen to think that the idea that has been circulated and which the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, is now encouraging us to debate has merit. I am not saying that it should be policy, and there are many unanswered questions that relate to it, but it has some very interesting features. We should first acknowledge that although we have carbon budgets in the UK that cover our whole economy, in reality there is nothing in policy measures that prices carbon into the heat and transport sectors. There is a cap on electricity and on emissions coming from heavy industry, some of which is of course from gas. That is taken care of: there is an EU scheme and a UK top-up measure, so we at least have some handle on that. When it comes to the other sectors, which mainly means the distribution of gas into the heating of buildings and the use of oil as petroleum in transport, we do not have a policy that explicitly addresses the emissions. We have taxation, of course, and we hope that the Treasury is recycling some of that into good things, but by and large it is an uncapped sector in which there are very few measures—I cannot readily think of any—that address the totality of those emissions from those sectors.
I am sure that we could look at this in lots of ways but the idea being circulated in the briefings is elegant. It simply states that upstream, at the very point at which a product is brought out of the ground or imported into the country, we would place an obligation on those importers and extractors so that they then source the least-cost ways of storing a proportion of their emissions underground and addressing the impact of their product. What I like about this is that it would create an obligation that sits in the hands of the private sector. It would also create an obligation on a group of people who have a great interest in seeing carbon capture and storage come to fruition because it lengthens their business plan. It gives them an opportunity to continue what they are doing without imperilling the planet, so they seem the right people to talk to.
We all know that certain companies, including Shell, are pushing ahead. They are seeking contracts for difference from the Government to move ahead with a CCS project. But I am sure they would readily admit that in a world in which their competitors are not doing the same, it is incredibly difficult to do this. If they say that they will take on an extra price burden, they are necessarily dependent on government subsidy to get it going because of the fact that their competitors will not be doing the same. They will come under shareholder pressure saying, “Why are you taking on these extra costs when no one else is?”. So we can either carry on in this way, giving out subsidies and negotiating bilaterally with these companies, or we can say, “Let’s try to do it a different way, creating the right framework to get the right players involved”. They bring unrivalled engineering expertise and excellence with their knowledge of the North Sea. If we genuinely think that the North Sea offers a new economic opportunity for the UK—and I think that is the case, not just for our emissions but for Europe’s—then let us harness these giants of engineering and get them to apply their minds to this task.
As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, mentioned, there would of course be a modest price passed through but if we start at a low percentage of emissions then it would be almost unnoticeable—certainly much less than the fuel duty we currently charge. I think we would find that the cost of carbon capture and storage that was uncovered would be far and away lower than we can imagine. I know from my time in the Civil Service that we would imagine what costs were going to be, but then be completely startled when industry went off and did the things we asked it to do. It came in at much lower cost. One of the best examples of that is the carbon market set up under Kyoto, where at the time of negotiation the belief was that chemical companies which produced HFC gases would have to be buyers of permits. It turned out that as soon as someone did the maths, they were completely capable of reducing their emissions at very low cost and bringing forward huge amounts of certificates to the market, which then crashed the price. They were sellers at such a volume that they managed to make the price almost negligible, so apply market forces to these problems and you will see costs coming in lower than civil servants and we are able to imagine at the moment. That is hugely important because affordability of decarbonisation is a massive challenge. We must keep our focus on that. We will not have a licence to carry on if we keep having high costs when we do not need them to be so high.
As your Lordships can tell, I am quite in favour of this provision because it has a market element but I do not want to trivialise the role of the Government at the moment in helping to stimulate the demonstration projects. I wish nothing that I have said today to make investors feel nervous that we are somehow not going to back the demonstration projects at White Rose, Peterhead and Grangemouth. They are very important projects—the first of a kind—and we want to see them succeed. I think it is fair to say that there may well need to be more state involvement in making the infrastructure work and so that it is done at the right scale for those demonstration projects. However, if we look a little further forward beyond those demonstration projects, we know that we need to get into a world where these technologies are, as far as we can make them, standing on their own two feet and competing with each other to keep costs low.
Baroness Worthington
I apologise if I have risen too soon; I look forward to hearing what the noble Viscount is about to say. It is true, is it not, that there is a time lag between our emissions and changes in temperature? We are therefore likely to have a 30 to 40-year period in which we know we have committed ourselves to higher temperatures, and yet we are waiting for the impact. That surely means that we should be concerned sooner, rather than later. Secondly, does the noble Viscount not acknowledge that a global average temperature rise of 1 degree would be double that in the Arctic? A 2 degree global rise would therefore be 4 degrees in the Arctic, which could have a significant impact on the melt, leading to sea level rise.
Viscount Ridley
On the first point about the lag, yes, but the whole point is that I am comparing the rate of temperature increase with the rate predicted by the IPCC, which knew about the lag and built it into its models. Essentially, the noble Baroness is talking about the difference between equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is reached after many centuries, and transient climate response, which is what you immediately get. Yes, there is a big difference there, but the climate sensitivity figures—I was coming on to this—are based on 14 new studies, one of which Myles Allen co-authored.
Lord Oxburgh
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in our lively and interesting set of exchanges, which are too numerous to answer all in detail. However, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about the implications for the North Sea. I probably did not make my submission too clearly, but one of the reasons that CCS is creeping along glacially is that no one can make a business case and there is no investor confidence. A regulation of this kind would plan a clear way forward for industry and CCS would become much more investable for the private sector—and there would be much less dependence on government.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, commented on the large scale and expensive nature of CCS. We do not really know what it costs. We know what the operation in Canada has cost, and it is a lot of money. However, there is a hockey stick curve for all these things; they are expensive at first but prices come down. All new technologies and new ways in which to capture carbon would be explored and invigorated with a clear drive from government, and there would be responsibility on companies to find a cheap way of doing this.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made a number of points, including on the carbon floor price. I am indeed worried about the delay. He commented on the overseas implications. I agree that among the things that we would have to tease out would be the implications for the UK of doing this by itself. What would be the implications for our position more widely? Might we be able to persuade other EU countries to come in on this? For a lot of people, this kind of approach is a no-brainer; it is the obvious, “polluter pays” way forward. I say to the noble Viscount that I never believe the figures on climate projections. He will have noted that, although I mentioned 4 degrees, I did not say when. What is beyond doubt is the direction of change, and cutting down our emissions and putting them out of the way as quickly as possible is a sensible precaution to take.
I thank the Minister for his words.
Baroness Worthington
I should like to respond to one question about how this matter relates to the Bill and the North Sea. I want to offer this fact to Members of the Committee: over its time, the North Sea has produced 42 billion barrels of oil. It has been of great benefit to us as a country; however, those barrels have contributed 18 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. There is a definite link to not only the North Sea’s inevitable economic benefits for us but the environmental consequences of that. I should also say, for information, that buying CO2 commercially as a feedstock at the moment costs £100. We must be able to sort something out whereby the producers of CO2 and those who buy it at £100 can be brought closer together, so we can begin to see the development of an industry in getting CO2 safely out of the atmosphere.
Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Worthington Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Worthington
“( ) are necessary in order to inform the OGA’s role in developing and promoting carbon storage,”
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, thank you for returning to Committee. Amendment 12 in Clause 5 relates to the Secretary of State’s abilities to give directions to the Oil and Gas Authority. Again, I fear that we are now retreading familiar territory in our discussion of the Bill and some of the concerns that we have with it. The amendments in this group are probing and designed to give the Minister an opportunity to respond on how he considers that these powers might be used by the Secretary of State. We revisit the two issues that we talked about earlier today, which are that the Oil and Gas Authority should have explicit mention of carbon storage and transportation in its objectives and in the matters to which it has regard. For consistency’s sake, we therefore believe that the Secretary of State should also have those powers.
The purpose of these amendments, particularly Amendments 12 and 14, which are in my name, is to ask the Minister whether he could give us a little more information about the circumstances under which he envisages the Secretary of State needing to use these powers. Perhaps he could also give us an example of what kind of direction he imagines the Secretary of State might be giving the Oil and Gas Authority in relation to its functions under these powers. There is clearly not much in the public domain to help me get a handle on the thinking behind Clause 5, so it really would be an illuminating contribution from the Minister if he were able to give us some examples of the circumstances, particularly the exceptional circumstances referred to in the Bill, and the examples of direction.
We had a discussion prior to the break about the primary purposes of the OGA. I remain convinced that there is a clean and very succinct way of doing this, which is to refer to the Oil and Gas Authority’s primary objectives and to include within them explicit reference to activities that go beyond maximising economic recovery, as it is perhaps formally or informally understood. At the moment, it is interpreted as meaning that we will extract the maximum volume of hydrocarbons from our natural resources which fall within our territorial waters offshore, and indeed onshore. But it may be that that definition of MER, while it still of course has cross-party support, needs to be revisited and revised.
In the previous discussion, we saw reference to new matters to which the OGA should have regard being added to Clause 4. The Minister’s response in that debate was that there is no need to be explicit about these matters and that climate change is taken care of elsewhere, as indeed is the need to decarbonise and CCS. But if that logic were to apply, it is the case that one of the matters stated in Clause 4 is the need to have regard to a secure supply of energy, so if we are being true to ourselves and saying that we should have a narrow focus for the OGA and do not need to reiterate these things, there is no need for any reference to security of supply in that part of the Bill either. However, I do not think that is correct. Indeed it was helpful that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who is no longer in his place, made reference to the fact that to avoid doubt it is always better to be explicit about these things, for fear that people with slight imagination —he used that phrase but perhaps it should be “lacking in imagination”—might mean that there is a narrow interpretation of what the OGA is created to do and what is within its powers and remit.
That is a very lengthy way of saying that we look forward to hearing more from the Minister on Clause 5, which is clearly an important part of the Bill. However, as I read it, I am left wondering what these exceptional circumstances are and what these directions could look like. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in his response. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, but I also want to apologise to the Committee because, due to my attendance at my Select Committee, I was unable to be here for the previous debate, during which, as my noble friend said, the case was made for ensuring that the OGA—while it may well have principal objectives—has to operate in the context of wider energy policies. Issues of climate change, energy security and affordability are relevant to how the OGA fulfils its main functions. Indeed, if its main function is in terms of maximum economic recovery, what happens on those other dimensions of energy policy affects the actual economics in MER. Therefore, it is important that the OGA, as set out in the earlier clauses, has some regard to those broader objectives of energy policy. It is also important that the Secretary of State can intervene in those areas.
Amendment 13 would allow the Secretary of State to give directions where it would be necessary to meet the terms of the Climate Change Act and the budgets promulgated under that Act. Amendment 15 relates to the Committee’s discussion before the break about carbon capture and storage, so that directions could relate explicitly to the storage of gas and oil and the storage of carbon dioxide as part of a carbon capture and storage scheme. The amendments previously discussed relating to Clause 4 need to be complemented with the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene on those same subjects. That is what these amendments would do.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. We will have another look at the position, and indeed I am probably using the term “environmental regulator” in something of a shorthand sense. We have legal concerns on this, but I undertake to take a second look and possibly we will come back to it on Report.
In the light of my comments and the undertakings that I have made previously, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister for his reply and my noble friend Lord Whitty for his contribution to the debate. It is helpful to have specific examples of when the Secretary of State may need to take powers to direct the OGA. I have to say, though, that they do not really reassure me. I should like to read Clause 5 again in more detail because it seems that when it comes to the licensing of activities, competition and scientific evidence, it will give the Secretary of State quite a high degree of enabling power. I wonder whether the process as outlined in the Bill, which is just to notify Parliament with no debate, is sufficient in the circumstances. I could fast forward and imagine a time when there might be a part of, shall we say, a constituency which may not wish to have a particular oil and gas activity taking place. It might suit the Secretary of State to exclude that objection, and in these circumstances it seems that the Secretary of State could simply ask the OGA to do so without any debate about it.
The examples are helpful and it may be something we come back to on Report. However, before I withdraw the amendment I should like to reiterate my point that if we are going to take the line of defence that the OGA is narrow and does not need to have all these matters cluttering its mind, this seems to be a situation where it is being expected to have some sort of regard to security of supply, even though it is not a security of supply expert any more than it is a climate change expert. In terms of the trilemma, which we all know and love, of energy security, affordability and decarbonisation, to make explicit reference to security of supply in Clause 4 but not to affordability or climate change issues seems to suggest that one leg of the stool is more equal than the others. Again, we will probably want to come back to that, even if it is just to take out the reference to security of supply, which might be the most obvious solution.
At this stage I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but as I say, I will read Clause 5 with a greater degree of understanding and scrutiny now that we are back from the Recess. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, first, obviously the details will be set out in the regulations. Does my noble friend have any idea when those regulations may be available, or if they are available already? That would be helpful to us in our discussions as we go through the Bill. Secondly, I particularly welcome the flexibility that has been given to the Secretary of State to make payments which might unexpectedly be needed. Having that sort of provision makes good sense.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of these government amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her contribution. However, I disagree with the noble Baroness slightly on her last comment. It may be necessary for the Government to make financial support available, but I worry that that creates yet another unbounded public spending commitment, and I know that the noble Baroness is very keen to try to constrain such commitments, as are the Government. I question the need for government Amendment 19, but at this stage I am not sufficiently briefed to know how extraordinary these clauses are. Maybe this is a very common thing, and we always create these abilities to give grants to quangos with no further detail, but perhaps we do not. I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide a bit more context, when he replies, about the need to provide for grants, loans and other financial provisions.
I ask because I am concerned about the growing costs of decommissioning, which we have talked about in previous debates. Similarly, I am slightly nervous about unbounded liabilities on the public purse at a time when so many people are being asked to tighten their belts. The profits of the offshore oil and gas industry are well known, and it would seem odd for it to be given special provision while everyone else is seeing their budgets cut. In particular, I am slightly worried that these unforeseeable events are not defined and that there would be, as I read it, very little in the way of opportunity for debate or questioning of the Secretary of State if such financial provisions were made. I would like further clarity on how much scrutiny there might be on that aspect. Those are the main points at the moment, and I look forward to a response from the Minister.
Baroness Byford
Perhaps I could express myself slightly more fully before the Minister responds. I looked at government Amendment 19 in terms of a national emergency—something out of the ordinary—and I was not quite sure, if it did not come in within the new clause, whether there was another way in which that sort of money can be accessed for the OGA. That was the presumed context within which I raised the issue. The noble Baroness is quite right that I am very keen to make sure that the Government live within their means. However, there are times—as we have seen in the international field when we have had major oil spills or something has gone really wrong—when emergency money has to be made available and I wondered whether that was within the context of the new clause in Amendment 19.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 26A and 30A. As we discussed earlier, the OGA may well choose to encourage small innovative companies to come into the business. The termination of rights under a licence, for whatever reason, may result in the failure of a company. The wording in the Bill seems to imply that the duty to retain information and samples will continue, but I am not sure how long that continues for. If a company ceases to continue in business for whatever reason, what happens to those samples? Is the implication of the clause that the OGA will be bound not to encourage innovation—which would be regrettable—other than in companies that are part of or allied to others and which would pick up the pieces in the event of bankruptcy? In other words, does this subsection of the Bill in practice restrict the OGA’s duty to have regard to,
“The need to encourage innovation”?
I turn to Amendment 30A, picking up on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, about data sharing. In many businesses, not just the oil business, people are very wary about data sharing, and in many cases I quite understand why. My amendment goes to the other end of the question: what happens to some of these data? Do they get passed on, and what restrictions are there on data being shared and pooled for the benefit of everyone? Over the years, Governments and businesses have been required to release data, which have then been passed on to third companies in a way I am sure the Bill does not intend. My second amendment refers to that. In his letter to me, the Minister stated that,
“information may be disclosed if any one of the factors listed under 27(5) applies”.
However, I still do not understand in what circumstances the OGA would disclose protected material simply because the person who had provided it had consented, although there was no need for disclosure under Clause 27(b), (c) or (d). Is there an implication that permission to disclose will be a standard part of any relationship with the OGA? Really, my amendment comes between the previous contribution relating to the concern that we should share data, which is quite right, and the question of how those data are used, not abused, in future.
These are two very simple amendments, and I am delighted to have spoken to them.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Oxburgh. Here again we have an example of a slight lack of communication at the end of the Recess, but I am certain that by the end of Report we will have all this ironed out.
We are addressing similar points to those addressed by the previous amendments, as described very eloquently by my noble friend Lord Whitty. This gets to the nub of our concern about the OGA’s remit not being sufficiently broad to ensure that it is able to carry out its functions in a rapidly changing world, in which conversations about carbon capture and storage may be happening more often than conversations about the exploration of new wells or life extensions of existing ones. It is about ensuring that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the very sensible powers that have been taken to enable activities in the North Sea to be well organised from applying to those activities when they relate to carbon capture and storage.
We—and, I am sure, others—have received excellent representations from academics and the CCSA on the issue of information sharing and samples, which requires careful attention. I was very interested to find out about the issue of samples. Over the past 50 years of exploration and production in the North Sea, and indeed offshore all around the UK, the oil and gas sector has acquired rock core data. In the drilling and exploration of wells, a core of rock is extracted and then maintained, curated, labelled and well looked after. That core sample contains all sorts of information that might be relevant for people wishing to repurpose sites in the North Sea or to continue their use in other forms. I believe that at the moment there is an obligation to maintain these physical samples. However, if a company abandons a hydrocarbon field, that requirement is no longer in place, and I am told that those physical samples can therefore literally be landfilled. The samples have cost millions, if not billions, to acquire, and should be valued as such.
We would therefore like to see something in the Bill that acknowledges that, when it comes to information and samples, we are discussing a very great resource that has practical implications for the development of CCS when it comes to understanding rock strata, and this information should be available. The Minister might say that the British Geological Survey retains an archive of these rock cores, but that is only an archive: you are not able to take samples from it and cannot use it to do the kind of sampling or study and research that you might want to, so that would not be sufficient. There is a need for something that will keep these cores that are owned by the oil and gas companies in a good state and available for people who may find them useful in future.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in moving Amendment 31, I shall also speak to government Amendments 32 and 36. I am extremely grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its consideration of the Bill and the detailed work it always does. These amendments are made to implement some of the recommendations set out in the sixth report of the committee.
Amendment 31 amends Clause 28 to include factors the Secretary of State must have regard to before making regulations under Clause 27(8). Such regulations would determine the periods of confidentiality that are to apply to protected material before it can be published or made public. When balancing these factors the Secretary of State must take into account the principal objective of maximising the economic recovery of United Kingdom petroleum. The regulations made under Clause 27(8) are to be subject to the affirmative procedure as a result of Amendment 36, which amends Clause 61 to this effect.
Amendment 32 amends Clause 40, subsection (2) of which requires the Oil and Gas Authority to issue guidance on the matters to which it will have regard when determining the amount of a financial penalty. In line with the committee’s recommendation, this amendment requires that the Oil and Gas Authority lays any guidance or revised guidance produced under Clause 40 before each House of Parliament. I am most grateful to the committee for its recommendations, but I should say that the Government have not additionally sought to apply any parliamentary procedure to the guidance, as that is not established practice; for example, we followed that practice in relation to the supermarkets adjudicator and the data commissioner.
Before I move these amendments, I should say that I have heard that the impact assessment with regard to the Oil and Gas Authority has in fact been published, which is good news. It should be available online now, but we will undertake to get it round to Peers who participated in this debate no later than tomorrow. I apologise for the lateness of that. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these government amendments. Indeed, we—Labour—had also tabled an amendment following the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendation; of course, that will now be withdrawn in the light of the Government’s decision to table amendments. We are obviously pleased that the Government have listened to that committee and taken on board its recommendations in regard to the use of the affirmative resolution procedure. We think that is an important addition to the Bill and has improved it—we are grateful.
Before we conclude today’s debate, I am encouraged to hear that we will, finally, see an impact assessment. When we sit in Committee and we dedicate our time to scrutinising these important matters, having an impact assessment in front of us at the time is much more useful than having it after the Committee’s deliberations have concluded. We have a number of groups that we will talk to on Wednesday, so at least we will have some information for that. In the light of the impact assessment’s late arrival, I would not be surprised if some of the contributions on Wednesday revisit ground that we visited today without the benefit of the impact assessment. That aside, we look forward to seeing it and I am grateful to the Minister for confirming its arrival. These amendments, as I have said, are implementing recommendations that we support and we have no further comment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness very much for those comments—I fully understand and sympathise with her position on the impact assessment. I agree that it would have been much more desirable to have the impact assessment in considering the amendments today. I thank her for her support on the amendments in relation to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations.
Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Worthington Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly before the House commences Committee to raise a very serious objection and concern that relates to the Bill. At present we do not have the impact assessment for the Bill, which we were promised before our deliberations began, and they begin now. I would like to hear from the Minister why this delay has happened—in fact, why the Bill was not published with an impact assessment in the first place. I also seek assurances that when the impact assessment is published, it will contain full details of the assumptions on which the Bill is based. Namely, there is the Government’s continued assertion that we are on track to meet our renewables targets, which relates to Part 4. That is incredibly important and sensitive, since we have had many representations from industry about the impact of the Bill. It should be recalled that those elements of the Bill were not subject to public consultation, so the impact assessment is incredibly important for us to be able to consider the impact of the Bill. The other assumption that the Government now seem often to quote is that the levy control framework is spent and there is no more money left. We need to see details of those assumptions and the figures that underlie them but we do not have an impact assessment. I am very concerned about this issue and I look forward to a response from the Minister.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of my noble friend Lady Worthington because this is not just an isolated example of the Government treating this House, and Parliament, in a cavalier fashion. If I may give another example, next week we were due to have a debate on English votes for English laws. It was promised again and again by the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell—I notice that she has disappeared—yet it has been switched. We are to have a debate on the size of the House, which is not an immediately urgent matter, yet the Commons will make a decision at some point about English votes for English laws and we were given the assurance that we would be able to feed into that. My understanding—I hope that the Chief Whip will answer this—is that the decision to move the debate on English votes for English laws off the agenda for next week was taken unilaterally by the Government and that when the Opposition were consulted, we said that we did not want to change. We wanted to have the English votes for English laws debate because it was promised to this House. That is another example of the cavalier way in which the Government treat this House, wanting to bulldoze their business through. It is about time that some people in this House stood up and said that Parliament has a responsibility to challenge the Government. The Leader of the House may think that we should come in only one day a week when we want to say a few words but we are here to hold the Government to account.
Baroness Worthington
“( ) The Secretary of State shall, within one year from the date of coming into force of this section, undertake an assessment of the fitness for purpose of the OGA’s powers in relation to relevant activities, and shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of the findings.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and for chasing the impact assessment. Can I take it that the full impact assessment will be published tomorrow, or will it be just the oil and gas part? Perhaps he could clarify that point for me.
Looking at Clause 2, our Amendment 1 is essentially a probing amendment but it is intended to enable us to debate this part of the Bill. At Second Reading, several noble Lords raised the fact that things are changing fast in the North Sea and in the oil and gas sector more generally. We have an undertaking to implement the findings of the Wood review and I am sure the cross-party consensus on that remains strong. However, the Wood review was published in June 2013. Here we are in September 2015 and the pace of change since that date has been quite remarkable.
We are seeing a steady decline in North Sea production. Outputs of oil and gas are already around 40% lower than in 2010 and lower than at any time since 1977. The first quarter of this year marked the seventh consecutive month in which the UK has been a net importer of petroleum, after having been a net exporter since 1984. The figures for 2014 show that the oil and gas sector as a whole lost £5.2 billion—its worst figure since the 1970s—and total revenues were lower than at any time since 1998 at £24 billion. I quote these figures, which were sourced from DECC’s own analysis, to highlight how things are changing in this sector and in the North Sea specifically.
The other new element is that decommissioning is now a reality and is starting to incur costs. There was a feeling a few years ago that decommissioning was the beginning of the end. Now it is being seen as the beginning of a new industry and there is considerable decommissioning activity going on, not least because many of these assets have been in place for decades, perhaps well beyond their imagined timespan. They are therefore reaching the end of their usable lives, even if we wished to keep using them. The purpose of the amendment, then, is to ask for a report to Parliament on the fitness of the powers now being created for the OGA. We have suggested that it should be produced within six months but we do not have a fixed view; a year would be equally fine. However, we must make sure that we set off on the creation of this new quango or arm’s-length body with the right set of objectives.
We will debate amendments later today where we will talk more about the need to update the objectives, particularly in relation to the storage and transportation of waste greenhouse gases. It seems clear that, as we look at the implications of climate change, which are now uncontested—I think it is settled that we need to decarbonise our energy systems—that will change the economics of all fossil fuel activity. If we are to meet our targets, either we will be forced to decarbonise our use of fossil fuels using CCS or we will see a drastic reduction in the demand for those products. Either of those has significant implications for the UK economy and for the oil and gas sector, hence the desire to table an amendment that enables us to have this debate and to require that the OGA be kept up to date with the most recent developments in this sector.
As I have said, oil and gas prices have fallen and there seems to be no sign of their coming back up again any time soon—of course these prices fluctuate but this now seems to be a systemic drop—so we must have a body with the right remit and objectives to do the job of making sure that, while we maximise the economic return from the North Sea, we accept that this may not be solely through the recovery of hydrocarbons but might, of necessity, require a completely new industry that not only extracts hydrocarbons but returns the waste gases to under the sea. We are blessed with a natural repository for many billions of tonnes of waste greenhouse gases, which I am certain we will need if we want to keep the costs of decarbonisation under control and ensure that we are decarbonising cost-effectively.
I shall speak also to Amendment 3 in this group. Amendment 1 requires a report to be made on the fitness of purpose of these powers, but Amendment 3 is more specific and seeks to change the primary objectives of the OGA to include CO2 transportation and storage. It would negate the need for many of the subsequent amendments that we will talk about today because it would bring about a high-level change which would mean that we would not have to catch lots of subsequent clauses and add references to CCS and storage and transportation to the powers being taken here. Many amendments that we will come to today relate to how, as drafted, there is reference back to the principal objective of the Bill and the fact that currently that principal objective does not include the transportation and storage of CO2. Therefore, many of the amendments are trying to reinsert it. We could take another approach, such as the one set out in Amendment 3, which is simply to change the primary objective. There is merit in our discussing that, particularly as CCS offers a lifeline for the future development of hydrocarbon use in the UK by being able largely to decarbonise our use of those fuels.
CCS is essential in that it will enable us to keep using hydrocarbons but, as I alluded to earlier, it is equally important to keeping the costs of decarbonisation contained. At the global level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that if we do not have CCS on a global scale, we are likely to see the costs of decarbonisation being double what they would be otherwise, while in the UK the Energy Technologies Institute has estimated that without CCS, by 2050 the costs of decarbonising to reach our targets could be in the order of £40 billion to £50 billion a year more than if CCS is deployed.
This is an important and timely subject. We are seeing projects in the UK moving forward to deployment to enable us to make use of the North Sea. I am sure that the OGA will say, “We would rather have our remit nice and narrow; please leave us alone”. That is fine, but we are moving to a time when the social contract between the citizens and taxpayers of the UK and the offshore oil and gas operators is changing. The oil and gas industry largely used to get on with what it was doing—delivering us rather nice, large sources of tax revenue—and everyone was happy. That is shifting. The revenues are falling, as we have seen in recent years, decommissioning costs are rising and the OGA itself, as we will come to debate later this afternoon, will potentially receive public funding to go about its business. This is no longer purely a commercially focused sector and it requires government to intervene to help it. It has the opportunity to receive public funding—the oil and gas operators already receive generous tax breaks that enable them to offset their decommissioning costs. The social licence between us, the citizens of the UK, and the offshore oil and gas operators is shifting. We need to make sure that the OGA reflects that change of balance and takes on a role fit for the 21st century.
We should always consider very carefully when we create new public sector costs. The Government have pointed out on numerous occasions that we are living through a time of austerity, and it seems a bit strange that we should be creating a new area of public spending here without requiring this to be a comprehensive body that takes into account a whole range of views and issues and keeps pace with current events. As good as it was, the Wood review—which I am sure will continue to receive cross-Bench support—is over two years old, and two years has been shown to be quite a long time in the oil and gas sector, hence the need for these two amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of the spirit, at any rate, of this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I declare an interest as chairman of the Windsor Energy Group, adviser to various energy companies, as in the register, and president of the Energy Industries Council. As the noble Baroness has rightly said, this is a sensible requirement for the future because, as she has also said, the North Sea is a mature province and the industry is clearly undergoing huge change—probably the biggest period of change since the 1970s and early 1980s. Most of the talk in the industry at the moment is about the impact of the halving of the oil price. Even in this morning’s papers, we see some pronouncements by experts on the possibility of whole areas of the North Sea shutting down unless completely new arrangements and management structures can be devised to cope with the new situation.
Obviously, behind this lies the question of whether the price will stay down. My own view is that, barring high-impact events like huge new political upheavals beyond the ones we already have in the Middle East, there will be no obvious bounceback in the price for a very long time. People talk as though the OPEC countries had some choice of policy—they could just cut production and the price would go up. Well of course that would not happen. They have lost control of the price. Russia has no intention of co-operating, and the shale industry in America, although there have been a few bankruptcies, will come back again and increase production as soon as the price rises. So the OPEC countries would gain nothing. Iran of course may be coming on stream as well. All this means that the industry in the North Sea is now facing a period when, on the supply side, there will be a lot more oil. On the demand side, there will probably be rather flat demand, whether from China, from Japan—which is going back to nuclear so will not need so much—or, indeed, from the United States or us, where the demand for oil is flat or even falling.
This is a completely new management challenge. We must have some reassurance, at least in a year’s time but preferably from the start, that the new regulatory authority—the OGA, with its expanded powers into a separate agency, as is now proposed—has the facilities, opportunities and abilities to manage completely new requirements. We have to see a province that is going to adapt to low prices, that develops completely new opportunities and new technologies, not unrelated to the points made by the noble Baroness about the possible disposal of carbon dioxide through CCS techniques, and that learns from other countries. Norway in particular may have a lesson or two for us on how to maintain a mature province and develop new opportunities at sea.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank my noble friend. I do not want to give a figure on the hoof; I am sure noble Lords would appreciate that that would be dangerous. We can look at this clearly between now and Report. If we are going to have a review we will have to say when it should take place. I would not anticipate coming back without a definitive idea of that.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has demonstrated the breadth of opinion and the cross-party consensus on the need for the Bill to be amended to ensure that carbon capture and storage—or certainly the storage and transportation elements of it—is on the face of the Bill, for the avoidance of all doubt. On these Benches, we will not be content for the Bill to leave this House without that issue being addressed. That said, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I look forward to sitting down and engaging in the discussions he offered with officials and interested parties to see if we can come to an agreement on the review period for the legislation and the objective of the OGA. I understand the points that have been made, but if you create a body that has licensing powers over the storage of CO2, which may well involve itself in meetings in relation to storage and transportation and which may be charging fees, how can this all be possible unless its primary objective includes a reference to that? The potential for judicial reviews or objections from industry would be much wider if we do not make it crystal clear from the outset that this is what we intend the OGA to do. The noble Lord has referenced the fact that this will be self-financing, but government amendments to be tabled today would mean that public money was potentially being given to the OGA. I reiterate that we will not be content unless something appears on the face of the Bill, but I look forward to sitting down with the Minister and his officials and, on that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Oxburgh
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, in thanking those who have participated in the debate and the Minister for his reply. I have one final question for him. Have the officials in his department conducted a study of how the Bill might impact CCS? There are serious questions there: if they have not done that, could they do so? It would be extremely useful as a lead-in to the next stage.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, Amendments 1A to 1F and Amendment 43 seek to amend the Schedule to the Bill to make amendments to other Acts and the Title of the Bill. Because the power for the Oil and Gas Authority to charge fees is provided for in Amendment 16, Amendments 1A to 1D are required. In particular, we amend the power to charge in Section 188 of the Energy Act 2004 and remove some other powers to charge fees. This illustrates the points that were made about the need for a destination table.
Amendment 1E amends the Schedule to insert a definition of the Oil and Gas Authority into the Energy Act 2011. This is consequential on government Amendments 33 and 34 relating to access to upstream petroleum infrastructure and on the transfer of functions to the Oil and Gas Authority in relation to access to upstream petroleum infrastructure. Amendment 1F amends the Schedule to remove the levy provisions from Section 42 and Schedule 7 of the Infrastructure Act 2015. These will be set out with amendments to this Bill—noble Lords should see Amendments 17 and 18—so that those using the legislation can find all the Oil and Gas Authority provisions in one place. I hope that that is helpful.
Amendment 43 amends the Title to include,
“to make provision about rights to use upstream petroleum infrastructure”,
in consequence to Amendments 35 and 36, which insert new clauses on this topic. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, as these are largely technical amendments bringing into line various pieces of legislation, I have no real objection and we support the government amendments.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that.
Baroness Worthington
“Report to Parliament on decommissioning costs
Within one year of this Act coming into force, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall report to each House of Parliament on estimated decommissioning costs for North Sea oil and gas infrastructure.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 2 and 9. Amendment 2 is the requirement on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on an annual basis on the,
“estimated decommissioning costs for North Sea oil and gas infrastructure”.
This amendment has been tabled because an important facet of this debate is that the costs involved are hugely important, which the Minister mentioned earlier. Decommissioning is under way, it is likely to increase over time and we will see bits of infrastructure being removed, which will cause considerable costs to be borne. The upside is that we may well be about to invent a wonderful new industry in which we can get a global lead. The engineering excellence that we have demonstrated in the North Sea will be repurposed and we will apply that knowledge and expertise to the task of decommissioning, which I am sure will stand us in good stead both here and overseas.
However, through the course of my engagement with this Bill, it has come to light that those decommissioning costs will now partly fall on the taxpayer. The Treasury produced an estimate of the costs of decommissioning and how much will be expected to be a burden on the taxpayer. In the five years from now until 2020, HMRC estimates that something in the region of £9 billion will be expended, half of which will fall on the taxpayer. That is not an insubstantial amount of money, particularly as we hear, in the context of energy, an awful lot is made of the cost of the renewables subsidies and the green energy contracts. A levy control framework is applied to those costs. But here we have a liability on the taxpayer for essentially finishing off the job in the North Sea and assisting the oil and gas sector in bearing those costs.
Those costs are quite generous and the way in which they are calculated is that tax can be claimed back through the petroleum revenue tax, the PRT, and the ring-fenced corporation tax, the RFCT. Both provisions are very generous and enable costs to be claimed dating back throughout the time of the activity. They allow the use of retrospective taxation that has been paid to claim tax back against decommissioning costs. This evidently means a loss of revenue to the Exchequer, and therefore extra pressure on taxpayers to make up the difference somewhere else.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and my noble friend Lord Howell for his comments. Without wishing to be too much of a doomsayer, I appreciate that there is always the chance of any business going into bankruptcy or company going into insolvency. The legal position is that decommissioning costs are picked up by industry under the Petroleum Act 1998—and industry does, of course, get tax relief.
I will address the noble Baroness’s points on Amendments 2 and 9. Minimising the costs of decommissioning in the North Sea to both industry and the taxpayer will be a central focus of the new legislative landscape. It is essential that we create an environment that encourages collaboration and co-operation in order to bring down overall costs. The reuse of viable North Sea infrastructure is a top priority for the Oil and Gas Authority. As I outlined earlier, the Wood review suggested that the Office of Carbon Capture and Storage would work closely with the Oil and Gas Authority in moving this forward. That, indeed, is what is happening in line with the recommendations made by Sir Ian Wood in his review.
That said, I understand the thrust of what is being said and can confirm that decommissioning is high on the Government’s agenda. Obviously there are costs associated with it and it is essential that we do it in the most cost-effective way, bringing in the possibility of reusing decommissioned sites in relation to CCS. I hope that noble Lords have had a letter indicating that the Government will bring forward amendments on decommissioning on Report. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to bring them forward earlier, but it is my intention that these amendments will address the issues of decommissioning costs and the viable reuse of infrastructure in the North Sea. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to debating decommissioning in more detail on Report when government amendments on these issues will be brought forward.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his clarification. He is absolutely correct that, obviously, over a longer time period we will incur higher costs. I thank the Minister for his response. Possibly I did get the letter about the decommissioning amendments. I have to confess it has been a rather chaotic last few weeks so I will look again in my inbox. I would welcome that and I think that this issue must be addressed in the Bill. It is clearly a subject that we are going to see a lot of parliamentary time devoted to. Could the Minister write to me or give me clarification, as soon as possible, about the nature of the liability that taxpayers will face and about any safeguards that will be put in place to prevent it becoming an unlimited liability?
I notice from the industry side that the tax breaks that were granted have been underwritten by private law contracts to avoid any reverses being introduced by subsequent Governments. That seems to be quite a nice safeguard for the industry. As we know, Finance Bills are famous for being quite changeable. In fact, we saw quite a shift from the 2011 Budget where what were described as disastrous tax regimes brought in for the oil and gas sector were rapidly reversed and changed over subsequent Finance Bills. Therefore, one can see why the industry is keen to have these things underwritten and uses private law contracts now for those tax breaks. However, where are the reassurances for the public purse that this will not be a ballooning cost for us over decades to come?
I understand that it should be the industry that pays, but it does receive tax breaks, which amounts to a subsidy from the public purse. However, on the basis that there are amendments coming forward and that we will have another opportunity to debate decommissioning in full, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing her amendment. I shall speak to amendments also in this group: Amendments 5, 6, 8, 20 and 21 in my name and Amendments 4, 10 and 11 in the names of my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord Grantchester. This could be described as another pot pourri of amendments. I echo the noble Lords who mentioned that, had we had a bit more time and not been caught trying to table all our amendments in the last week of the Recess, we might have come forward with a slightly different grid with different groupings. However, we are where we are. What all these amendments have in common is that they relate to Clauses 4 and 9, which set out the core functions of the OGA and—Clause 9 in particular—the matters to which the OGA should have regard.
I do not intend to go over again the importance of CCS and the need to facilitate development of storage and transportation, as we have obviously rehearsed those arguments. However, if we do not change the primary objective, as set out in the Petroleum Act and amended by the Infrastructure Act, we will probably have to amend the Bill in numerous other places to ensure that CCS is properly taken into account. Clauses 4 and 9 are two places where we would expect something in the Bill to reassure us that this will be taken with due seriousness, and that the OGA will have the right legal backing needed to do its job properly.
Amendment 4, which is in my noble friend Lord Whitty’s name, refers to the need for decarbonisation strategies. Having spoken to him, I know that the purpose of probing on this is that it is absolutely clear that, as we face climate change and start to absorb the implications of what we need to do, there is a great need for a holistic view of our pursuit and extraction of hydrocarbons. We are either going to change drastically our demand for hydrocarbons by moving into other sources of energy, or we will be capturing and storing the waste gases and putting them somewhere where they are not released into the atmosphere. I think both have quite profound implications and it is right that the OGA must have regard to the meeting of climate change targets and carbon budgets, and to the need for decarbonisation of energy. This is meant to be a Bill for the 21st century, not for the last century. Therefore, if we are to list specific areas to which the OGA must have regard, it would seem odd if climate change mitigation and decarbonisation were not specifically mentioned.
Amendment 5, which is in my name, is, as I said, an alternate way of ensuring that geological carbon storage is included within the matters to which the OGA has regard. Amendment 6 is similar to Amendment 4 in that it asks for consideration of the Climate Change Act and the targets within it.
We then turn to Amendment 10, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty and refers to energy efficiency. I think I am right to say that my noble friend would have preferred to write a wider amendment about energy efficiency in general, because that is a long-held area of great interest to him. There is certainly a need for any energy Bill to consider the role of demand reduction and energy efficiency but, as the scope of this Bill is relatively narrow as it stands, this amendment relates to increasing energy efficiency within the areas of extraction of oil and gas, as related to the OGA. Amendment 11 relates to carbon capture and storage policy again.
The last two amendments in this group, Amendments 20 and 21, relate to Clause 9. They seek to make sure that the interpretations in the Bill are sufficiently clear that when we talk about licensees and operators, and data sharing and meetings—all the various powers being given to the OGA—we know it is explicit that those powers include those activities that relate to CCS. As I say, this could be made a whole lot simpler if we were to change the primary objectives but it seems that there are many ways of skinning this particular cat, and many of them are presented here today. That is the purpose of tabling these amendments and I look forward to the Minister’s responses to these matters relating to Clauses 4 and 9.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, particularly regarding climate change, carbon-reduction targets and energy efficiency. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on trying to get energy efficiency into the Bill because it is something that he, I and others on all energy Bills have tried to make the Government look seriously at always including. If we are concerned about reducing demand, which is another area we had to pursue energetically in the previous Energy Bill, we need to look at this if we are to meet a lot of the targets we have signed up to, not only in Europe but internationally. I support the thrust behind this and I admire the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for getting energy efficiency into the Bill.
Baroness Worthington
Before the Minister sits down, although I thought that we had been making quite good progress in this debate in recognising the need to address the OGA’s powers in relation to CCS, I felt that the comments in response to this amendment seemed to be very narrow in their interpretation of what we are going to be considering before Report. I reiterate that our not moving the amendments in this group does not preclude the fact that we want a full and deep discussion about which of those OGA powers need to be amended to address CCS. As we will come on to discuss, that will involve access to meetings, information samples and a whole raft of things that will be needed to facilitate CCS. Although I will not be moving those amendments, I reiterate that we should not be sliding back and we should be looking at the whole issue holistically before Report.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I am happy to do that, as I have indicated, but I do not want to give the impression—I do not want to commit us to this—that we are undermining the focus of the Oil and Gas Authority, which is to maximise the economic return from the North Sea.
Energy Bill [HL]
Baroness Worthington Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to respond to a debate that has had a veritable all-star list of energy experts contributing to it. I begin by thanking the Minister for his introductory comments. My sense is that we now have a very capable and committed Minister but, sadly, he comes before us with a rather shoddy and politically tawdry Bill. That is to be greatly regretted because important things need to be done in energy policy. There are big issues to be tackled and 2015 is a big year for climate change. I fear that we will waste precious parliamentary time on a Bill that is not complete, is lacking in important detail and is very confusing and conflicting in the messages that it is sending.
As many noble Lords have mentioned, the Bill is in two parts, the first relating to the setting up of the Oil and Gas Authority and the second consisting of a meagre two clauses that seem to be designed to destabilise the wind industry.
Many noble Lords have spoken very eloquently about the first part of the Bill. It is indeed necessary to implement the findings of the Wood review. However, the timing of the review was rather unfortunate, being published in February 2014—mere months before we saw a radical resetting of the global oil price. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and my noble friend Lady Liddell pointed out to us that things are changing rapidly in the global oil and gas industry, and my fear is that this aspect of the Bill reads slightly as though it is out of touch and out of time with what is happening in the industry today.
I say that because we have seen a dramatic falling off of revenues from oil and gas from the North Sea continental shelf. It is now a very different place. I am sure that we will go through this in detail in Committee but we must ask whether the Government have truly reflected on whether the powers they are giving the OGA will be fit for purpose.
The statistics are quite astounding. Revenues from offshore oil and gas have already tumbled by 40% but they are likely to tumble again from £2.1 billion last year to only £0.7 billion in 2015-16. This is a serious issue. The future scenarios upon which we are relying that might see rising receipts are predicated on an oil price of between $70 and $100 a barrel. We must ask ourselves whether that is likely. It is possible—everything is possible—and even plausible that, with renewed investment in the North Sea and a renewed commitment, we will see production levels creep back up again. However, no matter how much wishful thinking we might apply to this problem, we will not see a return to the activity levels that we had in the heady days of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Production peaked in 2000 and has been falling steeply since the start of this century. My noble friends Lady Liddell and Lord O’Neill hinted that there is a future for the North Sea but it is likely to be very different from the one we see today.
It is likely that some of the skills will be transferable into the offshore renewables industry and equally likely—again, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, spoke eloquently on this, as did my noble friend Lord Whitty—that the North Sea will reinvent itself as a source of storage for CO2 as we move to decarbonise our fossil fuel industries. This creates a challenge for the OGA because part of its job, in addition to trying to create some transparency and openly negotiate reinvestment in the North Sea, will be considering decommissioning—the rolling out and management of decommissioning. However, the risk is that, because it is largely determined by private sector players, the decommissioning may occur out of sync with our needs for carbon capture and storage.
If we do not get on with the carbon capture and storage element of our energy strategy, we could see a mismatch where infrastructure that would otherwise be re-used for carbon capture and storage is simply decommissioned because the carbon capture and storage project is not yet up and running. Will the Government consider creating a hierarchy in the OGA’s thinking—where the talk is about efficiencies and investment but then thought is given to re-use for CCS, and only then is thought given to decommissioning—so that we do not run the risk of a timing mismatch?
Another subject which I am sure we will talk about in Committee and which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Grantchester is the core functions of the OGA and whether they are fit for purpose and comprehensive enough, given today’s concerns. I certainly echo my noble friend’s comments that the core functions should include references to environmental considerations and climate change. One aspect of the new regulatory authority will be that it can levy fees and raise finance for necessary expenditure, including on environmental issues. A very interesting proposal has been posited by the academic Myles Allen from Oxford University. He has been asking whether the time has now come to ask the extractive industries, which are currently extracting fossil fuels to be burned for our energy sources, to pay a levy towards the climate change damage that arises from the use of their products. We may wish to explore that in Committee.
The Bill has two functions—looking at oil and gas and the more minor measures on onshore wind—but I am left wondering whether it could have been different. Could we not have had a much more positive Energy Bill from the Government? There is an agenda here that I support. The Government said in their manifesto that they will seek to decarbonise at least cost. That is a very sensible aim. I am a technology neutralist—neutral in terms of which technologies we should be deploying. I do not believe that there should be holy cows within the energy sector, where certain technologies are protected. I honestly believe that market forces should help us to determine which of the technologies should succeed. That should be overlaid with strategic oversight from government to determine which technologies will play to the UK’s strengths and to ask where we can invest in and develop technologies that will give us a lead in the global race towards decarbonisation.
That leads me to think that we are missing a trick on carbon capture and storage. The Bill, had it perhaps not been rushed through at quite the speed that it has been and had a little more consideration been applied to it, could have been an excellent vehicle for kick-starting our focus on carbon capture and storage, not least because of the measures regarding the Oil and Gas Authority but also because we have now recognised that we need to do something to help industry to decarbonise. We talk a lot about electricity decarbonising but there are still large sources of greenhouse gas emissions in this country that will need to be decarbonised or these industries will simply be forced to leave the European Union and move elsewhere, because the caps on those emissions are tightening.
There has been some very good work on the subject of how to decarbonise our industrial sector. A recent report commissioned by DECC or the DTI—I forget which—asked the Teesside Collective to think about policy mechanisms for funding industrial decarbonisation. There are some very interesting ideas there. When will the Government start to take this seriously? When will we see some policy consultation on how we are affordably to provide industry with decarbonisation options that mean that it can reinvest in the UK and get primary production of materials going again, safe in the knowledge that we are insulated against carbon prices in future? That is the sort of Energy Bill that I would have liked the Government to have come forward with, had they given themselves a little more time to reflect and to produce a more strategic set of measures.
On process, there is no impact assessment for the Bill, which I find curious. When will we see an impact assessment? It has been mentioned by noble Lords today that the methodologies that the Government are using are opaque. The Government say with great confidence that they are on track to meet their renewables targets. Can we see those figures written in black and white please? As my noble friend Lord Grantchester mentioned, it is simply not true that we are on track to meet our EU renewables targets. We may be doing reasonably well in electricity, but we are falling drastically behind on heat and transport, and the target represents all energy, not just electricity.
When it comes to assessing how well we have done, if I were the European Union DG responsible for assessing our performance, I would look very gravely on a Government who come out of the traps with this short-sighted set of measures to rein back on renewables at a time when we have no comprehensive plan and no confidence that we will hit our targets. That seems to me to be wilfully trying to miss targets, and I would take a dim view of it. That will cost the UK taxpayer money, let us be clear, because we cannot simply flout the rules having signed up to them. There will be financial consequences to our missing those targets. Let us see the analysis and see how the Government can be so confident that they can tie their hands behind their back by destabilising some of the most successful aspects of our energy industry.
I have moved seamlessly on to the second part of the Bill, which is clearly the most controversial. It contains merely two clauses at the moment, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, stated very clearly, we need to see the detail. We need to scrutinise it. There has been no consultation and there is no impact assessment. The Government owe it to Parliament to bring forward that detail as soon as they can so that we can scrutinise it. We have only these two clauses and we must try to derive from them the Government’s intentions and plans. It seems to me that the reality is that this is obviously just narrow party politics. When she announced the early closure of the RO, the Secretary of State namechecked several Conservative Back-Bench MPs. This is clearly more about party politics than anything else. What angers me the most is that it puts in jeopardy the UK’s economic growth for the sake of narrow interests raised by a very small number of MPs. The whole of the UK economy is benefiting from our investment in our energy infrastructure. To put that at risk and seriously damage investor confidence in the way that the Government are is wholly irresponsible.
Several noble Lords mentioned investor confidence, including my noble friend Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. It is a serious problem. The think tank E3G states:
“Every time these announcements come out, the U.K. looks like a less attractive place in which to invest. I think a number of investors will be pricing in much higher risk now”.
That was true when the Bill was published; it is even more true after today’s announcements. It is really regrettable that we should kick off this new Government with something so short-sighted and tawdry—that is the only word that I can come up with. They are simply enabling a very small but vocal group to issue self-congratulatory press releases while putting serious investment and serious jobs at risk and making us appear to be a country that does not know which way it is going when talking about the need to address climate change and to decarbonise.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made good points and some of them are obviously being listened to. He and I agree on a few things, and one of them is that there should be a focus on a least-cost approach to this. I am not saying that we should continue to provide subsidies when they are no longer necessary; that is not my aim at all. My aim is that we conduct ourselves in a way that gives investors confidence and allows for an orderly transition—a phrase that has been repeated here today. That is the phrase that the Government have used. An orderly transition is what is needed. This is a long distance from that; the Bill does not represent that.
Viscount Ridley
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene briefly, since she mentioned me. The central point to all this is that we are on course to overspend—from £7.6 billion up to £9.1 billion—on subsidies for those industries. What would the Opposition’s position, or anyone else’s, be about reining in that expenditure, because the cost is falling most heavily on the people who can least afford to pay it?
Baroness Worthington
I thank the noble Viscount for that intervention.
On the levy control framework, there is an interesting policy that the Treasury invented. I honestly think that it was invented simply for us to have this conversation later down the line. That number represents a partial figure for what is being added to bills as a result of government policy. It is incomplete; it does not include everything. It also makes no reference to the counterfactual. We live in a world with infrastructure built in the 1960s that has now served its time, is closing and will need to be replaced. That involves higher capital costs. You cannot replace assets that have already had their capital costs paid and expect energy prices to stay the same: they will not. The counterfactual is that we will have to spend more money on electricity as we build a new infrastructure.
That is not taken into account in the Treasury’s levy control framework, so it is a particularly redundant policy, and I would not use it as my measure of whether we should be cutting an industry off at the knees just as it is showing signs of success, in the false belief that we are on track with our targets. We are not. We desperately need inward investment and jobs in the UK. The Government do not have a great record in stimulating growth in the economy—far from it. They are desperately cutting costs to mask the fact that economic growth is virtually stagnant—or would be if it were not for immigration. Here we see them recklessly upsetting investor confidence in one of our success stories.
It could have been so different. It could have been done in a much better way. We could have made it clear that we are encouraging a wider range of technologies. We could have talked positively about some of them. We could have heard more about the fact that an increasingly wide range of renewables is now being deployed, but we have not. Unfortunately, we have had a very negative spin on what has been a success story for the UK.
I have not done justice to the debate, because it has been so rich and varied, but I thank noble Lords for all their contributions. As noble Lords can see, this is a subject I feel great passion about. I hope that, as we go into Committee, we will find some way to improve the Bill. I am sure that there are some measures in it that are necessary, but it is not the Energy Bill that we would have brought forward. I hope that through the scrutiny process of Committee we can make changes to make it something worthy of our efforts.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am coming to that; I had not forgotten. I think the noble Lord has also tabled a Question for Written Answer on this and I hope he has had a response because I have it here, although I will not read it out. I think he will be reassured that we believe there is sufficient cover at the moment. The Government will continue to monitor the insurance market for capacity in this area and to encourage insurers to enter the nuclear insurance market. I offer the noble Lord my apologies if the response has not yet arrived, but it is certainly on its way to him.
On contracts for difference, raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Oxburgh, and others, I have indicated that we will be announcing our approach. Of course it is important that we look at the totality of the position on renewables; I totally agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised issues around the automotive industry. He is absolutely right to say that there is a massive opportunity for the United Kingdom in this area. We are working across government on this with the Department for Transport and there is a certain urgency. It is an important issue and it would be great to see British industry have an edge in the area.
The security of the national grid was raised by noble Lords. That was one of the first visits I made, and obviously there are connections with other countries such as Norway and France. I think security of supply is in place.
The Competition and Markets Authority was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in relation to switching. He will be aware that we are currently studying, and will soon be responding to, the preliminary findings of the Competition and Markets Authority, which had a default mechanism in those preliminary findings for those people who do not switch and are on an expensive tariff. They are put into a default mechanism tariff, which will be better for them. I hope he is reassured by that. The noble Lord also raised the issue of smart grids, which are very important. We are looking at them as part of the smart energy programme.
Finally, I turn to the East Ayrshire coalfield. We are aware of the issues, as the noble Lord indicated, and at the moment the Treasury is looking at the Hargreaves and Banks proposals he mentioned. We will come back to him on that; it certainly has not been forgotten.
Baroness Worthington
In anticipation that the Minister is about to finish, I want to touch briefly on two points. I hope I will be forgiven if the noble Lord has already mentioned them. On the European targets, I should like some clarity on the statement from the Government that we are on track. We are not on track. We would like to see some information about how we will compensate for failing to meet the targets for the other two aspects of the energy policy. Related to that, I should like some reassurances because, as I understand it, to have an auction for the CFD, as was planned, the Government would have to be making decisions in August, not in the autumn. Can we assume from this that the planned CFD auction for this year will not take place, and what will that mean in terms of our being able to make progress with our targets?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness for those two points. On the European targets, we are certainly on track, as I think she will accept. Indeed, I think she said that in relation to the electricity target, which is the one that wind directly affects. The other targets are certainly challenging and we are seeking to address them. I have mentioned what we are doing on cars, but I accept that they are challenging. However, I am sure she will agree that the track record of the United Kingdom in meeting our targets is, in European terms, very good, and I am sure it will remain so. On the auction, as I say, we will be making a statement in the autumn about the future of contracts for difference, and I have indicated that there is a future for the levy control framework, but I cannot really add to that at this stage.
Once more, I thank all noble Lords for a wide-ranging debate, which has gone far beyond the narrow remit of the Bill, but that is no bad thing. I hope that, as we go through the Bill, we can engage in the constructive way we have today.
Sellafield
Baroness Worthington Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that there is a cost associated with decommissioning, as I have already indicated, which extends over a long period. I think the answer is there: over a long period, it is a liability.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, the stock of plutonium stored in Sellafield contains energy equivalent to the Morecambe Bay gas field, which has been serving us so reliably for 30 years. It is clearly an asset. When will the Government join the dots between our urgent need for investment in clean energy and infrastructure, and the plutonium stocks that are sitting there waiting to be used?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the plutonium is a liability in the sense that it needs to be decommissioned, although the noble Baroness is right that it could be turned into an asset if, for example, we go for the MOX option when the options are put in front of us. We are looking at that, but we need to examine it very closely. It is unlikely that it will make a significant impact on the amount of nuclear power that is offered as a whole from this country by the end of the period up to 2080.
Renewable Energy
Baroness Worthington Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I suspect that the noble Lord may be in a minority of one in his view of the position on climate change. Obviously, we are very pleased that the fuel poverty statistics are on a downward trend and that fewer people are in fuel poverty this year than last year.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, thanks to the Government’s Energy Act in the last Parliament, virtually every element of our energy system is now subject to a subsidy, and we are currently paying to keep old, unabated coal stations open and paying to shut them. Is that not the real scandal, since all of this coal is now imported?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that by 2025 electricity generation from unabated coal will represent only 1% of our generation.