Air Quality Strategy

Debate between Lord Redwood and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can only repeat that I absolutely agree with Members that this is a vital issue. We have spent the past five months looking very carefully at the real world, as well as laboratory tests, to find out actual emissions so that we have the right consultation. We do not expect any delay due to propriety rules to lead to a delay in implementation. We are seeking a very short delay to preserve our democracy, in accordance with guidance from the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is growing concern about emissions that can damage health and lungs in particular? Will she make it a high priority to limit soot and smoke from public service vehicles, on which she has most influence?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right to raise this issue. The Government have invested a huge amount in retrofitting buses and taxis. Other measures include limiting medium combustion plants, which I was very proud to put in place when I was Energy Secretary, to try to reduce other emissions. My right hon. Friend is exactly right that we need to tackle a number of different emissions. This plan deals with nitrogen dioxide emissions and we will publish it as soon as we can.

Leaving the EU: the Rural Economy

Debate between Lord Redwood and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. This is something we have improved on greatly through voluntary and compulsory schemes for labelling, and we continue to look at that, particularly as we leave the EU, so he is right.

That brings me to the mechanics of our departure from the EU. The great repeal Bill will transpose the body of EU legislation into UK law. We will then be able to change or amend it, as UK law, at our leisure. We will soon be publishing a Green Paper consulting on a framework for our 25-year plan for the environment. This will help to inform our decisions, better connect current and future generations to the environment, and ensure that investment is directed to where it will have the biggest impact on the environment. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that our constituents want clean beaches, clean air, clean water, good soil and healthy biodiversity, whether we are a member of the EU or not, and I can assure hon. Members of my full commitment to that.

[John Redwood]

Will my right hon. Friend also make it a priority to publish proposals for a British fishing industry that will allow us to catch more of our own fish and protect our fishing grounds for the future?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the potential for all UK fishing. I hope that our policies, when we come to them after consultation, will enable us to deliver exactly what he asks for.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lord Redwood and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the amendment is likely to reduce the predicted savings from early closure by something in the region of £10 million per annum, which is a significant figure, given that early closure of the RO is expected to save around £20 million a year in a central scenario, and as much as £270 million a year in the high scenario.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that this was one of the most popular policies in the pretty popular manifesto we put to the electorate? We therefore need to get on with implementing it, and the other place should recognise that this issue arose out of the election.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right: this is a key, popular manifesto commitment, and we are determined to implement it, as we promised the voters of this country we would last May.

Let me turn briefly to amendment 2A, which was agreed in the other place. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the function of determining whether an oil field project is materially complete can be transferred to the Oil and Gas Authority. That function sits outside chapter 9 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 but elsewhere within part 8, so it does not fall within the definition of “relevant function” under clause 2(6) of the Bill. It therefore cannot be transferred from the Secretary of State to the OGA by regulations made under clause 2(2). The amendment simply removes the reference to “Chapter 9 of” from the reference to part 8 of the 2010 Act in clause 2(6), ensuring that this important function can be transferred to the OGA. The amendment is purely technical, and seeks to put beyond doubt that all key oil and gas taxation functions can be transferred to the OGA once it becomes a Government company, as we have always intended.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The amendments we have received from the other place make a number of changes to the Bill. In most instances, as the Minister mentioned, those relate to the commencement of the closure of the RO. That is essentially because of the Bill’s progress through Parliament and the potential charge of retrospectivity against the Bill. It is good that the issue has been rectified, and that the Government have confirmed that they do not intend to backdate the closure of the RO.

However, those changes point to the issue raised in amendment 7T, with which the Government have a motion to disagree. We need to be clear that the amendment is not saying that changing the closure date for the RO for onshore wind is wrong, although I continue to contend that it is. Contrary to the impression the Minister has given this afternoon, developers of projects did not realise that the closure date would be earlier than previously thought. Indeed, the so-called warnings before the general election, which she mentioned, were not about the early closure of the RO, but about future funding for onshore wind in general. Developers of projects knew that the RO would come to an end in March 2017, and many had spent several years—a long period—in the development process before the warnings were issued, and before the policy was put forward in the manifesto and, subsequently, the Bill. Having planned on the basis of the notion that the RO would come to an end, they found out very late in the day that the goalposts had been arbitrarily moved, and that their investment was lost overnight as a result.

Nor is the amendment in any way contrary to manifesto commitments; it is not about the principle of the early closure of the RO, but about the grace periods that follow from that closure process. It is not saying that there should not be grace period exceptions for schemes that, for various reasons, might fall foul of the new, arbitrary cut-off date. By highlighting a small number of projects that have fallen foul of the cut-off date for very specific reasons, it is saying that grace-period schemes should be built on a reasonable level of equity and fairness, and should work within an understanding of proper reasons for exemption; they should not simply impose a few extended, but nevertheless still arbitrary, cut-off dates for projects.

Lords amendment 7T highlights a particularly egregious inequity in the grace-period scheme. This involves schemes that have, even according to the new guidelines laid down in the Bill process, done the right thing throughout by seeking and securing local support. As the Government said earlier in the passage of the Bill, it was to be the sine qua non of permission for the development of any onshore wind in the future that local communities should have the final say in decisions; schemes, it was said, should obtain support, perhaps through local planning approval, and should not, for example, seek to win an appeal on the basis of national determination, having been turned down at local level.

The schemes covered by the amendment fit exactly that description. They have determinedly gone through the local process and engaged with it, rather than standing back and waiting to progress through an appeal. They have won local community support, in each instance through the granting of a planning decision by the local authority. The only issue is that, having gone through that often lengthy process of local consultation, they find that the successful, locally supported outcome has, at the stroke of a pen, effectively been turned into refusal. That has happened because the final planning certificate has not arrived by the cut-off date because of issues relating not to the permission, but to details of section 106 agreements on community benefit or similar issues, or to section 75 agreements in Scotland—that is, issues that arise not as part of the agreement process, but because the agreement has been reached. As these schemes could not produce a final, formal planning certificate by the arbitrary date of 18 June, the scheme as a whole was lost.

Here is the timetable of one such scheme, the Twentyshilling Hill wind farm in Dumfriesshire. The planning application was initially made on 15 March 2013 —a long time ago. It was approved by a planning committee, subject to a section 75 agreement, on 16 December 2014. It was not the fault of the wind farm applicant that the council took a few months to settle the section 75 application. Even so, the application was agreed on 17 June—again, before the cut-off date. However, despite the agreement being public and on the council website, the final certificate did not arrive until 1 July, making it null and void in the Government’s eyes, as the Minister has stated.

In retrospect, it might have been wiser for those and other developers not to take too much time on, or give too much attention to, local agreement, but to instead precipitate an appeal that they might have won. Indeed, when developers have done just that and the appeal decision has arrived after the cut-off date of 18 June 2015—we heard of such instances during the passage of the Bill—it has been accepted because of a provision relating to the grace period. The projects are deemed to have been okay all along and are allowed to proceed. That is frankly perverse, and it falls seriously short of the test of reasonableness and equity that ought to inform any grace period arrangement.

Lords amendment 7T relates to a small number of cases and seeks to restore a semblance of equity to the process. It is based on the principle that the Government themselves promoted as the basis for decisions on onshore wind applications. It is a principle for the future that, incidentally, Labour supports.

I shall explain the equity. If a local planning committee found in favour of a planning decision before 18 June, and the decision was arrived at via a process of consultation and community acceptance of the application, it should be covered by the grace period provisions. This small amendment would affect only about half a dozen schemes. In the overall scheme of things, it would make an insignificant inroad into levy control framework financial provisions, as far as the RO is concerned. It would, however, place a much-needed patch of equity on the grace period structure, and perhaps point the way to addressing seriously a future issue. That issue is this: are the Government intent on ensuring that onshore wind will be built in the future—it is, after all, the cheapest and most cost-effective renewable available—if local communities support the proposals, or do they intend to use national clout to override local wishes in pursuit of an overall closure of onshore wind, at least in England?

Accepting the amendment and finalising the Bill in this way would go a long way to restoring a principle that was supposedly central to the process for the future, and it would demonstrate to local communities that they really will be able to decide and not have their local wishes snuffed out by a fiat from the centre.