Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Baroness Worthington

Committee stage
Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is my responsibility and pleasure to move Amendment 8 and to speak to Amendments 9, 14 and 16 in the unavoidable absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, who will be with us from Wednesday onwards. She sends her apologies but I am pleased to speak on her behalf, and my own, and to thank the Carbon Capture and Storage Association for its excellent briefing about this issue and the implications involved and the help it has given us with drafting these amendments.

I have two points before I go on to the detail of the amendments. As others have said, the UK has one of the largest potential carbon dioxide storage capacities in Europe. This is a very important issue that we are dealing with today, and it should not be underplayed and underestimated. It extends throughout the whole United Kingdom—Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Also, as I understand it, it will support 50,000 jobs—a not insignificant number, given the current situation.

Turning first to Amendments 8 and 9, these deal with the importance of a net-zero principal duty to enable rapid network expansion. If we in the UK are to meet our emission reduction targets, carbon capture and storage will need to be rolled out rapidly across the UK during the rest of this decade. To capture and store 30 million tonnes a year by 2030, as the Net Zero Strategy says, we will need to go from nothing to building significant CO₂ infrastructure in a short space of time. It is therefore vital that the regime set out in the Bill enables initial oversizing of CO₂ pipelines, increasing their size, which will allow for the subsequent rapid network expansion to connect more capture sites to the growing suite of storage sites.

The National Infrastructure Commission’s 2019 regulation review, Strategic Investment and Public Confidence, recommended that the economic regulators’ duties be updated to facilitate long-term investment in networks. It recommended implementing updated duties that will enable network operators to deliver the best results for the public by building and investing in networks that are resilient and fit to deliver net zero while also providing value to current and future users of those networks.

The Government should be commended—it is unusual for me to commend them—for proposing that the duties of the economic regulators include consideration of the needs of existing and future users, but this seems a missed opportunity to include a duty to deliver net zero by 2050, to help the regulators to effectively balance these two equally important factors.

It should be noted, however, that outside the regulators’ core duties, the Bill includes a further requirement for the regulator to support the Secretary of State in having regard to the Climate Change Act 2008, and the new CCUS strategy and policy statement should go some way to addressing this. However, in practice, these mechanisms are not as strong as the regulators’ own duties.

This amendment is therefore essential to give the regulator the necessary powers to make decisions that enable the required strategic anticipatory investment on the network. Ofgem will need to be empowered to make well-justified decisions that balance the interests of current and future transport and storage network users with delivering net zero.

That deals with Amendments 8 and 9. I now come to Amendments 14 and 16, which would ensure that all types of permanent storage are included. Of course, geological storage is not the only type of permanent storage of CO₂. This can also be achieved by types of usage where the carbon dioxide is used in a way that it is chemically bound in a product and not intended to re-enter the atmosphere. As currently written, this clause allows only for geological storage, so this amendment is intended to recognise that there are other methods of permanent storage. However, it is important to qualify in this drafting that only carbon capture and usage where it is intended to be permanent—and therefore subject to monitoring and verification—can qualify for this.

It is worth noting that in other areas of the Bill a wider definition of storage is used, and the question could be asked: why are there different definitions for each clause of the Bill? Perhaps the Minister could explain that in his reply. This amendment aligns with Clause 63(8), where the Bill defines “storage” as

“any storage with a view to the permanent containment of carbon dioxide.”

Would it therefore be possible to have a common definition of storage used throughout the Bill?

I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to these amendments and I beg to move.

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 14 and reiterate the question of why there may be inconsistent definitions of storage in the Bill.

In my time exploring carbon capture and storage over the years, I have become somewhat cynical about its ability to scale. The sheer cost of it and the presence of alternatives that may be cheaper and more secure mean that its role will be relatively limited. I am sure that it will play a role, but only if we enable it to be pursued in its widest possible senses. It is absolutely the case that you can store large volumes of carbon dioxide underground; we have aquifers and other underground storage facilities that could be used for this, including in the North Sea and on land, and we should explore those where they make sense. However, there are other mechanisms through which you can enable the use of other stored forms of carbon. Novel techniques are coming to market now involving plasma torches, which, applied to natural gas streams, deliver pure streams of hydrogen plus black carbon. That black carbon can then be used as a manufacturing commodity. Therefore, it would be foolish of us not to include that as a potential option. Similarly, CO₂ is used as a binding agent in the production of building materials. In fact, currently the CO₂ has to be bought at an extortionate rate, so using pure waste streams of CO₂ for the production of building materials will again be a permanent form of storage and it should be supported in the Bill. I fully support this amendment.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Baroness Worthington

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I endorse what my noble friend has said. She is absolutely right. When we come to the next amendment, which she is going to move, I will make it absolutely clear, in endorsing my noble friend, that we have been misled by the Government in relation to the manifesto and the interpretation of the manifesto. The Minister is shaking his head but my noble friend is absolutely right and I will underline that in more detail when we get to the next amendment.

[Baroness Worthington]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. The concerns that I have raised consistently throughout the passage of the Bill relate to the Government’s analysis which concludes that we simply do not need any more onshore wind. This is based on false projections of how we are doing in relation to our legally binding EU renewable energy targets. Those targets relate to power, heat and transport. It is true that we are doing reasonably well on power but we are not on track for delivery of our targets on transport or heat. The projections that the department is now having to produce to pretend that it will get to those targets stretch credibility. There is a hockey stick of deployment expected in the other two sectors which is simply not credible. We are tying our hands behind our back, removing from our low-carbon armoury one of the cheapest, safest and most easily deliverable technologies—onshore wind.

I almost feel that I ought to be presenting a eulogy for the wind industry in the UK because it deserves respect. It has a 25-year history. The House almost certainly knows that it was first supported by Margaret Thatcher in 1990. The first support mechanisms were brought in for wind around that time. She recognised the science of climate change and she knew that we needed to address it. She also knew that it would be sensible for the UK to make the most use of its assets. We happen to be one of the windiest countries in Europe, something we should celebrate. In fact, we have been one of the best markets for wind technologies. Our shores have seen innovations and the development of new technologies that we can be very proud of. We have seen investment in jobs and infrastructure, particularly in those parts of the country that need inward investment—I am referring to Scotland and Wales—a great pouring-in of interest and money that has helped to generate jobs at a time when they are sorely needed.

I am not saying that wind farms need to be put everywhere and that everyone should accept them. I actually think that the Government’s other manifesto commitment that local people should have a say in them is a sensible measure. That is something that the Government have sought to introduce through planning. The closure of the support mechanism has to be taken in the context of the other things the Government have done to stop onshore wind, including quite significant changes to planning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

I sometimes also wonder about the European policy and in particular why we have not moved further and faster on carbon capture and storage. It makes sense to me that that should be the technology that will enable us to have steel and still meet our climate change targets. As with many things in Europe, it all boils down to what Germany thinks, and unfortunately, Germany has set its mind against carbon capture and storage. We do not need to, thankfully, and we should press ahead.

To return to another form of low-carbon energy which has an important role to play—onshore wind—I have made it quite clear that I do not believe that this is good legislation, and I have not been reassured why it is being pursued other than it seems to be quite a political move by the Government. The costs certainly should not be a reason for us to consider that this should be brought through. As regards meeting the EU targets, it is simply not true that there is no more room for onshore wind and that we should be throttling back.

We have greatly destabilised investment in the UK, which used to be one of the leading destinations for investment. The hasty, rash and poorly thought-through policies of this Government in their early months in government have produced shock waves. Many other people are also saying this, such as John Cridland at the CBI, and the Government’s funder, Dennis Clark, has sounded an alarm that the Government’s policy now appears to be having very little positive effect and a great deal of negative effect on investor confidence.

For all those reasons and for the reasons I have outlined with regard to it being inappropriate to proceed with this poor legislation, I suggest that we delete it, give the Government more time to consider this in the other place, where I am sure the debate will continue. I beg to move.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I have been wondering during the entire consideration of this debate why there has been such undue haste. This is a very important technical measure, yet great suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and others that we might have pre-legislative scrutiny and bring some experts together to look at aspects of it have all been cast aside. This is being rushed and pushed through because of some ideological desire which the party opposite seems to have.

The Minister mentioned the manifesto again and again in his speech. I notice, because I was just checking earlier on, that Norman Smith of the BBC has been saying that this is another area where the Lords might challenge the Government on something in their manifesto, and the Salisbury convention is being held up and waved at us.

I therefore took the elementary step of going back, as my noble friend did and mentioned earlier, to what is included in the Conservative manifesto. Do all noble Lords opposite know exactly what was included? I wonder if they really do. It said:

“Onshore wind … makes a meaningful contribution to our energy mix and has been part of the necessary increase in renewable capacity”.

That is a very positive statement. It continues:

“Onshore windfarms often fail to win public support, however”—

well, if they do not get public support, and are not supported by the local planning authority, they do not go ahead—

“and are unable by themselves to provide the firm capacity that a stable energy system requires”.

No one is suggesting that “by themselves” they provide a firm capacity for a stable energy system—they contribute towards a diverse energy capacity. It goes on:

“As a result, we will end any new public subsidy for them”—

as my noble friend said—

“and change the law so that local people have the final say on windfarm applications”,

which I agree with. But is it a new public subsidy? I argue that it is not. It is a public subsidy which we all knew about and which the investors understood was going to continue until the end of October 2017. It is not new. Presumably it was budgeted for by the right honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer. Presumably it was all taken account of in the department’s budget and the department knew that it was happening, so it is not a new public subsidy. The Conservative manifesto is quite clear and our amendment to remove Clause 66 does not in any way go against it.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Baroness Worthington

Monday 19th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[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.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Baroness Worthington

Monday 7th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[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.