Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moylan and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 5 in my name, and thank the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and my noble friend Lord Frost for their support, and to speak to Amendment 231, also in my name. Before doing so, I should say that since I joined your Lordships’ House, my entry in the register of interests has shown my membership of the advisory board of Stirling Infrastructure Partners, a relatively new corporate advisory boutique. Stirling Infrastructure seeks business with a wide array of major corporations, some engaged in the energy field, and it struck me after speaking at Second Reading that I should perhaps have specifically drawn the House’s attention to my registered interest at that point. I have not received any remuneration during my time on the advisory board, and I have since then terminated the interest.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for bringing forward Amendments 1 to 4 as a matter of general principle, because they are right that a Bill which seeks to articulate and implement our energy strategy, particularly our energy security strategy, should have a preamble that is strategic in character and should provide a setting so that we know where the Bill is heading and what it is trying to achieve. My difficulty with their amendments is that they are rather general in character and not entirely strategic. I hesitate to say this, conscious as I am that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, may choose to speak, but simply aiming to win the war is not a strategy. A strategy requires something on resources, a plan and a general conception of how you are going to do it. If we are to achieve net zero, there are certain knotty issues that the Government need to be clear about so that we understand exactly what their strategy is at the level of detail appropriate to strategy. I, for one, am rather confused about the whole thing.

The purpose of my Amendment 5, which I have to admit is drafted in a rather convoluted way, for today’s debate is to elicit from my noble friend on the Front Bench some answers to three particular knotty questions. The first is the cost of net zero by 2050. One would have thought that we knew what the cost was going to be, but my understanding is that the only estimate the Government have had available to rely on was produced by the Climate Change Committee, which estimates that it will be in the order of 1% of GDP a year.

I do not have an objection to dedicating government expenditure on the basis of a certain percentage of GDP. If the Government want to say that they will spend 2% or some other percentage of GDP on defence, or they will spend 0.7% or 0.5% on international aid, for example, that is perfectly legitimate. But, of course, the figure of 1% a year from the Climate Change Committee is not of that character. We are pledging to spend not 1% a year but whatever it takes to deliver net zero by 2050, and 1% a year is an estimate. Moreover, it is an estimate that relies to a high degree on certain built-in assumptions, particularly that things are going to get cheaper—that the various inputs will fall in price over time. While that might be true of some, there is no reason to think it is going to be true of all. Part of the purpose of this amendment is therefore to call for the Government to commission an independent assessment of the cost of meeting net zero by 2050.

Then, we come to the question of affordability. Achieving it by a certain date—the date set in statute—doubtless has one cost attached to it. This amendment also calls on the Government to consider as part of that assessment what it would cost to achieve it. Would it be cheaper—more affordable—especially in the current crisis we are facing, if the terminal date were not 2050 but later? I put in two particular dates but if the Government choose others, I would be happy to go with those. The issue is the principle of whether achieving net zero over a longer period would be more affordable for the people of this country.

That is the first thing this amendment is trying to elicit the Government’s views on: do they have a reliable cost for achieving net zero by 2050, and would it be affordable if we took longer over it? As I said at Second Reading, bearing in mind that this country contributes a very small fraction of global emissions, the idea that achieving it by 2065 or 2050 will save the planet is simply self-delusion. We are doing this principally for exemplary purposes, rather than because of its practical effect.

Secondly, I do not wish to cause the slightest difficulty or embarrassment for my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I find the Government’s existing strategy, particularly the energy security strategy, the 10-point plan and so forth, rather weak in terms of strategic content and cost assessment. What are they going to cost? Also, implementation dates are largely lacking. We also need to know the relative contribution that each of the Government’s proposed measures will make to achieving net zero. Some might be very significant and others not, but we do not understand that from the documentation. That is the second purpose of this amendment. It is an important strategic question and I hope my noble friend will be able to say something about it.

The third point concerns the crucial issue, which I raised at Second Reading, of the intermittency of renewable sources. What do you do when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining? An obvious source to use to make up for that at the moment is gas, and that is largely what we do. Will we continue to use gas? That is one option. At Second Reading I quoted Professor Sir Dieter Helm saying that that makes the gas expensive in itself, because switching it on and off all the time is very inefficient and increases costs. However, is that the strategy? When I said that at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, drew my attention to a recent report from a Finnish university that said that intermittency can be dealt with without recourse to gas. Afterwards, she kindly gave me a link to it, and I have studied it. The solution suggested—it is not unique to that university; it is fairly widespread—is that intermittency should be dealt with by way of battery power. When the wind is blowing and you do not need the electricity, you charge up the batteries, and when it stops blowing—it is the same for solar—you take the electricity out. That seems plausible at one level, and maybe it is the solution the Government are coming to; there is stuff about batteries in the Bill. However, it raises questions about the environmental consequences of extracting the minerals needed for the batteries, and about their disposal, siting and so forth. Can the Government tell us what role they see for batteries—if it is to be batteries; maybe it is not—in dealing with intermittency?

The third suggestion I have heard is that pumped water should be used. This involves using surplus electricity to pump water up so that, when you need it, it falls down again. I believe that some installations do that—indeed, one of them is hidden inside a mountain in Snowdonia—and that a couple are to be built in Scotland shortly. My understanding is that they produce very little power. They are an interesting idea. Is it the Government’s intention to roll them out at scale? What is the cost? Where are they to be sited? These are the things on which we should have some indication before we give the Government these powers. I note that there is stuff in the Bill on exactly this.

Finally, I have heard that we should use surplus power to produce hydrogen, but that assumes that there is a distribution network to take the hydrogen where it is needed when the wind is not blowing. So there are serious potential solutions to this problem. All of them have costs, both financial and environmental. Which do the Government prefer?

I have spoken quite long enough so I will come to Amendment 231 in my name, which asks a question that has been on many people’s lips over the past few weeks: how do we price wholesale electricity? At the moment, as I think noble Lords are aware, the price paid to generators is the price of the highest input needed to achieve the demand that exists in the system in a particular half-hour period. In recent weeks and months, that has become gas. Whatever they use to produce electricity—be it wind, solar or whatever—everybody is receiving the same price as for gas.

To be perfectly clear, though, not everybody is receiving the same price because many of those producers will have entered into a contract for the difference—a swap arrangement—with a government-owned company. Effectively, this means that they have a guaranteed price, and it does not matter what the price is in the pool. At the moment, this is something that the European Union is looking aggressively at in terms of whether it should be changed, whether we should have a different system and whether there should be two separate pools, with one for carbon and one for renewables.

These are all things that I would like to hear the Minister say something on. I sympathise with him because today is the last day of the current Administration. Tomorrow, there will be a new Prime Minister. It may be that the Minister does not have the answers to all these questions at his fingertips in the way we would all like to hear at the moment, so an answer in due course as Committee goes on would be extremely welcome.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 6 in this group; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for his reference to it. It is intended as a probing amendment. I like to think that it is short and perfectly formed; I am grateful to the clerks for their assistance in drafting it. I remind the Committee that I am the president of National Energy Action. As the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, referred to, there are worries about households that have already fallen into fuel poverty and the strong likelihood that, by October this year or January next year, 1.5 million more households may be at risk.

Some further background to this amendment is my concern that most of the talk in the White Paper and the British energy security strategy from April, most of the talk in the recent leadership election campaign and most of the concentration of the press and media seem to focus on household fuel bills and the price cap relating to them. We must not lose sight of the impact of fuel and energy costs on small, medium and large businesses. Many have recently cited the instance of launderettes, which may not be big employers but serve a particularly useful function and are obviously highly intensive users of energy.

However, there are many others. In what was previously the Vale of York constituency, there is the York brick company, which has kilns to make its clay bricks on the go for probably two-thirds of each day—often over weekends, I imagine, if it is trying to complete an order. If we lose many such small and medium-sized companies, this especially will have a grave impact on the UK economy going forward.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moylan and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage & Lords Hansard - part one
Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, although I do not entirely agree with her uncritical support of the Bill. I want particularly to support Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, to which I have lent my name, but also generally to support the other amendments in this group. The characteristic they have in common is that they deal with the retrospective powers of the committee—its powers to look back at existing policy and past practice—which clearly cause a degree of concern. My comments are intended to be largely helpful to the Government.

I have heard it said that the Government cannot support this amendment or the general thrust of these amendments because farming practice and husbandry practice go back decades—indeed, hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Therefore, they would say that it is impossible to look at the current situation or a change in the current situation without looking back at what it is changing or at the past. I would have a great deal of sympathy, as I think many people in the House would, with the Government if they advanced that argument. My suggestion, which I hope the Government will be able to take account of, is that an amendment could be crafted, perhaps by the Government, in response to this debate which ensured that the new animal sentience committee could look at existing and past policy only where the Government were coming forward with a specific proposal to change it—that unless there was a proposal to change it, the committee would not be able to look at current and existing policy.

I realise that is not quite the same as the amendment I have put my name to in support of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, but I do not think any of us here are trying to pin the Government down to a particular outcome—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that she was generally supportive of this. We are coming together around a sort of principle, which is that the ability of this committee to roam into existing policy at will should be limited, and it should be limited in ways that keep it focused on the present and the future, rather than going into the past. If my noble friend could find a way of agreeing something along those lines, I think the force of many of the amendments in this group would fall away.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend. I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for boosting my right-wing credentials. I think one thing the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and I have in common is that we find ourselves a little out of kilter with our respective parties in relation to the Bill before us this evening.

I have amendments in the third group, so I would just like to put two general queries to my noble friend the Minister. I would hazard a guess that, had we had this Bill in front of us when we were both serving as shadow Ministers in the Defra team some years ago, we would have been minded not to accept what is in the Bill before us today.

I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in moving his Amendment 1. I am proud to be an associate fellow of the British Veterinary Association, and I commend him for his work in flying the flag for vets—I think he is the sole flyer of that flag in this House. He adequately addressed not just the process but the retrospectivity aspect of this amendment. Could my noble friend the Minister give us a reassurance this evening that it is not intended that the work of the committee will have any retrospective effect—that is, going back over old laws in its work—should the Bill be carried in its present form?

I would also like to associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and ask for what particular reason—for some reason the manifesto did not reach me this time, possibly because we are not allowed to be candidates—

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I did—my noble friend teases me, but I did. I did not always agree with every single item in every single manifesto, but my understanding was that we made a manifesto pledge to roll into national law what was effectively, as has been rehearsed here this evening, set out in Article 13 of the EU treaty—which I do not think I have read either. My understanding is that that was our commitment. So I would like my noble friend the Minister, in summing up this debate, to set out for what reason it was not acceptable simple to rehearse in UK law what we had already committed to in EU law, because I believe that that would have been acceptable.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I add for the benefit of my noble friend that the Conservative Party manifesto for the last election contained—I have looked it up—simply a pledge that

“We will bring in new laws on animal sentience.”


Nothing more was said in any detail.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moylan and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, there are two amendments in this group with my name on them. The first is Amendment 8, which is also supported by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and which goes to the question of the composition of the committee. I have some sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Forsyth just said, but I would like to develop a slightly different point on the basis of this. One can say that there is almost universal agreement across the Committee that this topic should be addressed in the Bill. The question would be what it should say, if there were questions of difference. However, I do not think there is support on the Committee for the idea that the Government should simply have a clear run and be able to make it all up when it suited them.

The proposal here is that at least 50% of the members of the committee should have recent commercial experience of animal husbandry, livestock farming, the management of abattoirs and the management of game and fishing stocks. It may be thought that this is a sort of ignoble attempt to stack the committee in one direction rather than another, but it is not at all. I want to make a rather different point.

We will have an opportunity in the penultimate grouping, whenever we get to it, to discuss the science and indeed the metaphysics of sentience. However, I want to make this point now, anticipating that. One can approach sentience as a neurological phenomenon: that is, the central nervous system of the animal, the brain and the other features work together to create something which can be tracked by way of the movements of electrical signals, changing chemical compositions and things like that. All that can be tracked to some extent by science. However, it is also the case that sentience as we talk about it is a lived experience; it is the experience of pain and the undergoing of suffering. We as humans, ourselves undergoing pain and knowing that suffering, can sympathise with it when we see it in animals, vertebrates and mammals—different classes of animal.

For us to understand and for a committee to benefit from a real understanding of sentience, it is terribly important that people who have a direct experience of working with the animals that are in the scope of the Bill should be fully represented on the committee. Otherwise, we risk the possibility that it simply ends up as a sort of neurological exercise, and the direct and lived experience of sentience is ignored by the committee as it is packed with all these scientists. That was the point I wanted to make about that. It is not a question of stacking the committee but of trying to understand what sentience is and how we translate it into policy.

While the Minister wants to move away from this topic, and I understand that, he must realise by now that, given the almost total absence of any definition of what the committee is doing or any constraint on its activities, the question of who is sitting on it is about 90% of the meat of the Bill. Therefore, it is not possible for him to carry on brushing this away.

My second amendment, Amendment 9, concerns the term limit. Again, there seems to be almost universal acceptance that the Bill should impose some term limits on the membership of the committee, and there seems to be a sort of consensus that three years is a good idea for a term. If there is a matter of difference, it is simply on the question of whether it should be non-renewable, which is what my amendment says, or whether it should be perhaps renewable for one single further term, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said. I am sure that some consensus on that point can be achieved by the Committee, even if the Government themselves do not want to do so. That was simply the second point; it is a sensible amendment, and I hope that the Government respond to the widespread views on this topic in the Committee.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to follow my noble friend. There is some coalition of thought behind his Amendment 8 and my Amendment 10. I have known my noble friend the Minister for a substantial number of years and we served together on the Front Bench in opposition. He is not normally this shy in coming forward and sharing details with us; he is normally only too keen to pay tribute to the excellent department in which he finds himself. I am delighted to see him back in his place.

The purpose of Amendment 10 is to tease a little out from my noble friend. I know he is reluctant to, but he could share a little soupçon of who he imagines will be on the committee. I hark back to what my noble friend Lord Marland said in connection with the first group of amendments, and the pressures and challenges facing farmers. I echo that and pay tribute to their devotion to livestock and animal rearing and their sense of animal husbandry. They feel they are facing an onslaught from the department and this Government, the likes of which we have never seen before under a Conservative Government. I hope my noble friend gives some reassurance to the Committee that he imagines the animal sentience committee will at least have a veterinary surgeon, an active farmer or person with knowledge of livestock production or land management, and a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses.

I pay tribute again to my noble friend Lord Moylan, who managed to extract the animal welfare policy paper, which seems almost to be shrouded in mystery. If the Government really wanted us to share the enthusiasm they no doubt feel for this Bill—which at the moment is fairly weak on my part—surely they would shout this from the rooftops or at least pay passing reference to it in the context of the Bill before us. With those few remarks, I hope the Minister will look favourably on the plea to see the three categories I have set out, in addition to those set out by my noble friend Lord Moylan, appear in some shape or form when the committee is set up.