Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021
Lord Oates Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument with his customary clarity. My starting point is a certain scepticism about this SI similar to that expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Personally, I think the SI should be unnecessary, because the industry should be paying all the costs of the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning. If it were not for the activity of the industry, that regulator would not need to exist, and given the profits which the companies concerned have made over the years it is unclear to me why the taxpayer is picking up any of the cost. I note that the description of the role of OPRED on the GOV.UK website includes
“protecting the taxpayer from bearing the full cost of decommissioning”.
Can the Minister tell us why we are paying any of this cost?
I also note the contrast between the way in which the oil and gas companies are treated, paying only part of the cost, and the way in which, for example, people who wish to become British citizens are treated; they pay not only the full cost of processing their application but many multiples of it, because for some reason they alone of British citizens are regarded as an easy touch to pay a supercharge for the cost of our border and immigration system as a whole. The oil and gas companies must have some very important friends to have achieved an outcome where they not only do not pay the full cost of decommissioning but they continue to receive huge subsidies to exploit fossil fuels that imperil the future of our planet.
On the increase in fees to which this statutory instrument gives effect, can the Minister clear up some issues? First, can he clarify the total amount of revenue raised by the fees which the SI relates to? The Minister gave us a figure of 1,243 hours as the figure representing an average of hours per annum spent on potentially cost-recoverable activity. If we take the average of the specialist and non-specialist hourly rates, it comes out at £152.50 per hour. If that was multiplied by the number of hours, it would come to—if my maths is correct—about £189,557. Is that the correct figure raised by the fees levied under this SI? If it is not the correct figure, can the Minister tell us what it is and how it is calculated between specialist and non-specialist hours, because the Explanatory Memorandum and the SI do not give the breakdown?
The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the calculation of the costs charged to the industry
“removes the hours spent on leave, bank holidays, staff management etc.”
Why are those excluded given that they are clearly staffing costs?
Can the Minister also tell us the total cost of running the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning? I think he told us in his introductory remarks that the fees and other charges outside the ones we are discussing in this SI raised £6.2 million. Does this cover the entire cost of running the regulator? If not, what is the deficit?
Can the Minister remind us of the total level of subsidies provided by Her Majesty’s Government to the oil and gas industry in the last year for which figures are available? I hope that the noble Lord will not try to tell us that the Government do not provide any subsidies, because that sort of dissembling is exactly what has got the UK ranked joint bottom for transparency on these issues among the G20 nations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised some important issues about how we get the industry moving towards transition rather than the existing policy of maximum economic recovery, which makes no sense in the context of our climate goals. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised some interesting issues about wind farms and the marine environment.
I await with interest the Minister’s response on those and his response to my questions. I do not oppose the increase in charges set out in this SI, but I strongly object to the continued subsidies that are pumped annually to an industry that poses an existential threat to life on this planet.
Net-Zero Carbon Emissions
Lord Oates Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
These are matters to be decided in the future, but we will not be able to power all transport by electric means. Certainly, some will be, but heavy articulated lorries, trains and so on mean that we will have to look at other solutions such as hydrogen.
Lord Oates (LD)
Do the Government recognise the key role that local authorities need to play in public engagement strategies to support net zero? Can the Minister tell the House what discussions his department has had with the Local Government Association on how best to integrate the work of central and local government in this respect?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right that we need to involve local authorities and we are doing that. Indeed, local authorities are one of our key partners in many of our strategies, such as the local authority green homes grant. I am the Minister responsible for this. We are working closely with local authorities and so far they are doing an excellent job in helping us deliver it.
Climate Change: Targets
Lord Oates Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sheehan for initiating this important debate and underlining, as other noble Lords have, the lack of alignment between policy and legislation on the one hand and our ambitious climate targets on the other.
In the short time I have, I want to focus on taxation and regulatory policy. Today’s Financial Times reports that the Chancellor has commissioned work on a carbon border tax. Can the Minister tell us when this work will be completed and how the Treasury will consult stakeholders? Can he also tell us what discussions the Treasury is having with our friends in the EU who are currently working on the same issue?
Secondly, can he tell us what consideration the Government are giving to fiscal measures to incentivise energy efficiency in homes, such as a stamp duty rebate for home owners who raise the efficiency band of their home within a certain period of purchase, as the Liberal Democrats have proposed?
Thirdly, can the Minister explain how the Government’s 2017 decision to scrap the graduation in vehicle excise duty by fuel efficiency—except for the first year—and their current proposal to scrap air passenger duty on domestic flights align in any way with our net-zero policy?
Fourthly, will the Government look at reforming the renewable transport fuel obligation so that not just green hydrogen produced from electrolysers directly connected to a renewable source but green hydrogen produced with electricity from renewable-only contracts qualifies? Will the Government consider waiving grid fees for electrolysers and scrapping VAT on green hydrogen? This is an important area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said.
Finally, will the Government look again at how the regulatory system prices the cost of capital in relation to climate change risks? At present, we have the absurd situation where funding loans for new fossil fuel exploration and exploitation is often significantly cheaper than financing the new industries and technologies that we need to tackle climate change. If the Minister does not have time to answer all these questions and those from other Peers in his response, I would be grateful if he could write to us.
Biomass Electricity Subsidies: Deforestation
Lord Oates Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
Many of these studies are published and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to a previous study that supports the assertion that forest is actually increasing in the area. But yes, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, is quite right—we need to act on the basis of proper, validated scientific evidence and our forthcoming biomass strategy will explore that further.
Lord Oates (LD)
Will the Minister publish information about the inspection, monitoring and enforcement of compliance with the criteria he set out in his initial Answer? Will he put that in the public domain and explain exactly how that enforcement takes place?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Provided that it is not commercially confidential, I will certainly share that with the noble Lord.
Electricity Trading (Development of Technical Procedures) (Day-Ahead Market Timeframe) Regulations 2021
Lord Oates Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am honoured to be in such a select group of noble Lords debating these regulations. I thank the Minister for his explanation of them.
If I did not already deeply regret the UK’s exit from the European Union, then having to get my head around this statutory instrument would surely have converted even the most ardent Brexiteer to the most ardent remainer. We are confronted by such tortuous statements as:
“cross-border electricity trading arrangements at the day-ahead market timeframe that will replace previous market coupling … will be based on the concept of ‘multi-region loose volume coupling’, where cross-border transmission … on an interconnector and electricity are auctioned together and the energy market in Great Britain maintains independence.”
That is not even from the SI; it is from the Explanatory Memorandum.
Can the Minister help us out a little here, on what is obviously a fairly technical measure? Can he tell us whether the proposed
“multi-region loose following coupling”
is preferable to the previous market coupling? Is this change between the two types of coupling taking place simply between the UK and the single energy market—is it happening because we are no longer part of the European Union and as part of the arrangements under the trade and co-operation agreement—or is it part of a broader change within the European single energy market?
I think the Minister confirmed in his opening remarks that Northern Ireland is not within the scope of the regulations. That certainly seems to be the case from what I have read. Northern Ireland will therefore continue to be governed by the single energy market rules. He has told us how he has consulted the Northern Ireland Executive on these regulations, but how are the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly involved and able to make representations on the single European energy market, under which, if I have understood this properly, they are still governed? How will they be consulted as we develop these proposals and what practical impact will they have on them anyway, if they are part of the single European energy market? Can he also indicate how long it will take to put the new arrangements in place, given that they will obviously involve some fairly complex technical discussions between a range of stakeholders, domestically and within the European Union?
Paragraph 7.16 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us that
“Placing obligations on relevant persons is not sufficient by itself to ensure that technical procedures are developed without delay”
and that “An appropriate enforcement mechanism” is therefore
“necessary to act against non-performance. The instrument applies Section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989”
in this respect. I have looked at Section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989 and it did not enlighten me particularly. Can the Minister explain to us what the enforcement procedures under Section 25 of that Act are and what the sanctions are? Section 25 refers to the notices that may be issued to relevant persons but says nothing about the sanctions if they are not complied with. I am happy for him to write to me on any of this because it is obviously a technical error.
The final question I have for the Minister is this. Throughout the documentation, there are references to the trade and co-operation agreement—the Minister has explained that the references have been amended because of the changes in the final version of the TCA. Paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us:
“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union.”
I am slightly at a loss as to that. Can the Minister explain how it does not relate to our withdrawal, when it seems so bound up with the fact that we are no longer part of the single energy market? That refers back to my first question: would this be happening anyway if we were within the European Union?
Net-Zero Carbon Emissions
Lord Oates Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate and to have heard the many insightful contributions from across the Grand Committee. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Teverson, who opened the debate so eloquently and powerfully. As my noble friend told the Grand Committee, joined-up thinking across Whitehall departments is critical and integrated planning with local government is essential if we are to meet our net-zero target. He also reminded us that while long-term targets unnecessary and welcome, they are meaningless unless they are backed up with credible action plans to deliver them.
Back in October, at Question Time, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, agreed that the Government’s net-zero target needed to be backed up by a credible short-term action plan for achieving it. When I asked him when we could expect one, he said:
“we will be setting this out in due course”.—[Official Report, 6/10/20; col. 517.]
I hope that in his response he will update us on when we can expect that plan, because we do not have time to waste.
In so many areas, the lack of a plan or even of any joined-up thinking is painfully evident: whether on decarbonising our buildings, transforming our transport system, protecting local ecology, tackling air pollution, reducing energy consumption or preparing the grid for a net-zero future. Just as the Government failed at the beginning of the pandemic to co-ordinate effectively across government or to understand that local government was a vital partner for effective public health interventions, so they are failing in the same way on climate change, where co-ordination in government is crucial and where local authorities have an essential role to play on the ground. The Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution failed to recognise that important role, mentioning local government just once.
We have also heard from many noble Lords about the silo approach that has been taken in government, which is a big concern to many of us. We have heard about incidences where the Department for Transport and BEIS pursue conflicting goals on decarbonising transport; the Department for Education throws obstacles in the way of the deployment of solar in schools; Defra, as my noble friend Lord Teverson reminds us, seems like it is on another planet from BEIS; MHCLG seems like it is on a different planet from all of us; and all the while, the Treasury continues to exert a negative influence over climate policy as a whole.
I was taken by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, that the Chancellor should be made responsible for meeting our climate targets. Certainly, without Treasury help to drive policy, we cannot hope to be successful. Instead of fostering co-operation and integrated approaches with local government, however, more often than not the Government seem determined to frustrate the efforts that local authorities are making.
Planning is a key example where the Government’s policy stance is completely at odds with their net-zero objectives. First, they scrapped zero-carbon home standards, which the coalition had established. As a result, 800,000 homes have been built since then which will now have to be retrofitted, at much greater expense than if they been built to a decent standard in the first place. Now the Government aim to take planning powers away from local authorities—the exact opposite of what they should be doing, which is to enhance the local authorities’ ability to tackle climate change through the planning system, and to introduce a requirement that all planning decisions must have regard not just to the 2050 net-zero target but to the intermediate nationally defined target of a 68% reduction by 2030 and the sixth carbon budget’s 78% reduction target by 2035. How can we believe that the Government are serious about these targets when their policies point in the opposite direction?
Then we have decarbonisation of our housing stock. This is really where the rubber hits the road, because the changes required will reach into almost every home in the country and impact people in a way that is far more profound than the decarbonisation of the economy that has taken place to date. We have zero chance of success if local authorities are not intimately involved. My noble friend Lord Stunell gave a comprehensive and powerful overview of some of the challenges in delivering in this area. They involve overcoming consumer resistance, developing a local skills base, co-ordinating decarbonised heating schemes and providing information and reassurance to the public. That cannot be done from Whitehall alone, and any Government who try will fail, as the green homes grant has shown.
I will not repeat the points that have already been made about the shambles of the green homes grant, but I remind the Minister that, many months ago, I suggested that he consult my noble friend Lord Stunell so that the Government could avoid making the mistakes that they subsequently made. I suspect that the Minister, having heard my noble friend’s forensic speech on this issue, wishes that he had taken up my suggestion. However, to be fair to the Minister, I have always got the idea that he agreed with many of the criticisms that we made about the design of the scheme, and I suspect that it was the Treasury, as usual, that got in the way of sensible policy. I will take his nod as assent.
If we are to succeed in this area, local authorities need to be given targets and resources for driving this work forward. They are the only agents on the ground with the ability to co-ordinate change on this scale and the trust of the public to do it. As my noble friend said, they have proved that they can do it, but it will not happen unless the Government provide the right resources and incentives, and long-term funding that allows local governments to plan and work with local businesses to develop the skills base that would be required to deliver on decarbonising 28 million homes.
Our electricity grid will also face huge challenges as we continue to decarbonise our economy. We will have to hugely strengthen the grid if we are to sustain a switch from predominantly petrol vehicles to EVs and from fossil fuel to electricity in home heating. Yet the constraints on investment in the grid as a result of the Ofgem settlement make it seem not up to the task. Again, we seem to be failing to join up the various government agencies and departments and the private sector in a co-ordinated way. Can the Minister confirm that he believes that the level of investment is sufficient for what we need to do?
My noble friend Lady Randerson drew our attention to a wide range of contradictions between government transport policy and our net-zero policy, whether in the Government’s roads plan or in above-inflation rail fare rises while fuel duty is frozen. We heard yesterday that international aviation and shipping will be included in the 78% target for reducing emissions, although just last month the Government announced plans to reduce air passenger duty. There just seems to be no joined-up thinking.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly drew attention to the need for co-ordination in bringing renewable electricity onshore. The current situation is a mess. It is another good example of the failure of BEIS and MHCLG to co-ordinate effectively with each other and with local government. This must be fixed.
My noble friend Lady Sheehan highlighted the insanity of the maximising economic recovery policy in the North Sea sitting in the same department that is supposed to be responsible for our net-zero policy. That makes absolutely no sense.
We saw a similar lack of joined-up thinking in the Treasury’s approach to the Financial Services Bill, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke about. Despite the fact that the way the financial services industry allocates capital will be critical to whether we will be able to tackle the climate crisis, there was no reference in the Bill to climate change, and it was only thanks to the noble Baroness’s leadership that a cross-party group managed to persuade the Government that they had to amend the Bill so that regulators had to have regard to the net-zero target. Sadly, we were not successful in pressing an amendment that would have required the regulators to review the risk ratings applied under the capital requirements regulation to lend into fossil fuel activities, but this is another area where we will need a joined-up approach at national and international levels.
This has been an important and informative debate. We have learned much from noble Lords about the gap between commitments and delivery. The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, made the point that the Prime Minister often seems keen on making big announcements, but the noble Lord asked—I think rhetorically—whether the Government actually have a delivery plan for net zero. The answer, sadly, is no.
I have a bigger worry about the Prime Minister’s approach: he is very happy to make categorical commitments one day and to betray them the next. We saw that on the 0.7% commitment and the promises made to Northern Ireland over Brexit. I have a real fear that, after COP 26, we may well see it on climate change. I hope it will not prove to be the case and that cynicism has momentarily got the better of me. However, even if the Prime Minister does not plan to abandon these targets, without a credible plan to meet them the effect will be the same.
When I spoke in the debate on the energy White Paper, the Minister was, dare I say it, a bit grouchy that I was not as positive as he would have liked. I therefore draw my remarks to a close by welcoming the leadership shown by the Government in committing us to a nationally determined contribution of a 68% reduction in emissions under the Paris Agreement by 2030 and their commitment, announced yesterday, to adopt the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee’s sixth carbon budget to reduce emissions by 78% by 2035.
There are many challenges but, as other noble Lords have pointed out, there are many opportunities for our economy as well, if we have a clear action plan from the Government. I finish by quoting an Arab proverb, which warns: “Commitments are clouds. Implementation is rain.” The earth is crying out for the rain.
Heat Pumps
Lord Oates Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to work with local authorities to increase the uptake of heat pumps in domestic premises.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to the ambition set out in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan to install 600,000 heat pumps every year until 2028 to make the UK’s homes warmer and more efficient. We already work closely with local authorities on heat-pump delivery, through schemes such as the local authority delivery scheme. The upcoming heat and buildings strategy will set out further details on how we plan to meet this ambition.
Lord Oates (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that local authorities are well placed to provide the direct engagement and advice required if consumers are to be persuaded to switch to heat pumps in sufficient numbers to meet the Government’s target? Therefore, will the forthcoming heat and buildings strategy introduce properly funded local-area-wide heat and energy efficiency plans to help drive the switch?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I have worked closely with local authorities on many of these schemes. The heat and buildings strategy is a priority, and we are aiming to publish shortly after the conclusion of the local elections in England and, of course, the elections in Scotland and Wales. The strategy will set out the important role of local authorities in supporting heat decarbonisation, including raising awareness of the support available to increase voluntary uptake of low-carbon heating systems.
Economic Partnership Agreement: Kenya
Lord Oates Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I have the privilege of being a member of the International Agreements Committee, which he chairs so adeptly. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald of Salford. Although I have not met him before today, I have a strong connection to him because my nephew James worked for him and my father married him—I should stress that my father is a clergyman.
I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in welcoming some of the movement by the Government on the issues of scrutiny, in particular on what I believe has already been dubbed the “Grimstone rule”, by which the Government have agreed that where the IAC has requested a debate on a treaty, the Government will not ratify it before time has been provided for that debate. Some would say that that is the absolute basic minimum requirement that any self-respecting Parliament could accept, but it is welcome none the less.
In the short time I have available, I will focus briefly on two things. The first is the impact on regional integration in east Africa of the decision by our Government to embark on a bilateral agreement with the Government of Kenya rather than pursuing an agreement with the East African Community as a whole. I understand, of course, as set out in our report, that Kenya had a particular issue, being the only country that was not classified as a least developed country. However, as paragraph 13 of the IAC report highlights, the Government have failed to explain adequately what other options they considered for ensuring continuity of trade with Kenya other than by concluding a bilateral EPA, which inevitably has caused huge concern to other EAC members. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain this in his response.
The agreement causes serious difficulties in the region and appears to place Kenya in breach of its treaty obligations to the EAC. We know, of course, that the UK Government briefly toyed with the idea of breaching our own treaty obligations with the EU, but at least they had the sense to draw back from such action. It is regrettable that, by pursuing the approach they have, the Government have placed Kenya and the EAC in such a difficult position.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us more about the Government’s overall approach to trade agreements with developing countries. Many of us have been concerned about the approach that the EU took in the past to developing countries. The Minister may be aware of the APPG for Africa’s excellent report on the lessons learned from the EU EPAs with Africa; that report raises a number of issues, including the constraints that they place on development policy space for African countries. I hope that the Minister can address those points.
Domestic Energy Efficiency: Retrofitting
Lord Oates Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that these targets are a challenge, but I can confirm that the target remains the same for heat pump installations. We will set out further details in the heat and buildings strategy. She will be aware of the tremendous commitments that we made in the manifesto to spend money in this area.
Lord Oates (LD)
Does the Minister recognise that, contrary to his earlier assertion that we have made good progress on energy efficiency upgrades, at the rate of progress achieved by the green homes grant scheme it would take 480 years to retrofit all the homes in the UK that need it? Does he also recognise the huge damage that the stop-start, short-term nature of the scheme has done to industry confidence, which is vital if industry is to invest in the skills required to undertake this immense and vital task?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It would of course be best to have long-term guarantees of funding, but we continue to have these discussions internally. I agreed earlier that the green homes grant scheme has been a challenge. We are working hard to improve its performance because we must get it working and up and running to bring about confidence in the supply chain.
Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Lord Oates Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest, as set out in the register, as chairman of the advisory board of Weber Shandwick UK. I thank the Minister for his helpful introduction, and it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as we entered the House on the same day.
As the Explanatory Memorandum highlights, the electricity market is complex and opaque, perhaps necessarily so because of the various mechanisms that have been put in place to ensure that sufficient capacity is available as we restructure and decarbonise the electricity supply. The complexity has been compounded by the uncertainty in predicting demand as a result of the pandemic. It is regrettable that the Government cannot go forward with their previous three-year levy settlement but, of course, given these uncertainties, I understand the need to revert to the one-year basis.
Given the complexities of the market, I would be grateful if the Minister could assist me with the answer to a number of questions arising from the Explanatory Memorandum. First, paragraph 7.7 states that the increase in the CfD counterparty’s budget is
“due to a number of factors, including ... the inclusion of Pot 1 Technologies (onshore wind and solar)”
in allocation round 3. My understanding had been that onshore wind was driving down costs and that the cost pressure on CfDs was to keep offshore wind competitive with it. Can the Minister clarify this matter for me?
Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, the EM notes that the Secretary of State is required under the Energy Act 2013 to review a number of aspects of the operation of the electricity market reform programme, including CfDs, the capacity market and the transitional arrangements from the renewable obligations, as soon as practicable five years after the passage of that Act. That means by the end of 2018. Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State is in breach of this duty because, unlike the noble Baroness, I am a little less accepting of the excuses—I will not call them explanations—provided in the EM? It says that this is due to a range of factors, including the Covid-19 pandemic and Brexit, but the pandemic did not begin until more than a year after the trigger date for the report and Brexit had been known about for two years prior to that date. The EM tells us we will get the review “shortly”. Please can the Minister be a little more precise, as it is obviously important that we see it as soon as possible?
As the market is currently structured, these levy increases are obviously necessary so that the CfD counterparty and the settlement body can continue to discharge their duties, drive technological innovation and secure capacity as we decarbonise our energy supply. Nevertheless, we are in an unsatisfactory situation. The EM tells us that an impact assessment has not been prepared for the regulations because of the low-level impact on electricity consumer bills. They are estimated at just 0.1% of those bills, just 40p, the EM tells us, on the average annual domestic bill, rising to an extra £1,200 in the case of medium-sized businesses. These figures may be small as a proportion of overall bills, but we have all heard of the straw that broke the camel’s back. Many businesses and consumers could not be in a worse position to absorb added costs as a result of the effects of the pandemic. We all know that these latest increases come on top of a steady accumulation of costs on consumers. Is it not time that we had a proper look at this whole area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, suggested?
The fundamental problem is that we are trying to pay for the decarbonisation of our energy supply through consumer electricity bills. This is a profoundly regressive approach to securing a public good, namely, combating climate change. As my noble friend Lady Bowles highlighted in her comments, this also makes decarbonising our heating systems even more difficult than it would be anyway because it continues to load costs onto a cleaner energy source, so further disincentivising people to move off gas towards heat pumps and other technologies, something we must achieve if we are to have any hope of meeting net zero. How will that objective be achieved unless we rebalance the costs of decarbonisation more equitably and reverse the perverse incentives that have been created towards gas?
In conclusion, I fully support the Government in their ambitious net zero targets and in their ambition for expanding renewables, but does the Minister not recognise that we will not maintain public support for the radical transformation that net zero requires unless we ensure that it is delivered justly and equitably? That is just not happening now.