Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Fourteenth sitting)

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown]

The Minister can shake his head but that is a fact.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member agree with the former Labour leader of one of the Aberdeen councils, Barney Crockett, that Labour’s energy policy will wreak more harm on industrial communities than anything that Margaret Thatcher ever did?

[The Chair]

Order. Before we allow ourselves to get into what might be an amusing, if controversial, area, I remind the Committee that we are dealing specifically with clause 270, which prohibits new coalmines in the six months after the Bill is passed. Perhaps we could restrict ourselves to that, rather than getting into more exciting rabbit holes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I am happy to comment on energy security, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those were not my words but the words of the former COP26 President. He said that the proposed new mine will not deliver energy security. I am sure that, like me, the right hon. Gentleman respects the President of COP26 and believes that he did a good job.

This argument about supplying coke and coal to the steel industry has already been debunked: 85% of the coal from the new coalmine will go abroad, so it will not provide energy security by supporting the steel industry in the UK. That is a bogus argument.

[Mark Jenkinson]

The hon. Gentleman says that that point has been debunked, but I actually debunked the debunking in the previous sitting. I am sure he heard those comments. On the issue of 85% being for export, that all depends on whether we want a UK steel industry and whether we want to grow it. Does he agree that we should be growing the UK steel industry and using 100% of that coal here?

[Alan Brown]

I want to debunk the hon. Gentleman’s debunking of the debunking. Let me come to the comments of the chair of the Climate Change Committee, Lord Deben, who the last time I checked is a Tory and was a Tory Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

The whole point is that coal is not being used to support baseload. Even if we believe in the concept of electricity baseload, it is not coal that is doing that. Coal is being used as a back up to the back up for when peak demand is hit, so that argument is wrong. Coal is not used for baseload.

The hon. Member for Workington stated:

“We are far too parochial on the subject of net zero and emissions.”

He seemed to be saying that if we do not do it, somebody else will, which is not showing international leadership. He went on to say:

“if we can export to Germany or somewhere else where people make large quantities of steel using coking coal, that is a reduction in total global emissions that we should champion.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 373.]

The hon. Member has still not explained how the UK shipping coal to Germany is going to reduce global emissions—I still do not see how that follows—but I do share his concern that a lot of emission reductions have come from that offshoring manufacturing and industry. That is something we have to stop, so I fully agree with him on that, but opening a coalmine to export coal to Germany is not the way to re-shore industry.

[Mark Jenkinson]

The hon. Member is being incredibly generous with his time. On the point on how shipping coal from the UK to Germany lowers emissions, if that happens instead of coal being shipped from the US, Russia or somewhere further afield, then the shipping emissions are greatly reduced. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell points out, it is also much cleaner coal to start with.

[Alan Brown]

I understand the point that Government Members are trying to make but, at the end of the day, if we are shipping coal to Germany, we are still increasing UK shipping emissions. We are increasing emissions from the UK to about 400,000 tonnes of CO₂. In the global context, there is no saying whether those coal emissions are getting displaced if the coal is going to Germany, so we cannot guarantee a reduction in global emissions. We would be putting more coal on the market, which is coal somebody else will snap up elsewhere. The likelihood is that we would actually increase emissions.

I should have said in my opening remarks that I represent a former coalmining area, so I recognise the devastation caused by pit closures. My area recovered some jobs through open-cast coalmining, but even that industry collapsed a few years ago, leaving us with devastating blights on the landscape and huge craters that needed filling. Unfortunately, again, there was no help from the UK Government when we needed it. I understand the legacy of coalmining and I want support for these areas, but opening new coalmines is not the way to do it.

We cannot turn back the clock. What we need to do is create jobs for the future. We need green-based jobs in coalmining areas such as mine, using geothermal energy and making use of the closed mines. Let us make them an asset for the future, providing clean energy and reducing energy bills at a local level.

The Committee will be pleased that I am bringing my monologue to an end. I hope that my comments are going to convince the Government and Conservative Committee members that there is no need for new coalmines going forward. I would be delighted to hear the Minister, in his summing up, say that he is not going to move against clause 270, but is going to retain it and listen to those of us who want it.

Clause 271 is to be replaced by new clause 52. I welcome the Government’s change on that and their making reaching net zero a statutory duty of Ofgem. Will the Minister tell us whether new clause 52 and Ofgem’s new statutory duties will make it much easier for Ofgem to allow anticipatory investment? That has been one of the issues, so we want to make sure that it can do that and do that forward plan-ahead, rather than building more constraints into the grid while upgrading it at the same time.

Turning to clauses 272 and 273, it seems like for ages Energy Ministers have stated their support for the principle of the Local Electricity Bill—community electricity generation and the sale of electricity locally—but they have always said that the Bill was not the right solution to facilitate that. The original drafters and MPs who have tried to bring forward private Members’ Bills have changed the Bill to try to address the concerns of Ministers, but that still was not enough.

The cross-party group of peers who drafted clauses 272 and 273 to mimic the effect of the Local Electricity Bill again tried to address the Government’s concerns. I fail to understand why the Government are still against the two clauses. It is worth pointing out that 323 MPs overall, including 128 Tory MPs—let alone myriad local authorities, environmental groups and individuals—have supported the Bill. The feet-dragging makes no sense. I commend the hon. Member for Bristol East for pointing out that the Minister himself was a signatory to the Local Electricity Bill. I wonder what about a ministerial car made him change his mind about supporting it.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Twelfth sitting)

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

The costings of any geological disposal facility will be presented to Parliament for scrutiny, but the process is under way to find a site that will be large enough to cope with any increase in waste from our civil nuclear fleet. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to learn that Finland has just opened, and is beginning to utilise, a new GDF. That is the model that we in the UK would like to follow.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

I hope the Minister is going to propose that the Committee visit the facility in Finland. Does he agree that it is unhelpful that our detractors cannot seem to distinguish between legacy waste from a number of programmes and waste from new nuclear establishments, for which we have well-established protocols?

[Andrew Bowie]

Absolutely—I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I would be delighted to propose a trip to Finland for all Committee members, but it is not within my gift to organise such a trip. If anybody who is able to host us is listening, I would be keen to engage on that.

I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments regarding new nuclear waste. The excellent work being done in Sellafield—I know that is not in his constituency, but it is certainly in his part of the country—is an example to the world of how we regulate and dispose safely of nuclear waste that has been created. When we talk about a GDF, we are talking about new nuclear waste, which will come about as part of the exciting, new, world-leading and revolutionary investment in a civil nuclear fleet that the United Kingdom is engaged in right now. The north-west of England will be at the very heart of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Jenkinson]

May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman arranges a visit to Sizewell B to see exactly how we store new nuclear waste from relatively new facilities? Sizewell B was also under an obligation to deal with the cost of its waste in advance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I remain quite amused that we smuggled a euro or two into our flexibility structure a moment ago. I am sure that that will go down in history.

Clauses 260 to 263 relate to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. For those who do not know too much about that constabulary, as I must admit that until recently I did not—

[Mark Jenkinson]

I am sorry for taking up so much of the hon. Gentleman’s time this morning, but on that note, I have a drop-in with the Civil Nuclear Police Federation at 12 o’clock today in room Q in Portcullis House. I encourage all colleagues to attend.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is a very helpful intervention, because among other things it means that our business will have to be finished by 12 o’clock this morning to facilitate our collective visit to the drop-in to be better informed about the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.

The Civil Nuclear Constabulary was established under the 1965 Act. It has about 1,500 officers nationally; they occupy eight sites in England and three in Scotland. There is a headquarters in Culham, with a chief constable and so on. It is just like a police authority, only not geographically in one place. Its prime responsibility is not guarding nuclear sites—that is for the Ministry of Defence police and the Army, basically—but the security of the sites and all that goes with policing around nuclear sites. I think it has jurisdiction up to 5 km away from nuclear sites. I will be interested to hear more about this, but as I understand it, it is a very specialised force.

All members of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary are routinely armed and are trained to that extent. They undertake virtually no arrests. A couple of years ago, they made a total of 24 arrests; last year I think they made 10, two of which turned out not to be arrestable. In comparison, an ordinary police force of the same size, such as Dorset police, would make about 7,500 arrests in an average year. The profile of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary’s activity and specialities is very different from that of an ordinary police force.

That is not saying very much about the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, other than that it is a specialist force, has jurisdiction relating to nuclear sites and, as far as I understand it, does a very good job at what it is asked to do. The clauses before us are not about the Civil Nuclear Constabulary itself, but about the extent to which its officers might, as it were, be rented out to other police forces. “Rented out” sounds a rather pejorative way of putting it; it is not intended to be, but that is really the only way I can describe it.

The clauses concern the circumstances under which officers can be seconded—I would say rather more than seconded—to other forces, subject to a decision of the Secretary of State. Clause 260(1), which will amend the Energy Act 2004, states:

“The Constabulary may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, provide additional police services to any person”,

which basically means to any other police authority.

Clause 260 also states that the Secretary of State

“must not give consent for the purposes of subsection (1) unless satisfied, on an application made by the Police Authority”,

which I assume means the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, that the application

“is in the interests of national security”

and

“will not prejudice the carrying out of its primary function under section 52(2)”

of the 2004 Act.

The establishment of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority is a little anomalous, by the way. It was originally under the jurisdiction of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and has now effectively been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, rather than the Home Office, as is the case with ordinary police forces.

--- Later in debate ---

The second issue, which is of particular moment, is the circumstances under which police officers are recruited, trained and made operational within the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. As I have said, and as I am sure we will learn further if we go to the drop-in—I cannot remember which room the hon. Member for Workington said it was in—

[Mark Jenkinson]

Room Q in Portcullis House.

[Dr Whitehead]

If we go to room Q, we will find out more, but civil nuclear constables are special police. They are recruited and trained in a different way, their responsibilities are different, and the activities they undertake are normally different. That gives rise to questions about whether civil nuclear constables can easily be transferred to other police authorities. I assume that the rental agreement would state whether they should undertake the ordinary activities that constables in comparable authorities undertake. Are they to be rented out on the basis that they will become ordinary police constables in a particular authority, or on the basis that they have special arrangements? They clearly will not have special arrangements concerning arresting people, so I imagine that the arrest rate of a police authority that had recruited police constables from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary for additional services would not go through the roof. Such constables are routinely armed, so there is also a question about whether they would be disarmed for the purpose of undertaking their duties in other police forces.

The answers to such questions do not appear in the clauses before us. There is just an arrangement that police constables can be rented out, that compensation can be paid for them, that the Secretary of State can intervene if he or she thinks there are problems, and that the police authority has to be consulted about renting out and, as it were, de-renting—that is all that the clauses cover.

I do not necessarily imagine that our amendments will be pursued to a great extent, but I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response to what they are trying to do. On the renting out of police, amendment 162 would clarify that

“the provision of the additional police services in question is within the competence and in accordance with the usual operational practices of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary”.

That is, those police who are rented out are not to be turned into ordinary police, and the circumstances of the renting out should be within the competence of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, so we should not reasonably expect them to turn out to be ordinary policemen in other police authorities.

Also, we want the Civil Nuclear Police Authority to be rather more involved in decisions as to whether to continue renting out, so amendment 163 would add the words “or the Police Authority” after “Secretary of State”. We are trying to tighten up both the concept and the practice of these arrangements, to ensure that there is respect for the fact that the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is a specialist service, with staff who have special skills, qualities and qualifications that may differ from those of police in other forces. Renting-out arrangements should respect that. We should be a little careful to ensure that we do not put a square peg in a round hole through this renting out, even though there may be circumstances where a freer interchange of police between the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and county police forces could take place, and would benefit both sides.

I appreciate that clauses 260 to 263 to some extent supply what was left out from the Energy Act 2004, in which the Civil Nuclear Constabulary was defined, but I am not sure that the clauses do the job completely, and make sure that the strengths and qualities of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary are properly reflected in any renting-out arrangement, and that its constables are not expected to do things for which they are not trained, or in which they do not have experience, if they are seconded to other constabularies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

This is the Energy Bill, so I understand why the focus has been on energy and energy security. However, coal is not just required for energy purposes, and that is another reason why we will vote against the clause.

[Mark Jenkinson]

I have a constituency interest in a new coalmine in a neighbouring constituency in west Cumbria. Its planning condition is to produce metallurgical coal, which is used in steel plants. The Minister was recently in Sweden, as I was just a couple of months ago. We hear a lot about HYBRIT—hydrogen breakthrough ironmaking technology—which is a green steel project. I was relieved to hear that HYBRIT requires coking coal, even in electric arc furnaces with direct reduced iron, and that it will continue to be used for some time. Does the Minister agree that we should not close off avenues for UK-sourced coking coal?

[Andrew Bowie]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. His expertise in the area, his experience in Sweden and his constituency interest have proved invaluable in ensuring that everybody is fully aware of the situation, the technology and, indeed, the science behind all of this.

Even when we phase out coal power stations, domestic demand for coal will continue in industries such as steel, cement and heritage railways, and that demand can be met by domestic resources on existing lines of deployment. A full prohibition of coal extraction, regardless of the circumstances or where that coal is going to be used—be that in steel, cement or a heritage railway—is likely to prevent extensions to existing operational mining, even where an extension would enable site restoration or deliver public safety benefits; cut across heritage mining rights in the Forest of Dean, which are important to its tourism offer; and, importantly, prevent domestic coal extraction projects from progressing that are seeking to supply industries that are still reliant on coal.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I rise to speak in defence of clause 204, and I agree with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, that the Government have suggested an interesting tactic.

Our housing stock has been described as the least energy-efficient in Europe. That means we are the least prepared to absorb future price hikes, like those experienced in recent years, and to address future temperature changes. In England alone, more than 13 million homes—59% of them—are below a C rating on the energy performance certificate standard. As a result, housing is one of the main sources of carbon emissions in the UK, accounting for around 20% of total emissions.

We should be making massive efforts and strides to improve in this policy area, yet energy efficiency programmes have been cut and home insulation rates have plummeted over the past decade. In 2013, the coalition cut energy efficiency programmes, after which insulation rates fell by 92%. The number of energy efficiency insulations peaked at 2.3 million in 2012, yet fewer than 100,000 upgrades were installed in 2021. That is rather pathetic, it has to be said.

The Bill and clause 204 in particular provide a golden opportunity to put in place the financial structures and programme to give the necessary upgrades to the 19 million homes in our country that are below band C on the EPC scale. Clearly, that is what a Labour Government would do.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Has the hon. Lady heard of our ECO4 scheme?

[Olivia Blake]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Clause 205 is the beginning of the part of the Bill on the energy performance of properties. I must admit that I thought for a moment there was going to be a spectacular U-turn on the previous clause, but I was sadly disappointed when the Minister decided which way he was really going to vote. I fear the same result in respect of this part of the Bill.

Let me speak briefly to our new clauses 41 and 42, which would considerably strengthen the Bill’s provisions on the energy performance of premises. They relate specifically to energy performance regulations for existing premises. Rather like clause 204, which is now not in the Bill but contained previous Government aspirations and claims in respect of outcomes, new clause 41 relates to things the Government have already said about energy performance certificates for properties in the private rented sector, about what should happen in respect of the improvement of properties in that sector to bring them up to an appropriate band, and about the amount specified in legislation that private landlords should spend on getting their properties up to that level before they are exempted from having to make further improvements.

The really important bit in new clause 41 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations

“amending the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/962) to require that, subject to subsection (2)”—

which contains exemptions—

“all tenancies have an energy performance certificate (EPC) of at least Band C by 31 December 2028”.

The new clause would also require the Secretary of State to make regulations

“amending the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2019”—

which Members will recall introduced a £3,500 cap on the cost to landlords of achieving band E—to raise to £10,000 the amount that should be invested before landlords are exempt.

Those are reasonably ambitious outcomes for the private rented sector, but they were completely presaged by the Government’s previous proposals, which we supported at the time. Specifically, in September 2020 they consulted on improving the energy performance of privately rented homes in England and Wales. The consultation had proposed outcomes at its heart, but—well I never—there has not yet been a Government response. Only three years have gone by. We hope that there may be a response one day fairly soon, so that progress can be made.

The proposed outcome of the consultation—the favoured option at the time—was exactly as set out in subsection (1) of new clause 41: raising the energy performance standard of private rented properties to band C, a phased trajectory to get there by 2028, and a £10,000 average per-property spend under a £10,000 cap. Everything in the new clause is already there in what the Government said they would do in respect of private rented sector energy efficiency. The only difference is that the Government have not actually done anything about it.

I recently looked up the reaction to the proposals, and a number of commentators and advisers are saying, “Well, landlords, you perhaps ought to get yourselves steeled up to the idea that your properties, to be lettable in future years, will have to be band C, and that you may have to spend up to £10,000 to make your properties lettable at that point.” By the way, that seems a relatively small amount to have to spend, bearing in mind that this is essentially a question whether a property is of merchantable quality. In any other area of commerce, if it were not of merchantable quality, it would not be sold. These measures, if implemented, would ensure that properties were merchantable for letting purposes as far as efficiency standards are concerned, and landlords would be required to spend that relatively small amount before they were exempted and to use every endeavour to get their properties up to that point.

[Mark Jenkinson]

In my constituency of Workington, I have some wonderful conservation areas with lovely old stone-built houses. A Labour council will not allow the replacement of single-glazed windows with uPVC double glazing, for example, which we know works well for energy efficiency. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that they would not be of merchantable quality?

[Dr Whitehead]

If the hon. Member cares to go back to the consultation in 2020, he will see that there are certain exemptions, depending on things such as conservation areas, from getting properties up to the standard that we are discussing provided that other things are in place. I have no particular insight into the workings of the hon. Member’s local authority, but it may be that something like that is at the heart of those concerns.

The point is that in general, we would certainly support—and we did at the time—what is set out in the consultation and the Government’s declaration of policy intent. One area where energy efficiency needs to move forward quite rapidly is the private rented sector; after all, that is the housing sector with the worst energy efficiency record. It is just not good enough to stand by the idea that properties in band E, which is a very low energy efficiency band, should be at that level any longer—certainly not in the 2020s, when we are trying to get all the properties that we can up to a standard fit for 2050.