Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As Members can see, there is great interest in this debate. I am therefore pondering exactly what the time limit will be. Members will be informed just before Dave Doogan speaks, I believe. [Interruption.] It will not apply to the Labour Front Bencher; the hon. Gentleman can be relieved.

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

The Minister is quite right: the Bill has been with us for rather a long time. I am personally delighted that it is before us this afternoon, but we need to remember that Second Reading was over a year ago, in July 2022, in another place. The Bill has survived four Secretaries of State and two Departments in its passage through the House, so it certainly should be an improved Bill by now. I am concerned, however, that the long passage of the Bill to the statute book has had a real effect on investors and various other people seeking to invest in the low-carbon economy. We should not forget that.

What is this Bill about? As the Minister has said, it is essentially about the decarbonisation of the energy system and making that system fit for net zero. It is, overwhelmingly, a Bill that enables that decarbonisation to take place, and it has been described in a number of instances as a “green plumbing” Bill, which I think is not a bad description. It provides the necessary mechanisms and the details of how we will reach our targets in a variety of areas, as the Minister said: on hydrogen, on carbon capture and storage, on licensing, on the introduction of an independent system operator—which is very important to good construction—on low-carbon heat schemes, on district heating, on energy-saving appliances, and on fusion power. It also makes a number of regulation changes in relation to civil nuclear decommissioning and oil and gas management. It is, moreover, a Bill that the Opposition have welcomed, both for its extent and for its “green plumbing” activities. We were supportive of its measures in Committee, while also tabling amendments that we thought would strengthen its approach. Indeed, the Government have inserted some of them in the Bill, with very slight changes, and we welcome that as well.

However, in my view the Bill is incomplete and unsatisfactory, given its ambition as a green decarbonisation Bill, in that it fails to complete the three tests, or tasks, that are necessary to provide the clarity and consistency that would ensure that the policy will deliver what is claimed. Those tests are these. First, what are the targets for a policy, and how firm are they? Secondly, what are the technical means whereby the proposed targets can be actioned? Thirdly, what is the plan, both financially and procedurally, to make the targets real and not just hot-air aspirations? It is essential to the process of energy decarbonisation for all three of those tests to be in the Bill as we proceed against very tight timescales and immense challenges of implementation.

In some instances, the Bill has succeeded in that regard. The Government’s targets were set out in a number of documents on clean energy, such as the energy security strategy and the 2020 Energy White Paper. Indeed, in a number of instances, the targets contained in those documents have been substantially added to in the Bill. For example, the target of 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production by 2030 has been underpinned by the clauses relating to such matters as hydrogen levy management procedures. I applaud the Government’s change of heart on the hydrogen levy. Although a number of Committee members knowingly voted the wrong way, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), the Government have put that right now. We would have liked to see them go a little further with a clear statement that the money would come from the Consolidated Fund, but we will live with the change that they have undertaken to make. I think we can count that as both a win for our pressure on the Bill and a win for the Bill itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

No, I will not give way again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) has a particularly interesting new clause on tidal range. With the right effort and the right investment, a huge acceleration of build-out can be achieved. Indeed, we have set out our plans on how to do that over the next period. What we need is for that ambition and those plans to be in legislation and in the Bill now.

The Minister did not give any indication in his contribution of whether the Government will move towards any of these amendments, but we hope to press some of them to a vote this afternoon. However, I have to say that we do so within the general setting that we are supportive of the Bill. We want it to succeed, but we want it to succeed with our bits added on, not least because this is the Bill that we will inherit when we are in government shortly. We will then have to do all the work that the Government have set out in the Bill.

Finally, let me say to those hon. Members who are thinking of voting against our amendments that they contain the Government’s own ambitions. What we are trying to do is to put the Government’s own ambition into legislation and provide ways by which it can be achieved. If hon. Members decide to vote against these changes this afternoon, they will, at least in some measure, be voting against their own Government. I hope that they will have sufficient sense to make sure that they do not do so as far as this Bill is concerned.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As Members can see, there are many people who wish to take part in this debate. I know that Alok Sharma will show self-restraint, but we will be imposing a time limit to ensure that we get in as many people as we can. The debate is very time limited. The multiple votes will come at 6 o’clock, so I ask people to show restraint even on the time limit that I impose.

Energy Prices Bill

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Nigel Evans

Committee stage
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Dr Whitehead, are you giving way?

[Dr Whitehead]

I have sat down.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call Peter Aldous.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Nigel Evans

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak to the amendments tabled on Report. You will be interested to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I would also like to talk about the Bill and its contents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Dr Whitehead, do you intend to keep your mask on?

[Dr Whitehead]

Sorry, no—I have a general habit of wearing a mask whenever possible.

The Bill essentially falls into three parts. Part 1 concerns the designation of a company for the receipt of regulated asset base payments. Part 2 concerns the collection and disbursement of funds through the regulated asset base arrangements. Part 3 sets out a special administration regime, should a nuclear power plant be unable to carry out its obligations arising from the institution of the regulated asset base arrangement.

The Bill, essentially, is trying to produce a method for funding and getting over the line one particular nuclear power plant: Sizewell C. That is the only plant that is developed enough to be able to generate by 2030. A substantial part of the Bill is not about the general future of nuclear, or the relationship with nuclear renewables; it is about how one plant is to be financed over the next period so that it can actually start producing energy, hopefully by the end of this decade or shortly thereafter.

The Labour party supports nuclear power for the future and is particularly concerned that, for example, the Climate Change Committee has indicated that some 8 GW of nuclear power might be put in the mix for low-carbon renewable power for the future. Sizewell C is an important part of that process—indeed, getting it going is long overdue. Perhaps I can put the record straight, because the previous Labour Government, as the 2007 nuclear White Paper and the strategic planning documents of 2009-10 show, laid the basis for the present number of sites to be considered and, therefore, for nuclear power going forward.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to the wind-ups, but the shadow Minister is slightly detained.

[Dr Whitehead]

He’s gone to the loo, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

He has, yes.

Fuel Poverty

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Nigel Evans

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, welcome the opportunity to talk about the whole question of fuel poverty. It is very helpful that an annual debate is required in Government time so that we can get to the bottom of the issues. We certainly need to, because as the Minister mentions, 3.2 million households in England, or 13.4%, are still in fuel poverty. I might add that that is under the new metric that the Government have introduced over the past year, along with their document “Sustainable warmth: protecting vulnerable households in England” and the updated fuel poverty strategy. Unlike in a number of other areas, the Government do appear to have a strategy on fuel poverty now, which is a good step forward. It is based on some changes in methodology and hence in the slant of a number of commitments on fuel poverty that the Government have made for the future.

Of course, as the Minister has mentioned, we should not in any way underplay the significance of what has happened over the past year. The pandemic has probably driven a substantial number of additional households into fuel poverty because people have been staying at home, using more energy and paying a lot more in energy bills. That effect is likely to continue for quite a long while, so there are several factors to consider in thinking about where we are now with fuel poverty and where we want to go.

One of the key changes that has been set out this year is a change in the definition of fuel poverty—what it consists of and how it is measured. I was a little surprised when I first heard that Lord Lilley, the former right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, had come up with a definition of fuel poverty, but that is not actually the low-income, low energy efficiency definition set out in the strategy. What is important about the new definition is that it explicitly includes a metric involving property banding in England. Property bands have not been specified in a definition before, although they have been in the Government’s ambitions for 2030; the Minister mentioned the target to get the properties of as many people in fuel poverty up to band C as possible.



Although that may not seem like an enormous difference, I think it is a really fundamental change inasmuch as it explicitly recognises for the first time that a very substantial element of fuel poverty is not just income, although that is very important, and is not just energy prices, although they too are very important, but is actually the energy efficiency of the properties people are living in and how bad that may be. Indeed, we know that there is a very considerable correlation between income, for example, and the kind of properties that people who have a low income—well below the median rate—are living in.

That correlation is very clear for the bands of properties people are living in. Indeed, we can see from the calculations of what a household bill is likely to consist of that that is a tremendous problem for people who have a low income. For example, an average band C property will have an estimated energy bill of about £600 a year. Go to band D and that figure is £900, but band E is £1,400, which is double or more the band C level. Worse than that, go down to band F and band G, and it gets to treble or more the band C bill. Those people who are in fuel poverty, with a lower income and less able to pay bills, are by and large facing much larger bills in the first place because of the nature of the property they are living in. The strategy essentially puts a much greater emphasis than hitherto on getting those properties into a fit state for people to live in so that their bills are such that fuel poverty is essentially written out by the energy efficiency of the properties the people are living in.

The recognition of that particular metric does, however, lead to very substantial and grave policy implications and commitments for the future, because what the Government are essentially saying is that they are going to get to average band C by 2030 to drive fuel poverty out in the way I have described. The judgment we have to make now is: are the Government in a position right now to actually fulfil that particular ambition in order to carry out the fuel poverty strategy they have set their mind on over the next period? My suggestion right now is that they are clearly not.

The Minister has, in a slightly Panglossian way, set out a number of commitments that will lead to the strategy being achieved by 2030, but they are mostly short-term strategies and mostly strategies that are poorly funded. In one instance, a strategy was mentioned in the poverty strategy itself:

“Invest in energy efficiency of households through the £2 billion Green Homes Grant, including up to £10,000 per low income household to install energy efficient and low-carbon heating measures in their homes”,

but it actually disappeared just a month after it was set down in the fuel poverty strategy as one of the key drivers as far as the energy efficiency of homes are concerned. This is the green homes grant system that, as the Minister has acknowledged, got into terrible difficulties. It was, frankly, a pathetic attempt at investing £2 billion in energy efficiency in homes and needs to be recovered and revised very rapidly.

In that context, it is a shame that this debate comes just before the Government’s heat and buildings strategy is to be published. I understand that it is to be published shortly, but we are still on the wrong side of it. What I am looking for in that strategy is a coherent plan—not just a few bits and pieces here and there—for building an efficiency strategy right through the next decade, so that when we get to 2030, band C is the median for all properties. That will require a large amount of investment, and thinking of new ways to undertake changes in energy efficiency through bodily uprating the energy efficiency of properties throughout the whole country. It will also mean concentrating on those sectors—particularly the private rented sector—where we know that band D, E and F properties are concentrated, and having a coherent strategy to tackle the very low energy efficiency of such properties across the country.

I hope that in the heat and buildings strategy the Government have not given way to the pressure I know there has been in respect of ensuring that landlords in the private rented sector have a greater responsibility for bringing their properties up to a decent level of energy efficiency. Many of those who are in fuel poverty live in the private rented sector, sometimes in appalling conditions yet faced with enormous bills that they simply cannot afford, as part of their income, normally to discharge.

There is now a great onus on the Government to come forward with an energy efficiency strategy that meets the commitments made in the fuel poverty strategy from February onwards and to give a convincing account of how that strategy is to be met. Of course, I think all Members would agree that that is not the whole issue as far as fuel poverty is concerned; the question of income and what one does about that as far as benefits and assistance are concerned remains very important. That is also important in terms of the effect of the new strategy on people who are objectively in fuel poverty but happen to live in properties that are band C or above.

Several hundred thousand people have been knocked off, as it were, the fuel poverty concern radar by the LILEE—low income low energy efficiency—definition that came in this year. Those people’s circumstances have not objectively changed—they are in exactly the same position as they were—but the new definition has moved them out of a particular category. I hope that that particular section of the population will not be forgotten as a result of the new strategy. They would clearly need to be approached in different ways in terms of vulnerability measures, some of which the Minister outlined. We should not think that because we have changed the definition, we have somehow solved fuel poverty for that group of people.

We need to continue with a three-pronged approach to our fuel poverty targets: yes, we need energy efficiency; yes, we need to consider incomes and to make sure that people have the income to pay the bills in the first place; and, of course, we need to consider energy prices themselves. We have not yet had through the results of the energy price cap considerations for this year—I think that they, too, will come out shortly—but I hope that when they come out they will be relatively good news for those people who face increasing bills, year on year, as they struggle to try to meet their warmth and home energy commitments on low incomes and in the badly insulated homes that we all hope will be, by 2030, very much a thing of the past.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

This is a time-limited debate, but we will try not to put a time limit on individual contributions, so I ask for restraint, please.

Energy Bill

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the wise words of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry).

The Bill, as its long title states, is intended to reform the energy market by encouraging low-carbon electricity generation. Essentially, the Bill should ensure that we have the mechanisms and regulations at our disposal not just to keep the market working well, with a secure electricity supply and reasonable prices for customers, but that that is done over the next 20 years within a framework of decreasing carbon emissions from all energy-producing plants that makes every drop of energy go as far as possible through efficiencies, good management in the system and, just as importantly, by removing from the system as much demand as possible, so that emissions are avoided by not producing additional energy in the first place.

The present energy market arrangements—the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements system—have served us well in some ways. They have ensured that a capacity margin has been constantly available to guarantee supplies and at some stages of its existence has applied downward pressure on prices. However, the world has changed radically since the present market arrangements were first introduced more than a decade ago. Prices are going up, not down, massive amounts of plant are being retired from the system in the next few years and their replacements will need to be far lower carbon than the retiring plants. Most importantly, the trading arrangements of the market are carbon blind and do not, in themselves, advantage low carbon over high carbon; it is left to other devices, such as the renewable energy obligation, and subsequent work with the market to do that.

If the ambition of the Bill is to be realised, three things will be central. First, we cannot in the end use the devices of the past market reliably to achieve the goals set out in the Bill for the future market, yet, remarkably, the Bill claims to reform the energy market without reforming its mechanisms. Real reform, such as the introduction of a pool system to make the wholesale selling and purchasing of energy for retail fully transparent and accessible for all, is wholly absent.

Secondly, we need a sense of where we are supposed to go with the encouragement of low-carbon electricity. What does that phrase mean in practice? Is it just a warm aspiration that can be set aside when the going gets a bit tough? If it is not, it seems essential that a target level of emissions should be included in the Bill, but there is no such target. The Secretary of State favours a target, but I am afraid that we have a bit of a problem with what we might call Liberal Democrat capture and storage. [Interruption.] A glass of water for the Secretary of State, please. During the passage of the Bill, I hope that a coalition of people who believe that there should be a target can get together to rectify that, regardless of party stances.

Thirdly, even if there were a target in the Bill, measures elsewhere in it will still take us in precisely the opposite direction and make its aspiration redundant. They need removing or replacing. I strongly believe that the Bill needs to do what it sets out to do in the long title. We need a robust framework that can guide the next stage of deployment of renewable and sustainable energy and that can establish effective mechanisms for those plants, once deployed, to bring their energy to market. We need a market that can deal with new and existing producers fairly and consistently, so that the goal of a well-balanced marketplace encouraging new entrants, rewarding and supporting the best management of energy and celebrating the removal of demand from the system as the ultimate way to decarbonise it can be achieved.

The Bill does some of those things, but, overall, in its present state and with its manifest large gaps, it is not fit for the purpose that it has to advance. These shortcomings simply have to be remedied, because we need the stability and certainty of a coherent and fair market system to encourage and sustain the unprecedented investment in our plant, our networks and our neighbourhoods that will be necessary for an enduring low-carbon energy environment. The regime needs to instil confidence and last for perhaps twice as long as a central system as its predecessor did. The measures in the Bill, many of which I accept are complex and difficult to get right, fail that test at present.

The Bill needs extensive surgery, and in the limited time available perhaps I can list one or two of the major operations that need to be rostered. Are the arrangements for securing a counterparty to contract for difference deals really right? Is there a potential conflict of interest in the body that the Bill selects to be both the system operator and the delivery body for CFDs? Is the proposed transition period between the end of the renewable obligation and the emergence of CFDs workable? Should there be a longer period of changeover and a better opportunity for next stage renewable developers to work with renewable obligation certificates?

Does the ending of an obligation for renewable power purchase and the disappearance of power purchase agreements not place potentially insuperable obstacles in the way of independent generators of low-carbon energy bringing their output to market? Are the administrative arrangements for the setting of a strike price in the Bill not so weighted as to give an advantage to new nuclear that they risk undermining the veracity of other strike price arrangements and the possibility of meaningful auctions in the future? Is a market-wide capacity payment system not just a recipe for paying too much bill payer money to produce overcapacity, when better, cheaper arrangements such as strategic reserve arrangements exist?

Why are there no demand-side reduction measures in the Bill and why will any measures as yet undetermined by the Government appear only at the very end of the legislative process? Why does the level at which energy performance standards are set effectively exempt all gas throughout its operational life?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

Durban Climate Change Conference

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Nigel Evans

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I gave a little latitude there, but I am not looking for an extension of the first statement.

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

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the outcome of a conference that was widely regarded as unlikely to succeed, even in the objectives that have been set down now. It is substantially because of the EU’s negotiating position and the British role in it that that very good outcome was achieved, even though there is a great deal more to do.

Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on the role of Connie Hedegaard, the EU Commissioner for Climate Action, originally from the Danish Conservative People’s party, in careful negotiation, keeping the parties together and making sure that the EU presented a united front and that no one withdrew from that? Will he confirm that the EU position, which I hope will develop up to 2020, will have the full-hearted participation of the UK as the new treaty approaches a conclusion?

Energy Prices

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

What the public want to know, in the context of this debate and elsewhere, is why energy prices keep going up, and why we have the so-called rocket and feathers effect, whereby prices go up when wholesale energy prices go up, but they do not appear to come down when wholesale prices come down. The truth is that, in terms of our knowledge of how these things work, it is difficult to find out why—for the reason, among others, that the market is now so un-transparent and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) just outlined, so concentrated in so few hands.

It is true that the price of wholesale gas has varied over several years between about 70p and 15p a therm, but nevertheless the overall trend is up. Indeed, a recent Deutsche Bank report suggested that notwithstanding shale gas, gas prices will probably double by about 2014. It is true that wholesale prices are going up, but the increase does not bear close relation to the energy company price rises that we have seen. That is the central problem. Some 46% of our generation is by gas, the price has increased by 90% over the past 10 years, and other prices follow gas as the market maker.

All that is based on trading in an energy market that was set up 10 years ago, with 20-odd wholesalers, 20-odd retailers and little vertical integration between them. It was also established at a time of privatisation, when those companies inherited a market in which we were self-sufficient in gas and had a substantial capacity margin in electricity generation plant. Neither is now the case.

Furthermore, the market was created carbon-blind; its purpose was simply to keep trading prices down when there was no vertical integration. It did so for a while, but now we are in entirely different territory. Indeed, six large companies control 99% of the retail market and about 60% of generation, and they have some grid and transmission assets as well.

The power of such vertical integration means that the market that was created 10 years ago simply no longer works. The long-term deals that the companies set up account for almost all energy company trading, they are mostly bilateral and totally un-transparent, and energy companies trade with themselves, so it is difficult to see where the pricing goes and whether it is fair to the consumer.

More and more, the big six also hedge their arrangements on price variables, so they all mirror each other, and the result of a price increase by one is that, inevitably, other companies put up their prices, too. Increasingly, therefore, there is effectively—even if not deliberately—a cartel-type price arrangement.

As for new entrants, they are almost all retail-only, and they have to buy their power from the big six. It is a bit like encouraging corner shops to set up, knowing that they will have to get their stock by shopping at Tesco and then somehow compete with Tesco on price.

There are also still positive Government disincentives for new entrants. Small retailers, for example, are exempt from the recently increased obligation payments for up to 125,000 dual fuel customers. Above that level, however, not only is the company obligated for all levy payments, but all customers are then eligible. In other words, their 125,001st customer costs them £7 million, and on that basis no small niche company in their right mind right now will seek to exceed 125,000 customers. It is a straightforward lock-out disincentive.

Monday’s energy summit did not deal with any of those issues. We were exhorted to switch, which is a good idea, but in those circumstances, and for the reasons that I have outlined, it is of only marginal utility. Logically, one cannot keep switching and saving what is claimed—and anyway, some 80% of customers simply do not switch, leaving the big six energy companies with a huge pool of resources to draw upon in order to outcompete those small entrants on retail tariffs.

As we have heard, tariffs are hopelessly confusing. It would not be beyond the wit of the regulator or the Government to introduce mandatory simple tariffs—a standing charge and a tariff per unit used. I personally favour introducing rising block tariffs, which make lower usage levels even less expensive.

Insulation was dealt with at the summit, where it was stated that 4 million people were to get letters saying that they could get insulation free—on the basis that support from the public finances for insulation measures will disappear in 2013, after which there will be the green deal, which will provide the same insulation, but in exchange for a permanent charge on the property. I am not sure that many members of the public would automatically see that as the good deal that some people suggest.

We must deal with the market. The Government have confirmed that electricity market reform proposals are coming forward, but those proposals do not deal with the way that the market actually works. The Government put all sorts of bells and whistles on the back of the proposals—contracts for difference instead of the renewables obligation, capacity payments and so on—but they do not address the central issue of whether the market works for the future, how transparent it is, and whether other ways of trading would be more fit for purpose in this century.

We need a pool system of 100% auctions on all markets, or a single-buyer stakeholder pool. That will ensure transparency and a level playing field for new entrants and, if coupled with an obligation, will ensure an orderly dispatch of energy between wholesaler and retailer. That is not addressed in electricity market reform, but it is addressed in the Opposition’s motion. It is good to see that the Government have apparently signed up to the idea that there should be a pool, so I anticipate that they will shortly make amendments to the White Paper on electricity market reform in order to bring about a pool as the centrepiece of a new electricity market system.

We need aggressive policies on energy efficiency and insulation. We currently have no idea how the green deal will work. No funding has been identified, and it may not be available in very large quantities for the energy company obligation. On that basis, there is no real prospect of achieving the levels of insulation that we need, combating fuel poverty or pushing down bills.

Environmental measures do not account for a large proportion of bills. Indeed, last year the previous 6% level fell. The Government are stuck in a dilemma. They want the big six to undertake most of the investment of up to £200 billion in new plant and grid renewal that we will need, but unless those companies make big profits they are unlikely to undertake that investment. However, several of the companies are over-borrowed in any case. We need different sources of money to ensure the reality of a transparent and investable future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The wind-ups are to start no later than 6.30 pm.

Summer Adjournment

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Approximately 7.5 million to 8 million tonnes of waste wood is produced every year. It is mostly construction waste, and the greater part—some 80%—is landfilled, which is a far higher proportion than for other waste items. About 1.2 million tonnes is recycled and reused for animal bedding, plywood, fibreboard and so on, but energy is recovered from only about 0.3 million tonnes or 4% of the total. However, according to Eunomia Research & Consulting, a net estimated saving of 1,400 kg of CO₂ per tonne of wood can be made where waste wood is used as fuel for biomass energy. If waste food in landfill was sent to digestion with wood to energy recovery, the joint product would be about 42 TW of energy a year, or getting on for a fifth of our renewable energy target, by 2020.

The benefits of diverting wood and indeed other categories of waste from landfill are clear and straightforward. Despite the strides that have been taken to reduce landfill as a destination for our waste, we still have a long way to go, and for some waste streams, as I have illustrated, almost the whole distance. So how might we get moving on this diversion? There have been suggestions that such wastes should simply be banned from landfill. That is what a number of countries do, and that in itself stimulates substantially the sort of use that I have outlined. That appears to be the Government’s intention, because in the waste review 2011 they stated:

“As a starting point, in 2012 we will consult on whether to introduce a restriction on the landfilling of wood waste…Building on this we will review the case for restrictions on sending other materials to landfill over the course of the Parliament”.

That is encouraging until we recognise that that is exactly where we were in 2009. The 2009 renewable energy strategy stated that the Government would consult later that year on banning certain kinds of material from landfill. In March 2010, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did indeed produce such a consultation with a view to banning a number of wastes from landfill. That consultation set out an EU target that by 2020 a minimum of 70% by weight of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste should be prepared for reuse, or should be recycled or recovered. We have a long way to go on that target.

The results of the consultation were “published”—I say that advisedly—in September of last year. Hon. Members will have to work very hard to find them because, astonishingly, they were published straight to DEFRA’s archive, and I am not sure that that counts as publication at all. Fortunately, the Welsh Assembly Government published the responses to their part of the consultation on their website, and hon. Members can access the results there. I suppose that it is not surprising that the consultation responses were smuggled out and filed away so abruptly, because a landfill ban was supported by over two thirds of consultees. However, the Government’s response was that they were

“not minded to introduce landfill bans in England at the present time”

but would reach a view on the best way to ensure waste was dealt with in the most appropriate way as part of the waste policy review that was announced by Secretary of State earlier this year.

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, that waste review was under way at the same time as the consultation, following which the Government decided to consult on a landfill ban of wood followed by other waste, with a view to banning them between 2012 and 2015.

If a consultation had taken place, why have another one? And why did the Government say that they were not minded to introduce a landfill ban if they might do so just a few months later? Why hide the results of such a consultation from public view at a time when they were consulting on something very similar? If we really wanted to make progress on such a ban—and I think the case for doing so is overwhelming—would it not be easier to note the consultation results and get on with it? I fear that I am missing something, but I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate he will be able to put me right. At the very least, I hope that he can restore the results of the consultation to the DEFRA website so that we can all see what has transpired, then perhaps get on with it substantially before 2015.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Chris Kelly—as long as you do not call me Madam Deputy Speaker.