Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Wera Hobhouse

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

We have had a good, calm and well-informed Second Reading debate. Indeed, we have heard contributions from across the House emphasising the point that the Bill is necessary but not necessarily sufficient.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked who will pay the changed levies as far as heating is concerned, and spoke about the need to undertake that properly for customers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) pointed us towards the rise of state-controlled companies’ investment in new energy arrangements, and was adamant about the Bill lifting of the ban on onshore wind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) made a strong contribution on the role of hydrogen in heating and, in particular, on the hydrogen trials that he has experienced. Perhaps we can assure him that we will certainly pursue an amendment to the Bill along the lines that he suggested.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) spoke strongly about carbon capture and storage, about the importance of CCS in the Teesside industrial cluster, and about the importance of ensuring that the industrial clusters can play their role in CCS as they develop further,

In the spirit of general cross-party support for the Bill, I think it also worth mentioning selected contributions from hon. Members who are not on the Labour side. Unfortunately, if everyone stuck to the contributions from their own side, those of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would not be mentioned by anybody, but she made a strong contribution about the future of coal, about the need to support the amendment on coal tabled in the other place, and about the ludicrousness of continuing to maximise the economic production of oil, echoing many of the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).

The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee, spoke strongly about the need for security of investment in this market, and the length of arrangement that would secure those investments and confidence in markets for the future.

Finally, the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), author of the net zero report, spoke enormous sense about delays being the biggest threat to net zero in future. He supported the retention of Lords amendments to the Bill, as did many other hon. Members, on community energy changes and other things that are part of the Bill that we are debating in the Commons.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is important that we do something about methane flaring and venting, which I raised in my contribution?

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, I am happy to acknowledge that that is an important issue in the transition to net zero for the oil and gas industry, and that it is ripe for further legislation to outlaw it in the not-too-distant future.

It is fair to say that hon. Members across the House went along with the theme that we have tried to establish on the Bill: it contains a great deal to support, and it is a Bill that is necessary to introduce things that are essential to the development of a low-carbon economy, to the achievement of the many targets on low-carbon energy and renewable deployment, and to the new forms of energy management that the Government have already put in place and on which they are seeking to succeed.

The Bill establishes mechanisms and business arrangements for carbon capture and storage, and for the manufacture and deployment of hydrogen as a low-carbon fuel for the future. It starts to delineate how energy systems are going to be governed and managed for the future, with the establishment of the independent system operator. For the first time, it introduces a proper system of heat network regulation, and it takes the planning and development of heat networks further. It heralds some of the essential elements of energy market reform. In short, it undertakes a great deal of what I would call necessary “green plumbing”, which has to be done now if our low-carbon energy system of the future is to work effectively.

The Opposition have some serious differences with the Government about how to go about those changes, but we acknowledge and support the generality of those “green plumbing” measures, not least because their establishment will undoubtedly help the new Labour Government greatly as we embark on our far more ambitious programme of energy decarbonisation and energy efficiency from 2024 onwards. Indeed, one of our substantial criticisms of the Bill is how long it has taken for us to get to the point of establishing the legislation that will guide the next stages of our energy decarbonisation.

As we have heard, the Bill has been with us for 10 months in its almost finalised form. Yes, the Government have sought to add amendments to the Bill in another place, and there will be further amendments in the Commons, but the measure could have been on the statute book many months ago—and time is of the essence in getting going with the next stages of decarbonisation. Instead, last autumn we were treated to the spectacle of the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy pulling the Energy Bill from its established progress after just two sessions of debate, and sitting on it for over three months for no apparent reason while the legislative process stalled completely. That led to the remarkable situation of the Opposition writing to the new Minister during that period of stasis demanding that the Bill be recommenced as soon as possible. I know about that because I was the person who wrote the letter. [Interruption.] Indeed, I did a very good job there.

Yes, this Bill is necessary, but many Members have asked whether it is sufficient, and we think it is certainly not. There are many missed opportunities to legislate for many aspects of the green transition that are or will become necessary shortly. There are many instances where the green plumbing in the Bill looks, frankly, fairly faulty and could do with beefing up. For example, the Bill fails completely to lift onshore wind back into place as a key element of our low-carbon energy armoury. The Bill fails to redefine Ofgem’s remit to start from a low-carbon imperative. The Bill fails to address another key part of that armoury—community energy—in any sort of meaningful and enabling way.

The Bill fails to address the very real changes in regulatory machinery that will need to accompany the transition from oil and gas to a predominantly low-carbon energy environment. The Bill continues to propose soaking customers for the support of future infrastructure when we require entirely new forms of support that recognise both the breadth of the work that has to be done and the institutions that we will need to support investment and development.

There are many areas where we can say, “Yes, but” to this Bill and put forward the measures that will enable it to rise to the challenge of decarbonisation in a comprehensive way. That is why we will embark on that task as the Bill goes into Committee by tabling the amendments that will make the Bill so much more robust for the challenge of the future, and we hope the Government will be receptive to those proposals. That process has been started, with a number of very well-thought-out additions made to the Bill in the other place on Ofgem, hydrogen, coal, community energy and home retrofitting. We will seek to defend those changes in this place, and we hope the Government will see the wisdom of them and not seek to overthrow them.

This is a necessary but not sufficient Bill that we want to get on the statute book, preferably with the added heft of our proposed changes to it in Committee, so that it becomes more on the sufficient end and less just necessary. We will not seek to divide the House on Second Reading but instead will give conditional support and assistance as far as we can with an early emplacement on the statute book.

Labour has an ambitious low-carbon energy programme for government, with a fully decarbonised power system by 2030, including a doubling of present onshore wind deployment; a grid that is fit for enabling and delivering a low-carbon economy; Great British Energy, an investment company that can do so much to speed the energy transition along; a massive programme to retrofit 19 million homes over 10 years to reach our energy efficiency targets; and serious planning of the energy transition, so that it is a just transition both in the North Sea and elsewhere. All these plans will benefit from many of the measures that are in the Bill, but they could be so much more supportive, and that is why we want to see an extended and more robust version of the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible.

Sustainable Energy Generation: Burning Trees

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed, we need to take careful account of the points my hon. Friend has made about wider biodiversity issues. However, we have sources of material—starting with the idea of managed forests, under certain circumstances, or energy crops, under other circumstances—that are much shorter in their use and carbon sequestration, such as miscanthus and short-rotation coppicing of willow. Those can be produced with a very short time of burning and resequestration. However, as my hon. Friend has said, there may be other environmental consequences attached to the practice.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not the outcome of today’s debate that burning wood or biomass is neither low in carbon nor a renewable source of energy—so why are we still subsiding the industry?

[Dr Whitehead]

That was the case I was trying to pick apart. Is it right that we should ever burn anything for power? If we burn some things for power, what are the circumstances under which we burn them and what are the constraints we have to put on their burning? One of the issues is just how much we pay for that burning. If there are better uses for the subsidies we might put towards that burning, then we should undertake those instead. We need to be very mean in terms of the resource we put into subsidies so that we get the best outcome for those subsidies.

We cannot draw an overall conclusion today about the wide issue of what is waste, whether it is appropriate to burn it under any circumstances and how we manage that waste stream. Clearly, with whole forests—even if they are managed—the production of timber that goes into houses and buildings is a much better way of sequestering carbon from that timber than burning it. Waste material, on the other hand, does not have the same uses, although the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned the wood panelling industry, where there are certain uses for roundwood and other timber that can sequester carbon in a better way than burning it. However, we still have the issue of whether there is a role at all for biomass burning and waste burning in future.

We have also had a discussion about CCS, on the back of burning wood, residual material and waste. That applies to energy from waste just as it does to biomass use. Of course, the Climate Change Committee is quite keen on BECCS. The idea is that the whole process can become net negative as far as contributions to net zero are concerned, and we are producing a net negative contribution to the overall carbon balance, providing that CCS works well and sequesters as much carbon as it is supposed to.

Large Solar Farms

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Wera Hobhouse

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Westminster Hall

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

I will attempt to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) in being as brief as possible and finishing within five minutes, but right hon. and hon. Members will understand that we have a large number of issues to discuss.

The first thing to say is that I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) on securing the debate, because it gives rise to all the issues that we have to consider in the development of renewables and particularly solar. He has drawn attention to a particular scheme in his constituency, which is quite right, given his role as a constituency MP. However, I caution against expressing proper and justified concerns about the siting of particular solar farms in particular places while failing to understand just how much we need renewables, especially of the solar variety, over the next period.

I have just come from the statement in the main Chamber, and all sides agreed that our way out of the oil and gas problem, which has been driven by the situation in Ukraine and Russia, is to go very fast on renewables. The point is that if we go fast on renewables, the renewables have to be somewhere, and it is really not sufficient for people to say, “Yes, I’m very much in favour of renewables, but I’m not in favour of them being in any particular place.” I am not saying that that is what right hon. and hon. Members have said this afternoon, and a number of Members were very thoughtful and clear about the circumstances under which solar should be developed. I think that should perhaps be the watchword, and I agree with a number of Members that we need a much more strategic and planned approach to the arrangements. We need to understand what renewables we need, but also where we need them. However, it is not an option to have them nowhere at all.

In that context, we know that solar has already been a considerable success in the UK. It is being developed at the moment on no subsidies. We have 14 GW installed across the country, and 65% of that is ground-mounted solar. Frankly, it is a fantasy to believe that we can get to the sorts of targets we now need on solar—perhaps 40 GW by 2030, which is what the Climate Change Committee says—by simply installing them in small numbers on roofs in cities and towns. Of course we should go with that, and we ought to have a lot more imagination about how we put solar in towns and cities or alongside motorways and various things such as that.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I agree with everybody that not engaging with communities is simply not on, and it is important that those who want to install renewable energy installations and solar farms need to engage with their communities. What does the hon. Gentleman think should be done to improve community engagement?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is quite right. Any form of renewable power—indeed, any form of power—ought to be based on extensive community consultation and the community being on board with the idea of that particular power source coming to their area. Hon. Members have raised a number of issues about agricultural land and its quality, the visual aspects of particular solar farms, and various other things, which need to be discussed in great detail at the local level by communities faced with these proposals.

Solar farms, and particularly the West Burton solar farm, which was the subject of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, actually have quite a good grid connection. That solar farm would potentially be based around the West Burton A power station, which as I am sure the hon. Member will be aware is going offline in 2022, as is the Cottam power station just down the road. However, if we had had a discussion when someone decided to build the West Burton A power station and the Cottam power station in the middle of the countryside—which is where they are—a number of years ago, we probably would have had exactly this sort of debate in the Chamber.

That underlines the fact that, although we are transferring what we do as far as power stations and power are concerned, the issue remains just the same: where we put those power stations and renewables into operation, not whether we put them into operation. It is imperative that we have this amount of renewable energy across our country for the future. Be it offshore wind or onshore wind, city-based solar or field-based solar—all of those have to be considered as imperative for delivering our renewable power supplies. Solar happens to be the cheapest power available, and it is one of the quickest to introduce if we are thinking about a dash for renewables in the future.

Gas and Electricity Costs

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing the debate. I think the best way to sum up this afternoon’s debate is to call it a united front. I was going to say a cross-party united front, but the party that was going to be in that united front is now no longer in that party—the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) had the Whip removed for daring to say that there should be a VAT reduction on bills as a result of the energy crisis. I commiserate greatly with her. It is shameful that she has had the Whip withdrawn under these circumstances. I would have expected hundreds of her colleagues to vote with her on that occasion, because we all know that we have to do something urgently about the perfect storm in energy prices that is coming towards us. It is a perfect storm because it will be added to the ending of the universal credit uplift and other cost of living increases.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) eloquently put it, millions of people in this country are spinning plates every day to keep their bills, rent and other costs under control. To have a £600 increase in their bills coming their way very shortly—the decision may well be made within a couple of weeks—will inevitably cause those plates to come crashing down across millions of households. This is a crisis emergency that we absolutely have to tackle with equal emergency and resolution as the crisis unfolds.

Hon. Members have talked about both the causes of the crisis and the things that could be done about it. I acknowledge that one of the key bases of the crisis is the unprecedented increase in wholesale gas prices coming into the country, which has had a knock-on effect for electricity prices and bills. Of course, the crisis does not involve a spike in price; it is likely to be a price dome rather than a spike, and it will probably last a couple of years.

The Government are not responsible for that, but they are substantially responsible for making the crisis much worse, as a number of hon. Members have talked about. The Government have managed the retail markets with extraordinary negligence over recent years, allowing a large number of companies to come in and sell us gas and electricity, with no hedging and no serious support behind them. Some 28 of those companies have now gone bust, leaving the customer to pick up the bill, and not just for the transfers that they had to undertake.

About 4 million people have lost their supply and are having to transfer to other companies at the price cap, rather than at the prices they were previously charged, so there is an additional increase on their bills. The companies are potentially having to bear the costs, at about £100 per customer, for the carnage that has taken place with the energy companies that have gone bust and the cost of putting those companies into “supplier of last resort” arrangements.

The Government have also been negligent by allowing gas storage effectively to disappear in this country in 2016, putting us at risk, to a much greater extent, of volatility in the markets, as we have seen recently. There are a number of things that can be laid directly at the Government’s door for their stewardship of the energy economy over the last few years, in addition to what we know are the problems of world prices. That is a double reason why the Government have to act now to put right a number of the things that they have so negligently allowed to happen.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the idea of reducing VAT for an extended period while the crisis in gas prices runs through. That could easily be afforded because of the increase in VAT that the Government have received recently. A windfall tax on companies that have been supplying the gas is an important idea. After all, whether it is supplied to the UK from the UK sector, from the Norwegian sector or from liquefied natural gas, the price that it is sold for is the same in the end. International spot prices are the same, whatever the origin of the gas. That is why a number of companies supplying within the UK sector have made super-profits from this episode, and it is right that they should be subject to a windfall tax that can be clawed back for customers to reduce the level of prices that they are likely to pay.

Hon. Members mentioned increasing the level and extent of the warm home discount, which would be a particularly targeted way of ensuring that those who can least afford it—the real plate-spinners in our society—have an additional plate to spin in the shape of a much more generous warm home discount, and one that expands its range.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Member pick up on a point that I made? Customers who wanted to do the right thing and bought their energy from renewables only should not be subject to energy price rises when renewable prices are falling because energy supply companies can lump the prices together.

Community Energy Schemes

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on obtaining the debate this afternoon and on putting forward the case for local energy, particularly for a community energy Bill, in such a succinct and complete way. That means I do not have to say all the things that I was going to say about a local community energy Bill, other than to say that we on the Opposition Benches thoroughly support such a Bill. We think it would make a tremendous difference to the way that local energy can move forward.

At its heart, it has a simple proposition, which is that people should be able to sell the energy they produce to their neighbours, their friends, the people down the road, their local industry and shops. As we can envisage, that sort of environment would not only make a tremendous change in how people relate to their own energy, but would potentially be a great step forward in the appreciation of what we need to do, as far as energy is concerned, in the low carbon environment we will have in the future. Energy is something that people do, rather than something they simply receive. That seems to be the essence behind the idea that people can sell the energy they produce to their local community.

It is a simple proposition and we know what a difference it would make, so why not just do it tomorrow? What are the barriers in the face of the proposal? To go to the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), we seem to have been here on a number of occasions. He has a similarly long pedigree in talking about the same issues that I have raised, both on the Environmental Audit Committee and elsewhere. He is right that we seem to turn up in the House talking about this issue on a fairly regular basis, and nothing whatsoever changes.

My particular involvement in the issue goes back to a 2013 Energy and Climate Change Committee inquiry on local energy, which I chaired, that looked at the barriers to how local energy can go forward, remarked that there was not a great deal of local energy going on and talked about the potential for local energy. We have heard this afternoon about the potential from now on, but at the time we were saying we could have perhaps 3 GW of local energy overall in this country by 2020. What have we got today? About 270 MW, something like that.

If we look at the various projects have contributed to that 278 MW, we have heard mention of a number of the co-operatives and organisations that have actually produced local energy, but pretty much to a project—I have seen a lot of projects in my time—they have been carried out with heroic dedication, overcoming tremendous obstacles and, in some instances, have failed at great cost to themselves and other people. It would be so easy just to make it possible for those schemes to happen. I congratulate and commend all those people who have generated the 278 MW of local energy that we have so far. The fact that we have any at all is a remarkable tribute to them, not to the system we have.

That is where we need to be very clear. The obstacles in the way of local energy are very much about the question of local supply, but there are a lot of other obstacles as well, which hon. Members have mentioned this afternoon. The idea is that people are trying to set up a local scheme to produce a pretty modest amount of energy for local consumption, important though all those local schemes are in terms of aggregation across the country. However, people have many obstacles to overcome and are required by the planning system to get permission in place. They need to spend perhaps a million pounds per project just to get a modest scheme going. If the rules were different, people would be able to put that million pounds into the development of the project and not throw it away on a possibly unsuccessful scheme in the first instance.

         The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) gave the example of the local brewery getting its cars on the road. People might think that is a fanciful example, but it is absolutely how the grid system works at the moment. There is an assumption that every single electron that is produced goes literally from Land’s End to John O’Groats and back again before going into a lightbulb and that it is charged as such, even if it had come from two doors down the road. That is the assumption. The introduction of local energy into the system is often regarded as a tremendous nuisance and loss of load. We cannot actually see where it is, and it is not easy to balance in the grid. That means that the last to get connections into the distributing grid are the local energy schemes. The charging regime for those schemes, once in operation, assumes that they are national schemes, just locally based.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s explanations about the complexities of the grid. Does he agree that, when thinking about licensing for a new devolved scheme, we need to look at things such as liabilities when there are outages, for example? It is not impossible to overcome these difficulties.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. It is not particularly difficult to overcome these problems. I am emphasising this deep mindset of how the grid works that has been with us for a long time. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned the fact that the grid was designed for a bunch of providers to produce x amount of energy, which would go through the grid until it got to a lightbulb. The world is completely different these days, but the grid still operates as if that were the case. That is inimical to the success of local energy projects.

As the hon. Member for Bath says, it would not be difficult to fix that, but there is a problem. Ofgem and, to some extent, the Department are particularly concerned that if we start dismantling the grid in its old system and localise it to enable the development of local energy in the way we have discussed, there could be distortions in that original system. I suspect the Minister will talk about some of those distortions, but let us be clear: they are distortions to an old system that does not work. We actually need those distortions to come into place to make the new, low-carbon overall renewable system work in the first instance. Making local energy work in that context is a very important change we need to make.

We need to make these changes to the system as a whole. We need to get the grid on to a much more friendly basis for local energy. We need to make the possibility of local energy much more real in terms of the hurdles it needs to overcome before it can get going. We need to have positive Government support for the development of expertise and the assistance and support that local energy schemes need to go ahead. That particular area, with the preponderance of volunteers in the local energy system, would be really good to have as a draw-down arrangement for local energy for the future.

Yet again we are meeting with the idea that the future for local energy could be really bright, but I fear that we will be here in a few months’ time talking about the bright future that has not quite emerged, but may in the future. We have not got time any more to keep going round the houses before we get to a decent settlement that will allow local energy to proceed. Local energy is so important, as we have heard this afternoon, for the future of low-carbon renewable energy.

I was delighted that the Local Electricity Bill has been amended to ensure that local energy is low carbon and renewable, so that we do not have diesel reciprocators coming in and providing local energy as a result of the ability to get a local licence. That is a very good amendment, and adds further to the Bill’s force.

I have questions for the Minister that are similar to the three questions asked by the hon. Member for Bath. I hope that he can give us some reassurances about the Government’s earnestness to bring about changes to the grid arrangements that can underpin local energy, and that they will be treated as a move forward as opposed to a distortion of the system. The answer to one of the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about the German system is that cities in Germany, in many instances, own their own grids—and are doing so in increasing numbers. Germany does not have the grid system, a system that is regarded as just common sense in the UK. We have to turn that common sense around and start from the bottom up, with grid and district-grid management, rather than assuming that we should work from the top down. If we do that, then there will be a fundamental turning of the tide in favour of local energy for the future. I look forward to what the Minister has to say. I hope he will be fully supportive of the local community energy Bill, but I hope he will also be understanding of what differences need to be made to the system to allow local energy to come into its own.

Waste Incineration Facilities

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Wera Hobhouse

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing the debate. As she said, it is our second debate on the matter in recent weeks, and it is one of a series of contributions from her on the question of waste incineration, particularly in relation to what she described as the “monster” incinerator that is planned for her area.

Other hon. Members used that phrase, as well as the words “giant” and “enormous”, today when they spoke about planned or active incinerators in their areas. As the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, we need to understand why, in an era of zero-carbon ambitions for our economy, the idea of granting permission for such enormous plants to deal with our waste is still being contemplated.

In general policy, we must recognise that the age of incinerators is over. A decade or two ago, perhaps we could have said that incineration was an improvement on the previous practice of landfill. Indeed, in this country incineration has increased in inverse proportion to the reduction in landfill over the last few years. However, as we move towards net zero, we are in danger of freezing in time our waste strategies by granting permission for large incinerators that capture waste streams over time. That will prevent us from moving up the waste hierarchy in dealing with our waste generally, and in looking at it as a resource to be recycled, reused and put back into the circular economy—rather than put in landfill or burned, usually for minimal energy recovery.

It is significant that only 16 of the country’s 44 incinerators are enabled for anything more than minimal energy recovery. They are enabled for combined heat and power, to capture the heat as well as the electricity that comes out of the process, but only half of them actually produce any heat and power. The vast majority of large incinerators do not produce much energy, and they certainly do not capture the heat that comes out of the plants.

On the other hand, they capture the waste stream over long periods of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) described that process in his area, with waste arriving from all over the country to feed the furnaces of the incinerators. From the description of the plans for the new north London waste incinerator given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), I suspect that is also the case in her area. We are in danger of ossifying the process of waste disposal. Now is not the time to go down that route; it is the time to move rapidly up the waste hierarchy and think about different ways of disposing of waste.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not here to blame local cash-strapped councils for going down that route? To recycle properly, councils need resources.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member read my mind. I was about to say that I do not want to blame local authorities for the actions that they have taken over a time when they have had no money to deal with the issue. They have merely had exhortations from central Government, and there have been no resources to go alongside the actions that they are required to undertake. There is a temptation to try to resolve the problems in a local area by going into partnership with a waste company. That may produce a solution to the local waste disposal problems, but it will do so at the cost of a 20, 30 or even 40-year contract that will fix the future policy of that local authority or consortium of local authorities.

It is imperative to recognise that to move up the waste hierarchy nationally, we need the resources to get away from incineration. There are further exhortations on the matter in the waste strategy. We cannot simply say that local authorities must have separate arrangements for collecting all the waste food in their area; we need to ensure that local authorities have the resources to enable them to move up the waste hierarchy without being subject to the temptation of using large incinerators to solve their problems.

We are at a turning point. The future is net zero; it cannot be incineration. We have to move rapidly up the waste hierarchy, and there are challenges and obstacles to that ambition. There will be some residual waste, but, as hon. Members have mentioned this morning, the current definition of residual waste encompasses things that it should not. For example, only 9% of plastic film is recycled. Most of it is incinerated or goes into landfill. Recently, I asked questions about 47 containers of plastic waste that were exported to Malaysia, and that the Malaysians did not want. They sent the waste back and said that it had been illegally exported to Malaysia.

Climate Change

Debate between Alan Whitehead and Wera Hobhouse

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

If one is trying to get a zero-emissions outcome, trying to get a lot more high carbon fuel out of the ground using some of the most difficult ways possible does not exactly seem to be in line with that target.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Can we encourage the Minister to acknowledge—I wish he would listen—that as the 80% target now needs to be 100% by 2050, now is the perfect time to say we no longer support fracking?

[Dr Whitehead]

That is one of many things we will have to do in the very near future as we address how properly to sort out the new target. As I will come on to say, there is a big list of challenging things we need to do, and that is just one of them. There are many, many new policy guidelines that we need to get into place to get us to that target.

The Committee on Climate Change, established under the Act as the guardian of science in our proceedings on climate change in the UK, reported strongly, as has been outlined, that we need to move to net zero and that we could do it by 2050, within the cost parameters established in the original target, if we put in place the very challenging policies it outlined. We strongly support that small change that means so much.

As the Minister will know, however, that is not the end of the matter. In fact, it is barely the beginning. I therefore want to ask the Minister for some points of clarification and some further information when he comes to respond to this short debate. There are, essentially, four points to consider.

First, the Minister will know all about the carbon budgets, which were admirably and clearly established under the Climate Change Act. They are designed to keep us on track for a steady reduction in emissions and to put in place measures to keep emissions decline on track. It set out three budgets from the 2008 start date, established in total size by the Committee on Climate Change, and required a Government plan to be put into place on how to meet each budget. The Minister will know that while we have done well by international standards in reducing our emissions by 47%—it is much less in consumption emissions, if we look at it that way—that is not a sufficient trajectory for net zero carbon targets. Our current performance, and likely achievements on known policies right now, place us in a disadvantageous position as we seek to adhere to the budgets that will drive emissions down to net zero by 2050.

The carbon budgets are designed—all five of them, to date—to put us on a path for an 80% reduction and 2°, not net zero 1.5°. It is shocking that we are currently failing to get to grips with the later budgets, budgets four and five, even under the circumstances of 2°. We have exceeded our earlier budgets only partially because of policy and partially because of economic circumstances, meeting or exceeding the first two budgets and probably the third.

After that, however, it gets very sketchy. Indeed, the latest updated emissions projections from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy show us badly off target: over by 139 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for the fourth carbon budget, or 7% over on central estimates; and 245 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or 13% over the central estimate for the fifth carbon budget. This is at a time when we will need to introduce a radically reduced sixth carbon budget, and subsequent budgets, to meet our new challenges. We are failing even to get to grips with the old targets, which will make our work so much harder when the later budgets come upon us.

What urgent steps are the Minister and the Government taking to get us back on track for the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, on which we are currently failing so badly? I can make an offer to the Minister: if he wants to sit down and sort out a raft of new policies, extended commitments to policy programmes, and extensions of the urgency of existing programmes, we will happily jointly draft those with him, so that there is solid buy-in across the House for that vital initial effort.

Secondly, we received the alarming news recently that the Government seemingly intend to roll over historical surpluses—some 88 megatonnes of carbon dioxide saved from the second carbon budget—to ease the passage of the third carbon budget, thus creating a higher starting point for the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. That move is not completely illegitimate in terms of the construction of the Act, but the Committee on Climate change has always recommended that that should not be done, and that banking and borrowing on future budgets would gravely distort the safe progression downwards of carbon dioxide emissions. Similarly, we should not seek to offset our own account through international emissions allowances, as the Government seem intent on doing.

Will the Minister explain why the Government have moved to set aside emission surpluses from earlier budgets? Will he say now that he will unwind that intention and not use them to inflate future budgets? Will he confirm that international offsets will have no place in future budget setting? We note in the explanatory memorandum to the order that despite the committee’s recommendation in the report that the UK legislate as soon as possible to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with the target of a 100% reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 covering all sectors of the economy including aviation and shipping, the Government have, for the time being, merely left headroom in the budgets for international aviation and shipping. Shipping and aviation currently make up 3.2% and 2.1% of global emissions, but this could rise to over 30% if action is not taken alongside other greenhouse gas reductions. What is the Government’s intention with regard to aviation and shipping coming properly and fully into carbon budgets, and why are they continuing to delay what we all know is an essential inclusion if those targets are to be meaningful for the future?

Thirdly, does the Minister recognise, as I am sure he does, that net zero is the practical outcome of the legislation to require a 100% reduction in the UK’s net carbon account? Net zero means that in addition to developing low carbon policies, as we were for the 80% target, we have to develop policies that are essentially carbon negative—that put carbon back into the ground in one way or another to compensate for the remaining positive carbon elements of our overall account. This means that techniques such as BECCS—bio-energy with carbon capture and storage—extended carbon capture and storage, carbon capture from the air and radical afforestation are all important policies for the future target. What plans do the Government have—[Interruption.]