Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Fourteenth sitting)

Andrew Western Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown]

Not of one down here!

Community energy schemes have seen almost no growth for six years, despite renewables clearly being cheaper than ever. Of course, that is tied in with the removal of feed-in tariffs, which were very successful in delivering the likes of small-scale hydro across the highlands, for example.

The Government are pressing ahead with voting to remove clauses 272 and 273. What are their proposals for facilitating community energy generation and providing the certainty of price that groups and companies need to be able to move forward? The Minister must be aware that the smart energy guarantee does not deliver at present and, as I say, there has been no growth in community energy schemes in six years.

At the moment, community energy schemes account for just 0.5% of the UK’s electricity. According to the Environmental Audit Committee, that could increase twentyfold in 10 years, so something like 10% of energy by community generation could be achieved in 10 years if the right conditions are put in place. Even if that is overstated and the reality is only 5%, that would still represent a huge shift in generation and would provide local grids with stability and resilience. That would be much better value than the new £35 billion Sizewell C nuclear station.

If we consider nuclear, price certainty is not a new concept. It underpins the contract for difference auction rates, and it is what is provided for Hinkley Point C. A great example of the potential scope for community energy generation is a study being undertaken in my constituency by the Newmilns Regeneration Association, which is investigating the installation of solar panels on the brownfield site of the former Vesuvius factory. The aim is to sell electricity to local industry, reducing its bills and helping it to be sustainable, and for Newmilns to be a net zero town going forward. The national regulatory authorities believe that the Local Electricity Bill, or the alternative in the form of clauses 272 and 273, needs to be in place to facilitate trading of the electricity that would be generated. That is why I fully support the clauses’ retention in the Bill.

Clause 272 would provide guaranteed income for electricity for small-scale renewable energy generators, and clause 273 would enable community schemes registered under the clause 272 guarantee to sell the electricity they generate locally. The Committee Clerks circulated additional written evidence today, in which professors from the University of Manchester say there should be no fear about clauses 272 and 273, because they will not unduly affect the prices that suppliers have to pay for electricity; at worst, the effect will be marginal. They also recommend that the Government retain the clauses. I really hope that they do.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Gray. After a fairly lively start to the morning, I want to focus predominantly on the matter about which we are all largely in agreement: the addition of new clause 52 to replace clause 271.

I will briefly address clauses 270, 272 and 273, which we have debated at length. I do not wish to add anything particularly new; I will just reiterate colleagues’ comments about the clauses’ importance. The Minister and the hon. Member for Hyndburn previously supported clause 270, so I am bewildered by their shift, given that, as we have heard, building a new coalmine will not make a material difference to the British people’s energy prices, yet it certainly grates against our broader net zero ambitions.

It is a real shame that the Government intend to strike clauses 272 and 273 from the Bill, not least because all we seek is surety for smaller generators that their investment is worthwhile. The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test gave the example of a hydro turbine that costs in excess of £1 million. It is incredibly difficult for a small-scale producer to make that investment without a guarantee, which the clauses would provide, that it will see a return in the form of a guaranteed purchase by energy suppliers. None the less, although we have not heard in detail why the Government are opposed to the clauses, we are where we are.

As I said, I want to focus most of my comments on new clause 52. I am a little surprised that the Government feel the need to rework clause 271, but we should none the less take the concession for what it is. New clause 52 is incredibly welcome, as it will legally require Ofgem to ensure that its decisions assist the Government’s drive to deliver net zero by 2050. Reaching net zero is, of course, one of the most urgent and challenging tasks that we face as a nation, and it is right that we pull every lever at our disposal to achieve it. I am pleased that the Government have conceded that the new clause is a necessary step, given that they previously stated that Ofgem’s existing decarbonisation objective was sufficient. That objective was set in 2010, it is limited to targeting greenhouse gases only, and it has no specific timescale attached to it.

The move to update Ofgem’s duties so that it has a statutory requirement to support the UK in reaching our net zero emissions targets has huge backing from every part of the energy industry, as well as from consumer campaigners and climate activists. It was recommended by the Skidmore review and by the Climate Change Committee earlier this year. Crucially, it has the support of Ofgem itself. Ofgem’s CEO, Jonathan Brearley, said that the net zero duty is

“the best option, not only from a climate perspective, but to ensure a secure, low-cost energy future.”

Ofgem’s support is most welcome, and the new duty makes its responsibility for ending our reliance on fossil fuels crystal clear. Making net zero one of its core duties will empower Ofgem to deliver the long-term investment in our electricity network and grid that the National Infrastructure Commission has said is critical to achieving the large-scale shift to renewable energy and low-carbon transport and heating that we need. Indeed, there seems to be a broad consensus in the industry that the lack of a clear duty that specifically refers to our net zero targets is a key reason for the historical underinvestment in the grid. This overdue duty can play a key role in reversing that trend and putting an end to a situation in which the absence of investment in the grid has made it very difficult for new renewable infrastructure to be connected to it.

Placing this duty on a national regulator that was created to serve consumers is, in effect, a statutory recognition that the needs of consumers and the planet are very much aligned. The long-term investment that will help us to achieve net zero will also mean sustainable, cheaper forms of energy for consumers and an end to the volatility in the market that has caused such misery to millions of households across the country in recent years. I therefore fully support new clause 52, and I pay tribute to everybody, across parties, who was involved in bringing it to this stage.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Twelfth sitting)

Andrew Western Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Minister has set out a series of perceived advantages. On the flipside, the proposed new coalmine at Whitehaven would emit 9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, so does he agree that that would have serious implications for our net zero ambitions?

[Andrew Bowie]

I very much question the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just put to the Committee. I stress that it is really important that we ensure that the industries in the United Kingdom that rely on coal are able to rely on a domestic source for that coal—British coal—and not on imports from overseas, which will actually increase carbon emissions.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Andrew Western Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake]

Moving away from this Bill, Labour has a fully costed plan for achieving that and it is targeted at the 19 million homes.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Government are reticent about placing this clause on the statute book, surely the fact that they are Government targets means the money will be found anyway?

[Olivia Blake]

Absolutely, and I will come to that point. This issue is so significant: it is important that we find the funding for these sorts of interventions because almost 9,000 neighbourhoods in England and Wales have very low incomes but higher than average energy costs because of poor insulation. That requires Government action, and I fully support Labour’s plans, which I believe would cost £12 billion a year—I might be wrong about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

Sorry, £6 billion—I have doubled my ambition. That is a large amount of money, but it would be very welcome in meeting the challenges we face.

I am not alone in my concerns about delivery in this space. In January, the Environmental Audit Committee rightly said that we need a national war mobilisation to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon. The public are crying out for action to address fuel poverty and household emissions: 80% of respondents to National Energy Action’s polling supported funding retrofits for those on low incomes and, according to the New Economics Foundation, 64% of Conservative voters and 65% of people in the north support a national retrofitting taskforce.

Without the clause, the Bill will be another missed opportunity to tackle the cost of living crisis, to bring forward the emergency energy efficiency measures we need, and to start a national 10-year mission for home insulation. Delivery is important, and without an action plan I am not clear how those millions of homes, and the millions of people living in them, will benefit from better energy efficiency. We need to get on top of our carbon emissions and we need to ensure that housing is not forgotten, given its vast contribution to emissions.

It would be a mistake for the Government to remove the clause. All it is asking for is a warmer homes and a business action plan to set out how His Majesty’s Government intend to deliver energy efficiency. It is important to keep that clear ask in the Bill. I will be deeply regretful if the Government do not support the clause, because it will be another missed opportunity.

[Andrew Western]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. At the risk of repetition, I too rise to defend clause 204. It is interesting that, in my first Bill Committee, we appear to be having something of a groundhog day moment. When we had a similar discussion about low-carbon heating last week, the Minister stood up and gave us various assurances that these things would be done, while resisting with all his might any attempts to compel the Government to do that in law.

It is incredibly challenging when the Minister says that superb progress is being made on these issues and that we have gone up to 40% over the past 13 years. In fact, on current projections we have something in the region of 200 years to go to upgrade the energy efficiency of the UK’s draughty housing stock. National Energy Action says that progress on energy efficiency is too slow, and the UK Business Council for Sustainable Development has calculated that the pace of the Government’s recently announced scheme would take almost 200 years to reach homes in need of upgrade. It is clear why the Opposition are so keen to see the targets in the Bill; clause 204 is therefore so important.

I warmly welcomed the addition of the clause in the other place because although the Minister talks about the energy White Paper, the net-zero strategy, the heat and building strategy that was published alongside it, and the future homes standard, none of those things actually compel the Government to act. That is the problem. The Government can miss their targets time and again because there is nothing that forces them to take the action needed. Warm words will not provide warm homes—it is that simple. This will not get us where we need to go unless it is on the statute book. We know that because we are already missing the targets.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I respect the hon. Gentleman greatly. Obviously, it is a matter of political debate whether he accepts the warm words of the Conservative party—that is a legitimate, democratic debate that we should have—but what exactly does he propose would be the remedy for his not trusting the Minister’s word? Ultimately, that is his political point. He is entitled to make that point, and he has made it clearly, but trust cannot be legislated for, so I gently suggest that he accept that some things will always be a matter of political debate. I trust the Minister’s word. The hon. Gentleman does not have to do so, but that is ultimately what we are in politics to do—to argue and debate these things.

[Andrew Western]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but whereas trust cannot be legislated for, targets can. It would be a very simple remedy to place the targets in the Bill in order to remove any question of trust, and to give the industry and homeowners struggling under the weight of high energy bills certainty that the Government are taking the action required. In fact, I do not see this as a question of trust: it is a practical step. Indeed, if Conservative Members are so satisfied that the Government will take the action needed to meet the targets, why be fearful of their inclusion? If they have no issue with hitting a target, why not place it in the Bill? That is the fundamental point.

By not including the targets they have set, it opens up the argument that the Government do not feel they will meet them. In making that argument, I remind colleagues of the words of the National Infrastructure Commission, which says:

“Government is not on track to deliver its commitments on heat or energy efficiency…A concrete plan”—

which is what the clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce within six months of the Bill becoming an Act—

“for reducing energy demand is required, with a particular focus on driving action in homes and facilitating the investment needed.”

[Katherine Fletcher]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s zeal and passion for insulating the UK’s homes, but he has referred again and again to a concrete plan and investment, and I cannot believe that either of those things come with a price tag of zero. Given that it is important to be fiscally responsible, will he outline how he plans to fund the implementation that he wants to write into the Bill?

[Andrew Western]

The same applies to the Government’s targets. The fact is that we are being asked to take the Minister’s word that the Government will deliver on the targets, so there must already be a plan to do so. There must already be the funding to deliver, so what is the problem with enshrining this in law? That is the point we are advancing. Either the Government are putting the targets forward in a performative way, with no hope, plan or funding to deliver on them, or they are so assured that the targets will be achieved that there is no need for them to be placed in legislation—it is one or the other. Either way, I am sure that Conservative Members would want to satisfy themselves that the funding is in place; otherwise, the targets are a total waste of time anyway.

When we hear from the Minister, I would be grateful to know where the funding will come from to achieve the targets. Indeed, can we stand by the targets in any way, shape or form? That is the central point that I do not understand, because if the Government are going to deliver on this, what is the problem? If they are not going to deliver, all Committee members should be seeking to hold the Government’s feet to the fire.

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I was not going to speak, but the more this debate has gone on, the more confused I have got, so I thought I may as well throw some words out there anyway. Obviously, it is the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, but I find it bizarre that it now seems to be the job of the Opposition to make the Government stand by their own targets.

I understand that the clause was inserted in the other place. The Government keep telling us that the other place is very important and that we should rely on the expertise in the Lords, which is supposed to be a revising Chamber. That is ironic, because it was the Lords who brought forward the Bill in the first place. If we have to trust their ability and that it is a revising Chamber, it would seem logical to agree with the revisions that the Lords make. Otherwise, it undermines the point of having the Lords in the first place—which takes us to the position of the SNP: we would abolish it—but the Government tell us that it is an important place. We have heard only this week about how many people are scrambling to get into the Lords and are disappointed not to get in. Then we talk about trust and not being about to legislate for trust. Ironically, Nadine Dorries seemed to be saying yesterday that there is a real lack of trust in this Government.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Andrew Western Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I hope we have established that it is not the case that fusion activity is much more advantageous than fission from a safety and waste point of view. It is not, in itself, radioactive neutral. Additionally, the process produces a relatively small amount of tritium—much more of which is produced in fission reactors—which clings to the vessels and can get into the waste stream and produce radioactive water. Although that is not a big concern, it certainly needs to be taken into account as far as safety features of the overall plants are concerned. The case that I am trying to make is that, though it is important to progress with fusion—which is a much safer and, as the Minister said, potentially much more abundant source of energy—we should not be blind to its side effects.

As I have described, the side effects are not just about the problem of the potential embrittlement of the casing and the need to treat that casing in due course, the need to stop tritium release through lithium blankets around the sphere core and the difficulty of making those blankets completely sealable. All those things suggest that the sorts of actions in the nuclear installation regulations and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 are rather more pertinent than we might have thought, than the Minister suggested or than the clause seems to provide. I suggest a modest revision of the clause so that, instead of dismissing the safety concerns about and operational arrangements for fusion, it brings forward a revised, and perhaps acceptably less rigorous, process that nevertheless falls within overall nuclear guidelines for fusion activities.

In any debate on fusion, it has always been said that fusion is a very bright future for us but that it is 40 years away. Well, it is not 40 years away now; it is much closer to being realised. As the Minister said, in the UK, spherical tokamak for energy production is potentially producing good results, so we could be a few years away from having to get this regime right, and it is right that we do so now. Our new clause 51, which—for the guidance of those who have given up going through all the amendments and new clauses in the amendment paper—is to be found right at the back on page 58, states:

“The Secretary of State must consult on and establish a revised nuclear site licence regime for fusion energy which will not be subject to the full range of safeguards associated with the use of fissionable materials but must have regard to the residual radioactivity of the proceeds of fusion activity.”

That is a sensible alternative that will not, or should not, in any way impede the development of fusion, but will provide a clear understanding as to what we are dealing with as far as fusion is concerned. It would be a programme of appropriate and proportionate safeguards—yes, associated with nuclear safeguards in the background—that makes clear the very different circumstances under which fusion works. That would be helpful.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the debate that is unfolding. We appear to be heading towards a binary position—fulfilling all the requirements under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 or effectively removing all the requirements as the fusion process comes in. Does my hon. Friend agree that actually the balance of risk is not binary in that way—that fusion can activate the walls of the plasma vessel as he has set out and that therefore, although we all agree that we should seek to step down some of the licensing requirements, it would indeed be prudent to have some process, subject to broader restrictions around nuclear, that would place us within the realms of acting in a way that is “better safe than sorry”?