Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am grateful for those points, which I will try to answer briefly since they were put to me directly.

First, I hope that nothing in what I said suggested, implied or stated that I do not accept that climate change is happening. I am also perfectly happy to accept that there is a man-made contribution to that. What I reject is the language of climate alarmism and climate crisis. The questions around the consequence, in practice, of climate change and the best means for dealing with it remain absolutely open. Over the last 20 years, we have seen wild, extravagant and unjustified claims about how large parts of the world are going to sink under water and we are all going to scorch; in fact, we see very little of that, but we see a few weather events being played up as if they are great catastrophes. Even if that were happening, the question that arises is what you do about it.

Many of us would rather put the emphasis on mitigation and adaptation rather than what we are doing at the moment, which is absolutely damaging our economy, in order that we should try to avoid those emissions. The cost of that damage to our economy has been estimated by the Climate Change Committee as at least 1% of GDP per annum—most people recognise, I think fairly, that it is closer to 4% or 5%. There are those who would say that that that cost is both necessary and justified, but it is none the less a damage to our economy, and not all of us accept that it is necessary and justified—we think that there are other methods of dealing with it.

I have not rejected climate change. I accept that net zero is a statutory target—I said nothing contrary to that. If I may repeat myself—this is my fault entirely; it is the problem with having an amateur such as myself drafting amendments—I apologised when I spoke for using the word “increase”, which I can change if we come back to this on Report. That was not quite what I meant; I meant increase relative to imports, such that I explained that my amendment would be applicable even if our consumption of gas was falling.

There is not that much in the substance of the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, made about my remarks. None the less, we have a profound disagreement—less about the science and more about what to do about it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, rising to speak after the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and his representation of an extremely minority view, I will restrain myself and simply say that there will be no jobs on a dead planet. I will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

So, had the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, got her amendment in first, the noble Lord would have signed it. It is interesting to know that the Liberal Democrats are against any new fields in the North Sea.

What I want to try to get home to those members of the Committee who have not yet taken it on board is that up to now we have pursued a path to net zero which involves reducing demand for fossil fuels by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. That is a logical path to pursue. We have not been seeking to achieve it by reducing supply of fossil fuels. As a result, if people choose to produce more fossil fuels than there is demand, as demand falls fossil fuel producers will be left with stranded assets and lose money. It could not happen to a nicer bunch of people, but why should we think that our judgments are better than theirs or worry about them erring and producing too much, investing too much and not getting their money back? That is up to them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

May I pursue the point? When I have made it and made my own case, I look forward to the noble Baroness demolishing it.

We will continue to use gas, albeit in reducing amounts, for decades, probably alongside carbon capture and storage. That is accepted by almost everybody I know. If the UK bans production, which would be an absurd thing to do, given that we do not ban imports of natural gas, we will simply leave others to supply our needs and needs elsewhere in the world. If lots of countries decide to ban new supply, if they succeed in reducing supply faster than we reduce demand, there will be shortages. Prices will shoot up. There will be the same sort of crisis—and huge profits for the oil industries—and we will have done to ourselves what Putin has done to us by reducing supply more rapidly than demand. I want to know why the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, want to introduce that sort of risk into the system. Why not just pursue the steady path of reducing demand until it is net zero?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

It is interesting that the noble Lord’s analysis bears a great deal of resemblance to that of the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty proponents, who point out that we have been seeking to reduce demand and say that they explicitly want to reduce supply. I think the noble Lord was making the case that the price will go up if there is not enough supply. Of course, the reverse is true: if there is too much supply, the price will go down. Indeed, we saw this during Covid, with petrol in the United States—gas, as they call it—where people were actually being paid to store and hold it, because you cannot switch these supplies on and off like a tap. Once you build a field, you are going to keep producing that stuff: you cannot suddenly switch it on and off. So, if you have overproduction, you have extremely low prices and those prices, of course, do not reflect the actual cost and the damage being done, either in terms of the climate or all the other damages that the WHO, signing up to this treaty, points out, in terms of the damage done to human health by burning fossil fuels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I have good news for the noble Baroness, because those issues were covered in Shale Gas Extraction in the UK: A Review of Hydraulic Fracturing, produced by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. We are all constantly urged to follow the science, so let us follow the science in that review. She discussed water, and according to the review:

“Overall water use is important. Estimates indicate that the amount needed to operate a hydraulically fractured shale gas well for a decade may be equivalent to the amount needed to water a golf course for a month”.


That seems something with which we can probably cope. She then discussed the possible results leading to the pollution of aquifers. The review says:

“Concerns have been raised about the risk of fractures propagating from shale formations to reach overlying aquifers. The available evidence indicates that this risk is very low provided that shale gas extraction takes place at depths of many hundreds of metres or several kilometres.”


In the UK’s Bowland shale, it would be kilometres deep. The review continues:

“Geological mechanisms constrain the distances that fractures may propagate vertically. Even if communication with overlying aquifers were possible, suitable pressure conditions would still be necessary for contaminants to flow through fractures.”


When you have a kilometre or more of stone—impermeable rock—bearing down, you could not get a better seal.

Nevertheless, we do not have to worry about scientific analysis and theory, because we have practical experience. Over a million wells have been fracked in North America; not a single one has resulted in a building falling down from tremors or in a single person being poisoned by contaminated aquifers. So we are bound to conclude that lots of people have been spreading the sort of scaremongering that would make anti-vaxxers blush—even Andrew Bridgen would probably blush if he heard some of the stuff that has been put out by the friends of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, at their various camps around every conceivable attempt to get fracking going. We should rely on the science and the scientific reports and regulate the industry well, as we have done in the past.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Since the noble Lord addressed me directly on fracking, I ask him if he is aware of the article published in 2020 in Environmental Health Perspectives in the United States which showed that babies with low birth weight are significantly more common in families living close to fracking wells in the US. That demonstrates the practical reality of the outcome of fracking on health.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

What is the mechanism by which those babies are born with low health when they are near a well?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The scientists behind that study say that they cannot explain it, that it needs further examination and that there are a number of possible mechanisms.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I have not read the report, but I will read it. I have read similar reports, and almost all rely on the statistical phenomenon that random events are as likely to be bunched together as they are to be evenly spread; I say that as someone who studied statistics. This results in bunches of things; for example, you will get bunches certain cancers somewhere near Windscale, as it used to be called, yet there are bunches elsewhere not near Windscale but people do not worry about them. I very much doubt that there is any scientific basis—and indeed the authors of the article could not think of any scientific basis—as to why we should relate one thing to another in that case. It is the sort of thing that the anti-vaxxers say when they find a little concern. Obviously we should always be concerned about issues such as vaccination or drilling under pressure, but we should not exploit people’s fears to stop something we do not like for other reasons. I hope that my amendment will be adopted and that it will mean that we actually regulate the shale gas industry on exactly the same basis as we do all other industries which can produce similar environmental impacts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. This brings to mind the debate we had in the Chamber last week about greenwashing and all the wider implications.

On the amendments in this group, I will talk about the demand and supply side, because it is important that we do not look at this in isolation; we have to think about the impact on people and how we can motivate our populations and communities to get behind the drive towards net zero. That is a very important consideration in these amendments.

The International Energy Agency clearly set out that there must be no new oil and gas fields and no new coal-fired power stations built if the world is to stay within safe limits of global heating and meet the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. There is now, finally, acknowledgement and recognition that moving away from fossil fuels is the key to achieving greater energy security. This debate has been going on for decades; what a tragedy that it is the horrendous situation in Ukraine that has brought it to a head. Action much sooner would have helped prevent us being in the position we are in today.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, talked about a steady transition. The point we are trying to get across is that there is an urgency here. There needs to be a rapid transition if we are to have any chance of moving along in the way that has been outlined, as we need to.

The other issue is how we permanently help households move away from the volatility of fossil fuel prices and reduce the fiscal burden of financial support to households through this and any future energy crisis. We have talked a great deal on other occasions about energy efficiency. We hear about the amounts that the Government are putting into this space but, quite frankly, the demand in this area is much higher than the response that we have had so far. I will not go into all the cost of living implications, but we cannot forget the millions of households that are set to be in fuel poverty this winter. This has to be one of the main drivers in making sure that we get the amendments we need into the Bill so that we can move away from the volatility and expense of fossil fuels.

Amendment 227A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lennie seems to me an absolute no-brainer; it is already in train, and we need to move forward on it. I have one very simple question for the Minister: will he support our amendment today?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I am very interested and pleased that the noble Baroness referred to the International Energy Agency study that I mentioned. The inference could be drawn from her comments that the Labour Party supports a ban on new oil and gas. I know that many people out there listening to us today would be very interested to know whether that is the case. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the Labour Party supports a ban on new oil and gas?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

It was a nice try, but I think that is without the scope of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

As I say in the Member’s explanatory statement, this debate is to raise issues that many people have raised with me about the purpose of Clause 230, which covers licensing nuclear sites that are on or under the territorial sea of the UK.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in talking about offshore wind farms, referred to the impact on marine mammals of seismic testing in particular. In the middle of last year we saw seismic surveys being carried out in the Irish Sea off Cumbria in order to assess the potential of undersea nuclear storage. At that time the Marine Management Organisation noted in a letter that those tests could cause disturbance to certain cetacean species. Those tests were carried out before this Bill became law. Those are interesting circumstances for them to be carried out in, which I will come back to.

In the Government’s own words, they need to keep the waste safe and secure for hundreds of thousands of years, give or take, for the radioactivity to decay. That is why they are seeking long-term storage for hundreds and thousands of years. The UK has the world’s largest stockpile of untreated nuclear waste, more than 100 tonnes of plutonium, and the total volume is 750,000 cubic metres. We are talking about a lot of nuclear waste. The chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities, David Blackburn, who for full disclosure I will note is also the leader of the Green Party group on Leeds City Council, has said:

“The waste would be left in situ for millennia and, no matter how effective the barriers, some of the radioactivity will eventually reach the surface. The rate at which radioactivity would leak … can be poorly predicted and is likely to remain so for an indefinite period.”


I was in Cumbria a decade ago when there was talk of onshore storage of nuclear waste there and a great deal of local resistance. We are aware that there is no certainty. Putting it under the sea would seem to add to that uncertainty, to the risks and to the difficulties of dealing with anything should it go wrong. I put down this clause stand part debate because there is a great deal of uncertainty. People are unsure what the Government’s intentions are, which is why I hope the Minister may be able to provide more certainty.

I also refer to the fact that seismic testing was going on. The Explanatory Notes for the Bill appear to suggest that Clause 230 is actually to close a possible loophole that nuclear sites under the sea might not currently require a licence or be subject to the nuclear regulator. Page 71 of the Explanatory Notes states that:

“This clause amends section 1 and section 26 of the NIA 1965 and section 68 of the Energy Act 2013 … to make it expressly clear that certain nuclear sites located wholly or partly in or under the … sea … require a licence and are regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation”.


That raises a question that I will put explicitly to the Minister: are the Government aware OF or concerned about any unlicensed or unregulated nuclear sites on or partly on or underneath the sea in UK territorial waters?

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. When I first read this clause I assumed it was effectively to give permission to go out to sea from land, like some coal mines. I am interested to know whether that was the Government’s intention.

I was also quite interested that the site has to be partly in territorial waters. Territorial waters go out to 12 nautical miles, so that seems to suggests that it does not. I wonder why there is the stipulation that the site has to be partly in territorial waters. It seems to me that if this is done it really needs to be within territorial waters. I have no other questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for the opportunity to debate and discuss Clause 230.

This clause relates to geological disposal facilities. We have spoken about this often in the Chamber during Questions. GDFs are highly engineered facilities capable of isolating and containing radioactive waste within multiple protective barriers deep underground, so that no harmful quantities of radioactivity ever reach the surface environment.

The Government consider a GDF to be essential to the successful decommissioning of the UK’s civil nuclear legacy and our new-build nuclear power programme which will support the UK Government’s net-zero ambitions and their energy security strategy. The process to find a site for a GDF is under way, and it is therefore vital that we have a clear legal framework to ensure that such a site will be licensed and subject to oversight by the Office for Nuclear Regulation—the ONR.

On the noble Baroness’s point about disturbance, there is no evidence that any disturbances were caused by the specific seismic studies undertaken on behalf of Nuclear Waste Services. We have not seen any, and none has been drawn to our attention, but if the noble Baroness has other information, obviously we would be very grateful if we could see it.

Clause 230 makes clear that certain nuclear sites, including a GDF once prescribed in regulations, located wholly or partly in or under the territorial sea adjacent to the UK require a licence and are regulated by the ONR. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I have no idea why it says “wholly or partly”; I take his point that it is a long way off to get to “partly in our territorial waters”. However, presumably that is a drafting necessity.

The GDF siting process is a consent-based approach which requires a willing community to be a partner in the project’s development. Four areas have entered the siting process: three areas in West Cumbria—in Copeland and Allerdale—and one in Theddlethorpe in Lincolnshire. This clause is intended to provide clarity to parties with an interest in the GDF process that a GDF in their community, whether located deep below the land surface or deep below the seabed, will be safe, secure and appropriately regulated by the ONR. I would like to be clear: no part of a GDF will be in the sea itself, nor will radioactive waste be dumped in the sea. That is banned by international conventions, including the London convention and protocol. Whether a GDF is built in the geological formations deep below the land surface or deep below the seabed, it will be accessed from facilities on land, and the waste will be isolated deep underground within multiple barriers to ensure no harmful quantities of radioactivity reach the surface environment.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions, I hope this has assured the noble Baroness of the Government’s intentions for this clause, and I hope she will feel able not to oppose that this clause stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I raised the question of whether the Government are aware of or concerned about any unlicensed, unregulated nuclear sites, which the Explanatory Memorandum seems to suggest might be a reason for this.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My officials say that that is not a concern to us. If we establish that it is otherwise, then of course we will let the Committee know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will start my remarks by talking about the amendments on a new net-zero duty on Ofgem. While the Government agree with their intent, we do not believe that they are necessary, because Ofgem already has a decarbonisation objective in law. The Energy Act 2010 amended the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989 to modify Ofgem’s principal objective—that is, protecting the interests of existing and future consumers, including their interests in the reduction of targeted greenhouse emissions. Ofgem agrees that its principal objective includes an obligation to support delivery of our net-zero targets, and it would be keen to avoid any confusion over the need to balance decarbonisation, affordability and security of supply. This will be supported by the upcoming strategy and policy statement setting out the Government’s priorities, including those that will help to deliver net zero as a guide for the regulator. As the noble Lord noted, the Government published the results of Chris Skidmore’s net zero review on 13 January, and we will carefully consider the recommendations proposed and respond to the review in the spring.

On the amendment to designate a strategy and policy statement for the purposes of the Bill, this replicates the provisions set out in the Energy Act 2013 so, again, we think that this is unnecessary.

Amendment 229, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is on onshore wind. As the noble Baroness said, on 22 December the Government launched a consultation on making changes to the National Policy Planning Framework so that local authorities can have more flexibility to respond to their communities when they wish to host onshore wind infrastructure. On improving infrastructure to ensure access-to-grid connections for onshore wind, the Government are already making strides, publishing a comprehensive strategic framework for the electricity networks. As has been said, the Government included onshore wind in the latest contracts for difference round, where it played a key part in securing almost 1.5 gigawatts of power, including 900 megawatts of mainland projects.

On the annual reporting of onshore wind deployment, BEIS in fact already publishes quarterly and annual statistics for all renewable sources of electricity, including generation and capacity of onshore wind.

On Amendment 233, on decarbonising the capacity market, the most recent capacity market four-year-ahead auction was held in February 2022. There was a record investment in low-carbon flexible capacity; for example, it included more than 1 gigawatt of new-build battery storage. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that the Government recognise the need to ensure that the design of the capacity market is aligned with the wider decarbonisation of the power sector. As he noted, the Government published a consultation on this on 9 January, aiming to consult on design changes to the capacity market. I assure him that the consultation proposes measures that support greater investment in low-carbon capacity, including demand-side management.

I turn to Amendment 239 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on energy from waste. The Government are committed to minimising waste; making better use of existing energy sources will play an important role in our journey to net zero. It is estimated that the total power exported by energy-from-waste plants in the UK in 2021 was approximately 2.9% of total net UK electricity generation. The Government have already made good progress in diverting waste away from landfill and maximising the energy that can be recovered from non-recyclable waste. Waste holders already have a legal duty to act in accordance with the waste hierarchy, which prioritises the prevention of waste arising in the first place, followed by preparing items for reuse and then recycling them. Only then should waste be sent for energy recovery, with only that which cannot otherwise be managed sent for disposal, including to landfill.

All energy-from-waste plants are largescale and, therefore, electricity. While some have private wire connections, most of the power is exported to the grid rather than locally. Therefore, it is not practical to ensure that all electricity produced from waste is used locally. However, of course, it is possible to ensure that heat produced from those waste plants is used locally, and there are some excellent examples of that, including a large plant in east London. The Government believe that our existing provisions in this Bill are sufficient to promote that heat and power source. We discussed that a couple of weeks ago, when we discussed heat network zoning, which will accelerate the deployment of heat networks provisions and ensure that waste heat sources connect to local heat networks and ensure greater use of waste heat sources, such as residual household waste.

Finally, on Amendments 241, 242B and 242H in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, we recently published our intent to allow the use of nuclear-derived fuels to receive support from government fuel support programmes—particularly a form of sustainable aviation fuel—but we do not support the wording of these amendments. We look forward to working together through the passage of this Bill to permit the support of nuclear-derived fuels while not categorising nuclear-derived fuels as “renewable”.

On Amendment 242B, the Government agree that nuclear should play a critical role in decarbonising the UK’s energy sector. However, accepting this amendment would pre-empt the outcome of the further work that is required in this area, which was announced in the WMS by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, on 14 December. I therefore hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, will he acknowledge that this debate has been extraordinarily truncated and that this wide range of issues will need to be fully examined on Report?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sure that we will have lots to discuss about lots of issues on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I have a question for the Minister that follows on from that. I very much support the idea of an energy commission, although Chris Skidmore says very strongly in his report, on decarbonisation, that:

“None of this will happen without a step change in the government’s approach to delivering net zero.”


He says that an office for net-zero delivery within government is needed but, if we cannot get that, energy efficiency must be part of it.

When we were in the European Union and single market, part of energy efficiency was around appliances and all sorts of things that we use or do, and we have had an increase in energy efficiency—not fast enough, but a sectoral trend—largely because of the sorts of implements we use; cars, vacuum cleaners or whatever. I therefore ask the Minister: in terms of energy efficiency and standards for equipment and pieces of machinery, what is happening now? Is BEIS doing this itself? Does it have a programme? How does that relate to our export markets and manufacturing sector? I would be interested to understand.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, has presented very interesting proposals. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I think this offers us one way forward on the crucial issue of energy efficiency, but I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Would he agree that a useful role for the energy efficiency commission would be ensuring systems to educate people to install this new technology properly, so that people such as the plumber whom he cited had the information available to ensure that they knew that what they were installing would work for their customers?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his amendments. I will take up the question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, first. The answer is absolutely; we have an extensive programme called the Energy Efficiency (Energy Using Products) Regulations. They are largely similar to those we had in the European Union, but we have extended them and taken them further. We have recent regulations on more efficient lighting and there are others coming, as well as some on the more popular white goods that people use. I would be happy to send him more details of that.

I move on to Amendment 234 from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. The Government agree of course with the principle of having an independent body to advise on targets and timetables for energy efficiency policy and net-zero policy more broadly. But we already have that body: the Climate Change Committee fulfils that role. He will also be aware that the Government will announce further details about the energy efficiency task force that was announced by the Chancellor and the Business Secretary late last year. There is a lot of detailed work happening on that at the moment. We hope to have more to say very shortly.

On Amendment 235, the Government fully recognise the importance of energy storage and its ability to help us to use energy more flexibly and decarbonise our electricity system more cost-effectively. Our measure to define electricity storage provides long-term clarity and certainty over its treatment in regulatory frameworks. That will facilitate storage deployment going forward. At this stage, however, it is premature to set a target for the sector. We do not yet know the full extent of the system requirements for storage. Especially in the context of high energy bills and having to pay for increased storage, it would not be responsible to set storage target at this time, as we could set a target that is too high or too low and favour a more expensive technology over a relatively cheaper one. Instead, our approach is to remove barriers and spur innovation for all low-carbon flexibility technologies. We published the 2021 Smart Systems and Flexibility Plan with actions to facilitate the deployment of these technologies, including storage at all scales.

The Government are not in disagreement with the noble Lord, except on the narrow issue of targets. I hope he recognises our commitment to enabling the deployment of flexibility, including energy storage, across our energy system to even out fluctuations in generation and demand and therefore deliver the best outcomes, which we all want, for our consumers. Therefore, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.