Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 165A in my name and briefly comment on Amendment 272A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 274A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, both of which have the strongest possible Green support.

It is 2023 and we are in a climate emergency. We cannot consider new coal. I am afraid the Minister’s brandishing of heritage railways does not hack it; it is a tiny usage, much as I have no objection to heritage railways. For steel and cement, other nations are moving very quickly away from using coal while we are stuck in the starting gate. On the community energy amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I had the great pleasure formally to move it on Report and we saw hugely strong support not just in your Lordships’ House but all around the country. Tomorrow we will debate the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. This is a way to allow communities to take control of their energy supplies and provide the framework to set free huge opportunities up and down the land. It is a no-brainer and I urge your Lordships’ House to vote for both amendments.

Moving chiefly to my Amendment 165A, it is worth revisiting the history of the Bill. Those with a very long memory might think back to 19 July 2022, when it had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. That was three Prime Ministers back and I really cannot count how many energy policies we have had from the Government since then. We might be in traditional ping-pong now, but the Government’s positions on so many of the issues in the Energy Bill have bounced back and forward so fast within the Government that it is enough to make any observer dizzy.

One of the last-minute additions was this clause on so-called sustainable aviation fuel. If noble Lords look back to the other place, they will see that the level of debate that occurred around this very significant amendment was really very scant. That is why I have tabled this amendment now, to provide a real opportunity for your Lordships’ House to at least explore the issues and bring out some of the Government’s thinking. I hope we will also hear significant explanations from the other Front Benches on what their thinking is on so-called sustainable aviation fuel. It is often linked with and spoken about as though it is in the same stable as renewable energy, but the fact is, of course, that almost no flights now are powered by sustainable fuel because of supply and cost. Sustainable fuel can be three times as expensive and even for United, the largest consumer of sustainable fuels in the US, last year it comprised less than 1% of its total fuel consumption.

The fact is that so-called sustainable aviation fuels are not a “get out of the limits of this finite planet free card” for the aviation sector. The idea that aviation can keep expanding, or that it should—I shall be coming back to this tomorrow in an amendment to the levelling-up Bill—is, I would say, for the birds: although of course the birds cannot afford the inevitable environmental damage that burning stuff, whatever the stuff is, inflicts.

I can go through some statistics on this. Bain & Company in June published a report assessing the most likely pathways to net zero by 2050 for the aviation sector. The headline was that it can eliminate 70% of emissions from aircraft operations without using electric or hydrogen at scale. Just 5% of emissions reductions come from hydrogen and electric planes in the Bain & Company scenario; the rest is engine efficiency, aircraft efficiency, optimising routes and scaling up so-called sustainable aviation fuels. A 70% reduction is significant, but the Science Based Targets initiative net-zero standard requires a 90% reduction in CO₂ across all scopes by 2050 at the very latest. This report suggests that so-called sustainable aviation fuel can meet a maximum of 60% of global jet fuel demand in 2050 in the best-case scenario.

I think it is worth reflecting very briefly, looking to debates in the other place, that we saw both Labour and Tory MPs going further than this amendment does and calling for government subsidies for the sector. We have to set this in the context of the fact that tax exemptions last year saw the Treasury lose £4.7 billion from the aviation sector: that is calculated by Transport & Environment. That could pay for—gosh—more than 40 new hospitals: does that sound familiar? Or it could cover the cost 10 times over of additional medical staff. It is the equivalent of 1% of the income taxes collected by the Government last year. That is the context.

To come to the detail, my amendment simply addresses subsection (6). It seeks to bring in some systems thinking: an approach that does not look simply at the climate emergency because, as huge and pressing as that is, we are actually in a state where we have exceeded so many other planetary boundaries and we face so many other crises and threats that it is absolutely critical that the Government think in a systemic kind of way. If your Lordships want to think about where things went horribly wrong when we did not do that, Dieselgate is the obvious example. That was a case of corruption and fraud, but behind it was the problem of looking simply at the carbon emissions from diesel and not considering all the other environmental effects.

The current government amendment says that the Secretary of State should look at the contribution to the reduction in greenhouse gases. My amendment keeps that but adds the impact on the food system. Your Lordships’ House often debates the fact that food security is a huge and pressing issue of our age, and if we take land out of use for growing food and turn it to growing stock for aviation fuels, we are creating a potentially huge problem for ourselves.

Proposed new subsection (6)(c) says,

“not negatively impact human, animal or plant health”.

That perhaps comes back to the diesel reference, if we think particularly about human health. Burning stuff produces pollutants—that is just practical reality. However, we must also think about plant health. We often talk about using agricultural waste for these sustainable aviation fuels. That agricultural waste could be going back into the soil to contribute to soil and plant health, bringing us to a situation where we are not depleting our soils and then topping them up with artificial fertilisers, particularly nitrogen produced by the incredibly energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process. This is a systems-thinking, joined-up approach.

Finally, my amendment says,

“not negatively impact the availability of feedstocks for other industrial processes”.

The Minister referred to steel and cement, but all kinds of different, innovative steps are being taken to use all kinds of different materials to replace current fossil fuel production. We need to think about where what we call waste could best go.

I am aware of the desire to move this debate on, so I will not speak much longer, but I have just two final reflections. First, we hear a great deal of talk about waste cooking oil in terms of so-called sustainable fuels. Well, I am afraid that your local chippy is not going to take your private jet flight very far at all—let us be realistic about that. Secondly, my mother’s favourite movie was “The Sound of Music”, in which there is a song that goes:

“Nothing comes from nothing,


Nothing ever could”.

All energy use—all fuel—has environmental and social costs associated with its production and use. We have to think in that systemic, holistic way when we think about how we fuel our sustainable future.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 187A in my name. The purpose of moving this amendment is straightforward: we have an opportunity to put in place an enforceable plan of action that will deliver the often-mentioned aspirations to deliver energy-efficient homes and properties. I was sure that the Minister would repeat the line that this is unnecessary—and so he did. But I am afraid that the facts tell a different story. The new clause would enable a plan to be in place, working to clear targets to reduce gas supply in homes by 25% and a 10-year programme to retrofit 19 million homes, costed at £6 billion, with local authority and a community base to deliver.

The facts are these. Since 2010, progress to reduce emissions has stalled. The UK is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels for home heating and industry, and has the least energy-efficient housing stock in Europe, according to the IMF. Limited progress on energy-efficiency measures has been made worse by poor public information campaigns and the lack of a long-term plan with clear targets, clear technical explanations and little evidence of a financial and structural plan to go alongside. I do not wish to repeat all the comments that have been made throughout the debates on this Bill. However, we have to acknowledge a lack of grip, of urgency, and of serious explanation of the benefits of determined action.

In terms of tackling emissions and meeting legally binding decarbonisation targets, reducing the need for heat must be a top priority. Benefits include: a reduction in the cost of heating homes—therefore, a very positive help to those suffering from the cost of living crisis; a huge benefit to the health of the population by achieving affordable warmth, potentially saving the NHS £500 million a year; and a major contribution to energy security by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

These come on top of the potential of delivering economic benefits, providing skilled jobs and high-wage opportunities. Retrofitting poorly performing homes alone could support 190,000 jobs across all regions. Given the strength of opinion on energy efficiency in so many analyses of progress, I am minded to test the opinion of the House.