Surplus Carbon Emissions

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am not sure that I would share the noble Baroness’s characterisation of getting rid of coal as low-hanging fruit. We have been extremely successful and will get rid of coal completely from the UK’s power system this year. We can contrast that with Germany, which is generating 27% of its power from coal this year. It is a great success, and it was very hard won. Of course, there are difficult challenges to face, one of which is steel. There are many other industrial sectors that are also difficult to decarbonise. We are working with all those industries to find appropriate solutions.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, future carbon budgets that the Government are proposing depend quite a lot on carbon capture and storage. At the moment, this is not a working technology; it is not actually running anywhere in the world, although many Governments are putting it in their future plans as something that will deliver. Can the Minister give the House an update on where the technology stands, and when he expects it to get off the ground and start reducing carbon emissions?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am afraid that the noble Baroness is incorrect; she needs to check her facts. There are a number of examples of working CCUS plants around the world. There is one in Canada, for instance; there are others as well. She is right that we are rolling it out in this country; there are two clusters we have identified, in the north-west and north-east of England—HyNet and the East Coast Cluster. We are in extensive negotiations with those clusters and want to make final investment decisions by quarter 3 this year, which will put the UK at the forefront of carbon capture in Europe.

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, but I feel reluctant to stand up because the Bill seems to have little genuine purpose. It is distracting us from what we need to concentrate on, which is tackling the twin threats of climate change and biodiversity loss. The context of the Bill and our international reputation are really important, as several noble Lords have said. This is one of the biggest election years in history and one of the most important too, as the fight against climate change becomes so pivotal. We cannot have it both ways: wanting to be a leader in the world and then doing something that contradicts that.

People do read the headlines and they will see the one that says, “UK set to open more oil and gas fields”. What does it tell the world? That we think this is okay and in some weird way compatible with the Paris Agreement? We know that is not the case. The International Energy Agency has been clear about that and, last year, global temperatures were 1.46 degrees above their global pre-industrial average. As we all know, in Paris we agreed to try to shoot for 1.5 degrees. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, correctly when he said that trying to have a non-carbon economy was a luxury belief, but it does not feel much like luxury—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I was saying that stopping supply, rather than phasing out demand, is a luxury belief.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I would contradict that too, because we do not have the time to figure out the difference between them. At the end of the day, they are the same thing. Many people who live in California, which was just mentioned, have lost their homes. If you live in Bangladesh, you have lost your homes; if you are a farmer in this country, you have been unable to plant your crops this year because of the level of rain. This is not a fantasy. It is something that is with us.

Personally, if we lived in an ideal world the Bill should be scrapped, and in doing so the Government would find themselves extraordinarily popular with a lot of people. But specifically, I congratulate whoever creatively came up with two tests that are impossible to fail, while ignoring the emissions associated with the predominant commodity in the North Sea—oil. They might as well read, “If autumn has arrived, run a licensing round”. However, we are not in an ideal world so, if the Bill passes, we have to improve it. Thankfully, there are things we can do.

One, of course, is protecting the marine environments or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, just said, having no exploration in MPAs. I hope she will put in an amendment on that at the next stage. We could also look at the weak emissions reduction targets of 50% by 2030 and go instead for what the CCC recommended, which is a feasible 68%. We could do this.

The Bill could also make progress on banning venting and flaring, which has been illegal in Norway since the 1970s. Even though Norway produces a lot of oil, at least it has managed to cut down the methane which, as we know, is 80 times more potent over a 20-year period, so that is something we could do. I urge Ministers to implement the recommendation by the Commons EAC to implement that ban by the end of next year.

Jobs have been in decline, as we have heard, for many years yet there is still no skills passport available for workers who want to transition. We could try to do that.

Taking a step back, let us think about what is going on in the world. This month, the CEO of Saudi Aramco said in Houston at the annual hydrocarbon festival known as CERAWeek:

“We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas, and instead invest in them adequately, reflecting realistic demand assumptions”.


However, we can meet the demand we need with renewables if they are sufficiently scaled up. It is more about where the power, or the fuel, comes from: thousands of miles into the earth or from our own natural elements.

Recent policy changes mean that we will need more carbon fuels. For example, the analysis by New AutoMotive shows that the potential supply from future licensing would be completely offset by reduced demand if we returned to the original 2030 target for ICE—internal combustion engine—phaseout. We claim that we are helping people but, in reality, we are not. Money, it seems, always triumphs. This month, Exxon CEO Darren Woods explained it simply as an all-out fight to derail anything green because it would not return “above average profits”. This shows that we can never rely on the industry to take the lead in reducing emissions. The Government have to act.

Let us be clear: the Bill will not help the average citizen of this country or indeed any other. We are kidding ourselves if we think that the oil and gas companies, and increasingly private equity firms, really care about reducing emissions. The Government make great emphasis in their carbon budgets on our having CCS technology, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to, but despite the fine words this is unproven.

In my role as vice-chair of Peers for the Planet, I recently invited Sir Tim Smit, the founder of the Eden Project, to speak to colleagues. During his speech, he said that we should remember the person—the adult—we wanted to be at 19, stand there and make them proud. It is obviously a challenge to remember what it felt like at 19 but I can remember that I thought it was my role to try to make the world a better place. I suspect that everybody who has found their way on to these Benches had similar thoughts: make the world better and use what energy you have—what God has given you.

At that point when I was 19, fossil fuel companies were just discovering exactly the kind of damage they were doing, but now we know. We have just had the hottest year on record. I would be aghast, as a 19 year- old, that I had to sit here and fight against something that seems so palpably obvious. At 19, I was fighting for women’s rights—quite honestly, there were no women in this place then—and we proved that was right, so now we are having another extraordinary fight about scientific facts.

It is clear that the Bill is the wrong thing to legislate for. I urge noble Lords that if they cannot justify the Bill to themselves, they should at least try to justify it to their children and their grandchildren.

Biomass: Power Generation

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Boycott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what evidence they have that power generation from biomass is (1) good value for the taxpayer, (2) not leading to forest degradation in other countries, and (3) compatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, biomass plays a vital role in ensuring that the electricity system is both reliable and low-carbon by providing dispatchable power when intermittent renewables are not available. Generators receive subsidies only for electricity generated from biomass that is compliant with stringent sustainability criteria. As set out in the biomass strategy, the Government will review sustainability criteria this year. The Climate Change Committee is clear that sustainable biomass can provide a low-carbon and renewable energy source.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord very much for his Answer, but it seems incorrect that we should fund any sort of forest degradation, either in this country or in others, such as Canada or the USA. We know that some countries are cutting down old-growth forests to feed companies here in England, such as Drax. A tree planted today, even if you replace it, is not going to sequester carbon until, probably, the end of the century—certainly not within the timeframe that we need. I hope that the Minister can agree with me on that point at least. Can he also agree that, given the short timeframe we are operating in, we should question, or potentially remove, the renewable classification from biomass electricity for the very big companies in this country, such as Drax?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I can agree with much of what the noble Baroness says but, like everything else, the situation is more complicated than that. There are many forests across the world—we are talking about forests in the US and Canada here; they are not third-world countries—that are renewable, sustainable and properly managed. The vast majority of the biomass used is a by-product from existing wood cultivation. The main wood is used for forestry, boards, joinery, et cetera, and the by-product is used for biomass. Not permitting biomass would not necessarily result in those forests just carrying on as they are.

Limiting Global Temperature Increase

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am sorry, my Lords, but that really is a nonsensical question. Graham Stuart is a Member of Parliament and has duties to perform in Parliament. The negotiating team were in constant contact with him, all the time. He flew back out to COP last night. Our own Minister, my noble friend Lord Benyon, was there as well, occupying the UK chair, alongside the fantastic team of negotiators, who held the pen for many of the negotiations and secured some far-reaching commitments in line with UK’s policy objectives.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

Now that we have reached an agreement in Dubai, is the Minister sill completely confident that the UK will reach our target of a 68% reduction on NDC by the end of 2030? As has been mentioned often in this House, we have rolled back on some of our commitments, such as those on electric vehicles and various other things, and I cannot believe they will not have an impact on that target. Can I have the Minister’s reassurance that he will publish the Government’s evidence base that the things which have recently taken place, in terms of rollback, will not affect the crucial outcome?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I can happily tell the noble Baroness that we remain committed to all our targets.

Climate Change: Phasing Out Fossil Fuels

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Boycott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the comments by the COP28 President that there is “no science” to suggest that phasing out fossil fuels will limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my relevant interests.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents the best available science, is clear that minimal use of unabated fossil fuels is a critical part of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, is it still the Government’s view that we need to phase out fossil fuels? A lot of the debate is between “phase down” and “phase out”, so I would welcome the Minister’s clarity on that point. UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme, estimates that the world is planning to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with a pathway that has any hope of staying on 1.5 degrees. It also concludes that the UK is showing no evidence of actively winding down our oil and gas production. Given that it will do nothing to help consumers domestically and that we should lead by example, as we always say we are doing, will the Government reconsider their decision to continue licensing new fields, particularly the approval of Rosebank?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

It is our policy to phase out the unabated use of fossil fuels. On the second question, even with the granting of any new licences, UK oil and gas production will continue to decline at a faster rate than most other productive fields in the world.

Biomass Strategy 2023: Cross Sectoral Sustainability Framework

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Boycott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will publish their consultation to implement a cross sectoral sustainability framework for biomass, announced in the Biomass Strategy 2023.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my registered interest as vice-chair of Peers for the Planet.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government will consult in 2024 on the sustainability actions set out in the Biomass Strategy, including developing and implementing a cross-sectoral sustainability framework to enable greater consistency across sectors and to further strengthen our sustainability criteria.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I thank the Minister for the Answer, but I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the UK’s single largest source of CO₂ emissions is a biomass power station. That fuel generates only 4% of our power and creates 13.1 million tonnes of CO₂, which is about 20% of the total that we emit as a country. But, as a nation, we subsidise it with our taxes. We call it renewable, so apparently it does not count. The recent task and finish report that the Government commissioned, looking at whether biomass could be called carbon-neutral, could not confirm that this was the case. Seeing that the evidence is pointing in the wrong direction, will the Government commit to moving away from this assumption that biomass is carbon-neutral, unless proven otherwise? Will they issue no new licences for generation and end their classification of this as a renewable power source?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The noble Baroness knows that I do not agree with her on this. The biomass that is used for generation in the two main plants is sustainable. There are very strict sustainability criteria attached to it, and the generators are measured against those criteria by Ofgem.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 24th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 274B was added to the Energy Bill during the previous consideration of Commons amendments. As the House will be aware, the amendment was debated in the other place last week and the Government Motion to disagree to the amendment was passed with a substantial majority.

I can confirm to the House that our position remains the same. The amendments would commit the Government to a consultation on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes. The amendment sets out with whom we would consult and commits the Government to bringing forward proposals to remove identified barriers to community energy within a brief six-month timescale.

I welcome the constructive engagement from across the House, in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I welcome her continued efforts throughout the passage of the Bill to ensure that the interests of the community energy sector are heard in this Chamber, but I reassure the noble Baroness that, on this issue, the Government have already made a clear commitment to the consultation.

As part of this commitment, we have outlined that we will engage in an open and collaborative way with the community energy sector, via the community energy contact group, to design the consultation. In fact, officials are already engaging on exactly that, and earlier this month held a very constructive discussion on the consultation with the group. Given our existing commitment to consult, and our ongoing engagement with the sector, we therefore believe that it is of no additional value to put the specifics in primary legislation.

In addition, there are further issues with the previous amendments that meant that we could not support their inclusion in the Bill. We clearly cannot commit to putting forward proposals to remove barriers that are preventing the development of community energy schemes before we know what barriers are raised in the consultation, or the implications of removing them. It would be remiss of us to agree to put that into primary legislation. Placing this obligation on the Government would be putting the cart before the horse.

However, I reassure the House yet again that the Government will carry out the consultation and continue to work closely with the sector to do so. I also reiterate the Government’s support in principle for community energy; we recognise the role that community groups play in our efforts to eliminate our contribution to climate change. I participated in a great visit to North Kensington Community Energy two weeks ago where I was able to see first-hand some of the important work that the sector does and to meet the contact group.

More widely, government support for the sector is demonstrated through existing support that we have already put in place, such as the £10 million community energy fund. I am pleased to tell the House that we aim to open applications to that fund as soon as we possibly can.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I thank the Minister very much for his sort of co-operation through the passage of the Bill. It is hugely important. It was introduced about 16 months ago, and I do not wish to delay it any further. But I speak with great regret that the Government find themselves unable to agree to my simple and incredibly uncontroversial amendment, which just seeks to clarify the Government’s commitment to consult on the barriers that community energy schemes face. I am very pleased that the Minister went to visit one that was working, but I assure him that a lot are not.

While I welcome the steps the Government have taken to re-establish the community energy fund—for instance, reporting to Parliament and consulting—it is important to put a timescale on these plans; 18 months is fair and reasonable. Without a timescale there is a risk that this will not happen. It has been demonstrated that this issue has widespread support across both Houses. When we have something that we agree on, we ought to just get on with it and do it. I fear that this small but significant issue will get drowned out in next year’s general election. I would appreciate reassurance from the Minister that this is a needless worry and that the Government are committed.

I would just like to get some clarity on a couple of points. What will be the basis of this annual report to Parliament? Is it simply to report on the progress of projects, or will it address the challenges that we face and the best route to sort them out? My amendment also sought to ensure that, should any consultation find that there are barriers—new barriers, for instance—the Government will commit to taking steps to address these. Being candid, we know that there are barriers, and I appreciate the argument that you should not legislate for the unknown, but I am simply trying to get an assurance that they would plan to lift barriers that we know are there—including ones that we do not know.

To return to the issue of the consultation, we have rehearsed what issues need to be resolved; thanks to the Bill committee in the other place, there are many views on record. I do not believe that much is likely to change in the next year. While I agree that we should follow due process here, it must not be used as a reason for delay. I urge the Minister to open this consultation ASAP, so that we can get this ball rolling.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure following the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who has done such an enormous amount of work on this issue—I pay tribute to that.

I was the person who started these amendments on their way back in December 2022, after we started work on this Bill last July. A consultation is something but what we really need is action, so I have a simple question for the Minister. As he said, this consultation has already started this month; if the Government see or identify through that consultation some simple, easy-to-remove barriers, will they act on them immediately rather than waiting for the end of the formal process? Surely, if action can be taken then projects, such as the one in Kensington to which the Minister referred, can go forward.

Climate Financing

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, Britain has been very proud of its leadership position on climate change—something that has taken a bit of a dent in the last few weeks due to some of the rollbacks on climate change targets. Specifically, the CCC last week published an assessment of the Government’s recent net-zero announcements, stating that they

“were not accompanied by estimates of their effect on future emissions, nor evidence to back the Government’s assurance that the UK’s targets will still be met”.

Will the Minister commit now to publish the evidence for Members to scrutinise?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I must disagree with the noble Baroness. There has not been any rollback on the Government’s targets. There is a legally binding commitment, which we will maintain, and of course we have a number of legally binding carbon budgets, which we will also maintain. We are adamant that we are on track to meet all of them.

Climate Change Policies

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate asks a very good question on electric vehicles; let me give him the facts on that. The UK had among the highest battery electric vehicle sales in 2022. We are registering a new EV every 60 seconds. Full-battery EV sales are up 88% year on year. Most of the UK’s emissions cuts have of course come under this Government; we are very proud of our record on electric vehicle sales. We are seeing record investments from BMW, Nissan, Tata and Jaguar Land Rover. Again, the UK has a record we can all be proud of.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I hate to disagree with the Minister, but just this morning on the Environment and Climate Change Committee we heard from car manufacturers that they absolutely did not want these targets delayed, because that is what they were doing and they needed that certainty. I have two questions. Does this announcement have anything to do with the ULEZ row that took place at the recent by-election? Secondly, everyone agrees on one thing about climate change: the more you delay, the harder the measures are going to have to be to get us to net zero by 2050, which I am glad the noble Lord still agrees on. Have the Government commissioned the OBR to do a thorough cost analysis of what these delays are going to mean, not for us today but for people in five, 10 and 15 years’ time?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

The answer to the noble Baroness’s first question is no. With regard to the OBR, I am not quite sure why the OBR has a role in this. We obviously have our Climate Change Committee which gives the Government advice, but, to be frank, lots of other external organisations send me more advice on this subject every day, so we are not short of helpful academic advice on all the topics under consideration. As I said, we are looking towards the future. The Government are still committed to our legally binding climate change targets. That means sticking to the legally binding carbon budgets that we have overdelivered on, and we are on track to deliver on the next one.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister—he knows that I like to praise his work—particularly on the change in the Ofgem amendment, in that our major regulator will now have a net-zero objective. To me, that is absolutely stark staringly obvious, and the fact that there has been government resistance to it while the Bill has been in this House I find strange, so that is a real move forward. The other thing that is to me stark staringly stupid is that we are talking about opening a coal mine in 2023. That makes no sense at all, and I will go through the reasons why.

It is not just we on these Benches or the Opposition who have that view. Let me quote from the Commons at Report. The then Energy Minister, Chris Skidmore—highly respected in this area and highly respected by the Government, in that he wrote their independent net zero review—said:

“Legislating to prevent the opening of new coal mines simply maintains the commitment that the UK sought to make to the rest of the world at COP26”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/23; col. 303.]


That was Chris Skidmore, former Energy Minister, valued by the Government for his net zero review, and by all of us for that great piece of work.

At COP 26 in Glasgow a couple of years ago, which we chaired very successfully under Sir Alok Sharma, we nailed our colours to the mast and led a coalition of countries—I think the government press release says 190—and celebrated the fact that we would phase out coal. What motivates me most to put Amendment 272A forward again is that our international reputation is being shredded by the fact that we are moving ahead on this basis. Let us not pretend that it is not noticed internationally, because it is. Even the White House, under John Kerry, the climate envoy, has remarked on this piece of government policy planning and Michael Gove’s proposal to open the coal mine. So, our international reputation for climate leadership, which all of us on all sides of this House have been particularly proud of over the years, is being literally trashed by this decision.

That has other effects as well. During a Private Notice Question yesterday, we debated the fact that we had no investor take for offshore wind on the CfD pitch when it concluded last week. That shows that we need rock-solid commitment to net zero in order to attract investment into this country. To me, our saying internationally that we are starting to open coal mines absolutely goes against what we are saying to bring in investment. It questions UK government policy, which is competing with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and a green deal industrial plan in the EU. We are trying to get a slice of that global investment, yet our environmental and climate focus is wobbling. That is absolutely wrong.

This amendment would apply to any sort of coal mine, but the Minister mentioned the Cumbrian coal mine, which is what that decision is all about. Let us be clear about that proposition and the company West Cumbria Mining. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said already, that industry is moving—indeed, must move—competitively towards a much greener stance; for the UK steel industry to remain competitive, it must do so as well. As I understand it, scientists have questions about West Cumbrian coal, including whether its sulphur content is even sufficient for the steel industry. However, the main facts are these: first, the steel industry generally is not that interested in that coal; and, secondly, the company itself says that some four-fifths of the coal will not be used by the UK steel industry, which means that it needs to be exported. Once coal is exported, we have no control over how that substance is used.

That brings me to transport. The argument is that it is better to provide our own coking coal than to import it. However, if we export 80% of this coal, that will put transport costs up because we will have the cost of transporting it to other, international markets.

The one argument that I do have sympathy with concerns jobs. We all know that the region of Cumbria is hugely challenged in terms of levelling up, jobs and income. However, it is completely obvious to me that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, just talked about with regard to Labour’s amendment, we have the ability to provide green jobs and proper energy efficiency. It is clear to me that this coal mine will not be there for a particularly long time, so those jobs will be transient.

I will leave it at that but let me come back to the United Kingdom’s international reputation and our important share in global investment in the green sector. I quote the Government’s own website, which said this after COP 26:

“The end of coal—the single biggest contributor to climate change—is in sight thanks to the UK securing a 190-strong coalition of countries and organisations at COP26”.


That was a proud moment for not just Alok Sharma but the Government. It is being trashed.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 274B in my name. I draw attention to my interests in the register.

I will speak briefly about community energy but let me just say that I absolutely support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I also very much support the noble Lord’s words, especially about what this measure is going to do to Britain’s reputation, and his reminding us of where this country was just a couple of short years ago as the leaders of COP, playing a proud role on the world stage; that seems to be in tatters right now.

Community energy is wildly popular in the country—it is extremely popular with all sorts of people. I find it puzzling why the Government are not bending over backwards to make this easier and simpler for people. I do not want to get into the arguments about onshore wind, but surely one way to mitigate communities’ concerns about renewable energy is to give people a stake in it so that it is about not just a bit of money but owning something. My sister has lived on a small island in Denmark for 60 years. The people there are completely energy independent. It was the first place I knew of that had wind farms everywhere. Everyone knows how much electricity is coming in and what it is doing. They have ownership and share prices—that is just the way it has been done, and it is kind of brilliant. Why can we not say, “The local energy we produce off that hill heats my towel rail all year round”? They can report, “I co-own it”, “It has paid to put solar panels on the roof of the community hall”, or “It has paid for energy efficiency advice and deals for the other homes in our village”.

In fairness to the Government, they have acknowledged this, but we seem to have spent an incredible amount of time hand-wringing about the difficulties rather than finding the easy, appropriate ways of supporting it. All that the sector wants is a deal comparable with all the other renewable energy that we have in this country, via a guaranteed minimum price. This gives communities the certainty that they need to raise the funds to go ahead. This is true across so much of the alternative energy sector.

I supported the establishment of the £10 million community energy fund but, quite honestly, that is not very much. If you look in the Evening Standard, you find that you can buy a flat for £10 million within about 100 yards of here. It is not going to go far enough. We need real reform, so the commitment made by Andrew Bowie in the other place

“to consulting on the barriers the sector faces when developing projects”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/23; col. 281.]

was particularly welcome.

That is why I have come up with this compromise amendment, which I hope that the Minister feels able to accept. It would give the industry a boost to know that there was something coming down the tracks on an agreed timeframe. A problem that we have seen before is consultations which do not receive a response—or do but with serious delays. That is all that I am trying to avoid with this amendment in lieu, which sets a generous timescale of 18 months for a consultation and a further six months for bringing forward proposals to remove the barriers to community energy schemes. This times nicely with the end of the two-year community energy fund and would avoid a potential cliff edge.

I believe that the Minister will appreciate the need for clarity for the sector and the need to reassure over 300 MPs, including 147 Conservative MPs, who backed the original Local Electricity Bill, which recognised the barriers to community energy and proposed remedies. I therefore ask him to give this house more clarity on timescales, or I may be required to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to support very strongly the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady Boycott. Regarding the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Boycott, it is crazy that we have barriers inhibiting the development of renewable energy by community energy schemes. This amendment is a very modest proposal to ensure that those barriers are removed within a reasonable timeframe. I hope that all sides of the House can support these three amendments, but I have particularly spoken to that tabled by the noble friend Lady Boycott.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Boycott]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 274B instead of the words so left out of the Bill—

274B: After Clause 271, insert the following new Clause—
“Local supply for community energy
(1) Within 18 months of this Act being passed the Secretary of State must consult and report on the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes.
(2) For the purposes of this section, community energy schemes are defined as low carbon and renewable energy schemes owned, or part-owned, by community organisations.
(3) In carrying out the consultation, the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) current and prospective community energy generators,
(b) the community energy industry,
(c) the electricity transmission and distribution industries,
(d) licensed energy suppliers, and
(e) any other persons deemed relevant by the Secretary of State.
(4) Within six months of the closure of the consultation conducted under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must respond to the consultation and bring forward proposals to remove the barriers preventing the development of community energy schemes.””

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on this very simple, good-for-everybody amendment.