Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I agree with everything she said. My noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle suggested that I would sum up other people, but she has done a better job of it than I could, so I am just going to rant about the Bill.

The Minister said in his opening remarks something about the weather. Of course, this is an extraordinary day for us to be debating this Energy Bill. The temperature when I came into the Chamber was 40.2 degrees at Heathrow, and it is quite possibly higher now. It is highest UK temperature ever recorded, and possibly not the highest this year or in many years to come. The roads are melting, outdoor workers cannot do their jobs and London is on fire. I do not know whether the Minister has seen pictures of the fires in London that the fire brigade is tackling at the moment.

Then there are the buses that our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, put on the roads, which I said at the time were inadequate. They have terrible ventilation, and now they are stifling ovens. I invite noble Lords opposite to go and test one today and see what they think about them. They will find them extremely unpleasant.

Yesterday, the High Court ruled that, as many of us have said for so long, the Government’s climate plans are barely worth the paper they are written on. The High Court ruled that the strategy was “inadequate and unlawful”. That is quite strong language. What were the Tory leadership hopefuls promising until Alok Sharma, bless him, forced them to acknowledge previous government commitments? They were promising to rip up our net-zero targets so that we can cut taxes for the rich. It is incredible that they think that that will win them the general election at some point.

Clearly, the 2050 net-zero target is too little too late to keep the 1.5 degrees centigrade goal alive, and even then, the Government look set to miss it. The Bill could have been an opportunity to correct course and get the country on track to meet the targets, but the Government miss the mark again and again. We must limit our greenhouse gas emissions to no more than the UK’s proportionate share of the global carbon budget. This emissions reduction has to be done as rapidly as possible. Yes, there are costs, but they are nothing compared to the costs of inaction and delay.

This transition must include an end to exploration, extraction and the trade in fossil fuels. As other noble Lords have mentioned, the Government talk of gas as a transition fuel. Although I reject this argument, if the Government truly believe it, they should put this transition status in the Bill, with a legally binding pathway to phase out gas entirely. However, they have plans for new UK oil, gas and even coal extraction. None of this is sustainable; none of it is transitionary. It is all damaging, destructive, and dooms any hope of keeping 1.5 alive.

Then there is the other energy source that is described as a panacea, as the future: nuclear. We hear of small nuclear reactors, thorium reactors, nuclear fusion; a never-ending wish list of science-fiction solutions to the very real crises that we face. I call it science fiction; my noble friend called it magical maths—I think I prefer that. Magical maths: that is what the Government keep trying to do. Of course, as with magic, it is not real—let us face it. Today we heard about “jet zero”. I give it 10 out of 10 for the label, but minus 10 out of 10 for the concept of making aviation net zero.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned energy from waste. I am sympathetic to that, but we have found that when we have incinerators, recycling rates go down. The councils have a commitment to deliver a certain amount of waste to the incinerator companies, but they cannot supply all that waste because people are reducing—

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will not take any interventions. I am so sorry; we are all tired and we want to get going, but I am happy to chat to the noble Baroness outside.

Perhaps the most objectionable part of the Bill is the Government’s quiet plan to bury nuclear waste under the sea—it is not quiet any more, of course. It is yet another example of passing on the burden of our terrible decisions to future generations. We will not solve the climate crisis by passing on a nuclear waste crisis instead.

As other noble Lords have said, insulation and energy efficiency are key to solving the crisis by significantly reducing our energy usage, but what does the Bill provide? A new energy performance certificate and a power—not even a duty—to make regulations about the energy efficiency of new buildings. It is inexcusable that new buildings are not meeting the very highest standards of energy efficiency.

One of this Government’s worst legacies will be the hundreds of thousands of leaky new-build homes that were built in the years since they scrapped the zero-carbon homes policy in 2015. Since then, we have had five years of inadequate homes being built, almost all of which will require expensive retrofitting as a result of this Government’s short-sightedness. This legislation should fix that mess, ensure that all new-build homes are zero carbon and set out a workable plan for deep retrofit of the entire UK housing stock, beginning with the communities that are struggling most in this cost-of-living crisis.

The Bill also misses the crucial role that local authorities and community energy must play in reaching net zero. Local government can be unleashed with new powers, new duties and the corresponding funding and fundraising ability to deliver. When the Minister comes back at Committee, will he table an amendment on community energy schemes? We can actually encourage people to go from “not in my backyard” to “let’s have it in our area”. That is a direct request to the Minister. It would be a real gesture of understanding what we need for the future.

The Bill has also missed the opportunity to align the UK’s emissions reductions target and strategy to the all-important 1.5 degrees centigrade threshold. Also, as others have mentioned, there is another catastrophic legacy from David Cameron’s tenure as Prime Minister: the whole issue of onshore wind. Perhaps the Minister could also table an amendment on that as a gesture towards all those in this House who care so much about that issue.

Of course, the Energy Bill should also ensure that any proposed solutions to the climate crisis as far as possible minimise damage to ecosystems, food and water availability and human health. I do not believe for one minute that this Government can rise to that challenge—but I live in hope—and nor, it seems, does the High Court.

Your Lordships’ House will work diligently, spending countless hours through countless days improving this legislation; then the Government will take it down the Corridor, as they always do, to undo all our hard work, whipping their MPs to do the wrong thing, no matter how obviously wrong it is. It is deeply disheartening and I can only plead to your Lordships that we put our collective foot down and insist on a realistic pathway to achieve that net-zero climate target.

However, luckily for the Government, who seem short of ideas at the moment, there are two Private Members’ Bills going through Parliament at this very moment that will fix their problem and fix it for the rest of us. They supply all the ideas necessary to actually get towards a carbon-neutral future. There is the Climate and Ecology Bill, which would make up for the gaps in the Energy Bill and ensure that the UK plays its full role in the global effort towards achieving 1.5 degrees centigrade, with its science-led target that we emit no more than our fair share of the remaining global carbon budget. It addresses the full extent of the climate and nature crisis, in line with the most up-to-date science. It will ensure a comprehensive and joined up approach. The Bill was written by scientists, experts and campaigners, was first introduced in Parliament by Caroline Lucas MP in September 2020 and has just been introduced in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who is not in his place.

[Noble Lords]

Yes he is!

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am so sorry; my side vision was not working.

Secondly, there is my clean air Bill, which is a great piece of legislation and would aid the health of people and the planet by reducing fossil fuel pollution. Before there is any of this “whataboutery” that we hear so much of when we are outside this House about China and India doing their share and so on, we Brits rampaged and pillaged around the globe for a couple of hundred years as the British Empire and snatched what we could. It is time to give back. It is time to do our duty as British people and give back to the rest of the world. I really hope that on this issue we do our best.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and although we do not always agree on absolutely everything, I reckon that I agree with about 99.5% of her speech.

First, I declare my interest as chair and director of Aldustria Ltd, an energy storage company; I will try to avoid too much discussion of that area. On these amendments, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for having opened our debate today. I very much agree with the principle of what the Opposition Front Bench is trying to achieve here. What this Bill does not have—the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, put it very well indeed—is great focus or coherence. It would be good to start trying to improve that through a type of preamble that puts context, including strategic context, at the beginning of the Bill. I hope that we can refine that more on Report; it may not be perfect, but perhaps we can find a way of doing that between us.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the pricing of electricity and how that works. As he says, our European colleagues are looking at that very strongly now. There must be a better way of doing this; it cannot make sense to the public that we charge and price our main energy sources on the marginal cost of the last producer. Clearly, that does not make sense, and it does not do the reputation of the fossil fuel industry any good either. Yes, they might use their money to give back to shareholders—hopefully they will use it for different types of investment and diversification—but it besmirches the whole sector, and we need to find a way around that.

Where I would disagree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is around trying to game or look at alternative dates for net zero. It seems to me that in September 1939 the Cabinet probably did not look at whether to declare war on Germany this month or two years later or four years later. We may criticise Neville Chamberlain for all sorts of things in retrospect, but I guess that is not one of them. It was an absolute threat to our future security, and we made a decision. If we think of the costs to this country, and to us and consumers, of our right stand on Ukraine, I guess that we have not done those calculations either—because we know that Putin’s war has to fail and that, for European security and our long-term security, we in the western world need to pursue the tactics that we have.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her amendments, particularly in mentioning rural aspects of oil—my own household is on oil, and we are not covered by a price cap—and in particular business. In all the media coverage that we have had on this very real energy crisis over the past months, it is funny how business has very much taken second place to households and consumers. Clearly, households and consumers are ultimately the most important, but business is completely fundamental to our economic performance and being able to solve this crisis in the long term.

I am not absolutely sure about energy from waste plants. Clearly, it does not make sense to export it, but the real challenge there is in starting to raise recycling again, or even AD in terms of other parts of household waste. I was so impressed by the forensic look by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, at investment need and the scale of the challenge, and also at how we need to measure that and put proper planning into how we meet it.

The one other area that I would like to mention comes back to 2013 and the then Energy Bill, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. At that time, one big thing that we discussed was the energy trilemma of security, cost and decarbonisation. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, brought that back up again. But what this crisis, and the almost a decade between these two Bills, has shown, is that it is no longer a trilemma—they all work in exactly the same direction. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels, as we know—it is why we have the huge price increases that we do. Our security is reinforced by having much more renewable generation on our own seas and our own land—and, as a result, we have lower costs and a decarbonised energy system as well. We have moved on since that time.

We need to have a focus in this Bill, and I support the amendments. We need to move on in this debate, but I am absolutely sure that we will need that coherence when we get to Report.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, has spoiled a lot of my fun today, because I was going to tell the Government exactly what they needed to do if they were going to produce an Energy Bill that deals with the crises that we are facing. We are facing three immense crises at the moment, and one of them is, of course, the climate crisis. There are strong whiffs of climate denialism in your Lordships’ House, which I find absolutely staggering, considering that the science is so very clear on it. However, it is a bit last century, that sort of attitude, so I understand why it might exist here in your Lordships’ House. But we have those crises—the climate emergency, the ecological crisis and the cost of living crisis—and this Energy Bill is so topical. It is exactly the sort of thing that we need to bring forward so that we can deal with all these crises, and I guess make life better for millions of people in Britain and the rest of the world.

I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. He made the point that this does not do the job. Also, I am very sympathetic to Labour’s initial amendments. I understand why they are in there, but it reads a lot more like the sort of issues that a Labour Government would bring forward—hopefully not too long in the future.

I am concerned that our time is going to be wasted on this Bill, because we have a new Prime Minister—a climate-wrecking ideologue who will make it incredibly difficult for us to get the sort of issues into this Bill that we need. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and other noble Lords also mentioned nuclear. We have to get real on the fact that nuclear is not the answer. Nuclear power stations take a long time to come online. There will be all sorts of problems even getting them started, so they are not the answer. We have to think faster than that; they just will not work.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I wish to express my support for Amendments 39 and 49. I have been looking for a place to make my interjection, which ought to have been encapsulated in an amendment, but perhaps I should propose an amendment at Report. However, now is as good a time as any to air my suggestions.

Aviation contributes significantly to emissions of carbon dioxide. These emissions do not approach the level attributable to road transport but, nevertheless, they must be eliminated. It may be possible to replace short-haul aircraft with aircraft that depend on battery power, but long-haul aviation cannot be electrified. It will continue to depend on liquid fuels. It has been suggested that the fuel could be liquefied hydrogen, but this seems be impractical. Conventional hydrocarbon fuels have an energy density that greatly exceeds that of hydrogen, which is difficult to store in a liquid state and demands considerable storage space. Jet engines that burn hydrogen have not yet been developed.

It seems that hydrocarbon fuels must continue to be used in long-haul aviation. Eventually, this will be acceptable only if the carbon element of these fuels can be sequestered from the atmosphere and the hydrogen element of the fuels becomes green hydrogen. When such fuels are burned, their carbon element will be returned to the atmosphere. Moreover, the use of green hydrogen, as opposed to the so-called blue hydrogen derived from the steam reformation of methane, will mean that no emissions of carbon dioxide will come from this source. To manufacture aviation fuels derived from the direct air capture of carbon and from hydrogen generated by electrolysis will require a huge input of energy. Sufficient energy would be available only if we were able to depend on nuclear reactors to provide it. Such synthetic fuels will be costly to produce; unless they are subsidised, they will be unable to compete with petroleum-based fuels or fuels derived from biological feedstocks. However, biofuels have a high opportunity cost, since the production of their feedstock is liable to pre-empt the use of valuable agricultural land. They are therefore best avoided.

We need to support the development of carbon-neutral synthetic aviation fuels. I propose therefore that, in the first instance, they should be allowed to incorporate green hydrogen as well as carbon not derived from direct air capture but captured from fossil-fuel emissions. In time, both these allowances would be abolished.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I have always been very sceptical about carbon capture and storage and direct capture of carbon dioxide from the air, because they are basically unproven technologies. I could say that I am even quite sneery about them, because people constantly use them as justification for not adopting the tried-and-tested solutions of energy reduction, energy efficiency and renewable energy. We are often distracted by shiny technofixes, which give an excuse not to make the tested and sustained reductions in carbon emissions that have to take place. As far as I am concerned, the best carbon capture and storage is coal—we should just leave it in the ground.

That said, I am quite swayed by the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, about future-proofing. That is very valid and I am very pragmatic in saying that we need to pursue all solutions to the climate emergency. If carbon capture works and can compete on cost with other carbon reduction measures without creating additional harm or risks, it should absolutely be eligible to compete for revenue support contracts. Of course, it could also help my clean air Bill, which tries to emphasise not polluting the air in the first place. Failing that, if we want clean air—which is incredibly important for all of us and a human right, according to the UN—we have to take every opportunity we can to clean it up.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Grand Committee

I encourage the Minister and his department to come forward with a much more targeted approach to hydrogen. Let us abandon any misguided thoughts that it will be in everyone’s home or vehicle. That would be dangerous on many levels and a setback. We want targeted policies that bring about rapid electrification. Although I am very grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, as noble Lords can see, I feel passionately that we should stick to our guns. “Electrification of everything” is more or less the catchword that we need to adopt, but let us have this debate and bring forward some policies for industrial applications, shipping and fertiliser production, because we are not on track and we could be doing more.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support the thrust of these amendments but I also have huge qualms about hydrogen and electric vehicles. Quite honestly, electric vehicles still clog the roads and their drivers still run over and kill people. If we are thinking about low carbon, we should go for public transport.

I also want to quibble with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, when she said that there was a lack of government leadership on this issue. The fact is that the Government are not giving us leadership on any issues. They are running around like a pack of confused ferrets. We are incredibly lucky that the whole of Britain is somehow hanging together and not having any disasters.

Returning to the amendments, something Greens are always very concerned about is marketisation and financial engineering around environmental issues. The UK has a long and dangerous track record of mismanaging this. In the same way that financial engineering around mortgages caused the 2008 financial crisis, there are risks that bankers will abuse the climate crisis as an opportunity to get filthy rich while destroying the very systems we are working to protect. It has been done before.

That is why we are concerned about concepts such as natural capital, which risks being a double-edged sword. If it helps policymakers to recognise the immense value of our natural capital and our natural world, it might be helpful, but if it simply creates new opportunities for bankers to get filthy rich, it is deeply dangerous.

For this reason, it is essential that carbon removals are genuine physical processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and lock it up. There cannot be any ambiguity or scope for financial markets to exploit for profit, or for our Government to claim success when no real carbon dioxide has been removed from the atmosphere.

I was at a round table last week; there were about 16 of us, and we were fairly evenly divided between scientists and parliamentarians. All the parliamentarians were from the Commons, apart from me. The scientists all agreed with each other and kept saying the same thing: that we must stop burning fossil fuels. However, all the parliamentarians, apart from me, said, “Oh, that’s quite difficult—I cannot ask my constituents not to fly”, and things like that. My concern is for the Government to be deeply behind the science. Even the UN is now saying that we must act urgently. You cannot, even now, talk about low carbon and net zero; we are past the point where they will have the impact that we need. Instead, we should be talking about carbon-negative measures. If the Government do not wake up to that very soon, I hope that we can replace them.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, much has been said already. I agree with the main thrust of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which urges the Government to set out a very clear case for the decarbonisation of the various transport sectors. I do not think that we are there yet, and I do not think that the industry feels that we are there yet. It is important, for the reasons that the noble Baroness has just spelled out, that the transport sector knows which way it is going.

I must partially apologise to and reassure the Committee, because some of my speech was intended for the previous group of amendments. As noble Lords were making such commendable progress this afternoon, I did not get here in time to intervene on the amendment on home heating—an issue where, again, some clarity of decision is needed. Home owners and landlords are now faced with decisions on how to replace their gas boilers: they know they need to get rid of their gas boilers, but quite what they are going to get to replace them with is unclear. Of course, people replace their cars, and even their lorries and buses, rather more frequently than their houses and boilers. It is important, therefore, for the transport industry that there is some clarity on the general direction of government policy for the different sectors of transport.

On this topic, we immediately run up against the issue of hydrogen. I am not quite as sceptical as some of my colleagues, but I am sceptical, because hydrogen has been seen as a “get out of jail” card for almost every sector on their decarbonisation trails. That is not only for heavy industry, to replace the very heavily carbon-fuelled industries such as steel, glass and so forth, with its knock-on effect on the construction industry, et cetera, but for parts of the transport sector and for home heating. It has been seen by some as the solution to the decarbonisation of heavy vehicles, shipping, the train system and even aviation. However, hydrogen is not capable of doing that without safety dangers; and, in any case, it is not capable of doing that because we do not yet have the technology for producing green hydrogen at scale. Therefore, it will come in, if at all, only much further down the line. However, waiting for hydrogen—whether in the form of hydrogen blend for home heating or hydrogen-based vehicles or batteries for the transport sector—is seen as an excuse for not taking other technologies more seriously and urgently than we have done.

The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, would require the Government to do that job for the transport sector. I think that they need to do that for other sectors as well, and that they should not exaggerate either the degree to which hydrogen is the solution or, in particular, the closeness of technological breakthroughs to provide genuinely green hydrogen. It is not going to happen in the kind of timescale that we are talking about. Therefore, the amendment has implications beyond transport, but transport itself needs a clear plan. I hope that the Minister will take up with his transport colleagues the need to work urgently, as the noble Baroness’s amendment urges, to ensure that the transport sector knows where it is going, even if nobody else does.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the noble Baroness and others are reassured by the action that the Government are taking. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Could I just point out that it is easier not to send loads of CO₂ out into the atmosphere in the first place? It is great to hear about all the millions that the Government are spending on these measures, but it would be cheaper not to pollute in the first place. Things such as carbon capture and storage are all incredibly theoretical ideas, so you cannot actually say that it is going to happen, because it may not.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. I knew that I would provoke a debate by specifically mentioning hydrogen—and that was my intention. I wanted to tease out the Government’s views. I thank the Minister for her response, but it was light on detail as, I fear, the whole of the Government’s policy is.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on her view of the Government. I fear that the Government have been so self-obsessed for the past two or three years that there is a policy vacuum in all sorts of places, and transport is one of them. I also agree with her that we need to rely very much more on public transport but, of course, the vast majority of public transport is provided by buses, which are heavy vehicles. Electricity is fine in towns and cities but it is not yet the answer for long distances in rural areas or for long-distance buses. Of course, not enough of our electricity is green and comes from renewable resources. Despite the ingenious plans for the national grid, we have a crisis of capacity, which will face us very soon if we all rely on electric vehicles.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to aviation. I remind noble Lords about the Government’s jet zero strategy, which is a triumph of optimism over reality.

My noble friend Lady Sheehan made a very important point about batteries. It is important to emphasise that we are well behind in the international race for developing gigafactory capacity. Very soon, rules of origin will be a problem for those wishing to export.

--- Later in debate ---

This would remove provision for hydrogen grid conversion trials for domestic heating and cooking.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

We have discussed the issue of hydrogen, so I will delight your Lordships by saving my voice. I do not intend to speak on whether Clause 108 should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

No.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

That is not true.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Let me finish, then the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, will be able to come back.

I will start with Amendments 125 and 126. With Amendment 125, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, calls for an adequate level of information to be provided to consumers in the trial area concerning safety, long-run bill impacts and opting out of the trial. I agree that these are important issues. Support from local people will be crucial to the success of the trial, and gas transporters are already working closely with communities in the potential trial locations. In fact, the relevant Members of Parliament have already been in touch with me, and I already have meetings in my diary to talk with them and residents from the local areas about this.

Steps have already been taken to ensure that people have all the information required to make an informed choice about whether they wish to participate. Both gas transporters have opened demonstration centres in the two shortlisted local communities to raise awareness of what the trial would involve.

Clause 109 provides the Secretary of State with the power to require the gas transporter running the trial to take specific steps to make sure that consumers are properly informed about the trial. In meeting their responsibilities to inform consumers, we fully expect gas transporters to provide clear information about each of the important topics listed in the noble Lord’s amendment.

I turn to Amendment 126. The Government have been very clear that no consumer in the trial location should be financially disadvantaged due to taking part in the trial. Last year, the Government published a framework of consumer protections that will underpin the trial. Consumers in the trial location will not be expected to pay more for their heating than they would if they had remained on natural gas or to pay for the installation and maintenance of hydrogen-capable appliances.

The village trial will be paid for through a combination of government and Ofgem funding and contributions from the private sector. All gas consumers pay a very small amount towards Ofgem’s net-zero funding for network companies, which supports projects to decarbonise the energy sector; that includes this trial. All gas consumers will benefit from well-informed strategic decisions on how to decarbonise the way we heat our homes.

I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that the important issues he has raised, about which I agree with him, are already effectively addressed by the Bill, and therefore that he feels able not to press his amendments.

I move on to Amendment 127 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. As I have said, local support will be crucial to the success of the trial. Gas transporters are already working closely with communities in the potential trial locations to develop an attractive offer for people who want to convert to hydrogen. However, we understand that not everyone will want or be able to connect to hydrogen, and the Government are clear that nobody will be forced to do so. The gas transporter running the trial will have to provide alternative heating solutions and appliances for people who do not take part in the trial. In May 2022, this requirement was clearly set out in a joint letter from BEIS and Ofgem to the gas transporters, alongside the other requirements that must be met before any funding is provided for the next stages of the trial. The gas transporters will need to demonstrate that they have a viable plan for providing alternatives to hydrogen. There is already an effective way to ensure that they provide alternatives to hydrogen, through the Government’s funding requirements.

We therefore do not believe that this amendment is necessary. I fully appreciate the noble Lord’s intention—which I share—to ensure that the trial is conducted properly, with alternative heating systems offered to people who do not take part. With that information, I hope he feels reassured that there are already steps in place to ensure this and will therefore feel able not to move the amendment.

I will say a few words about the stand part notices on Clauses 108 and 109. I know that the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Worthington, and my noble friend Lord Moylan, who is not here now, have registered their intention to vote against these clauses. I have already established that the overall intent of these clauses is to support a safe and effective trial for hydrogen heating.

Clause 108 allows the Secretary of State to designate a hydrogen grid conversion trial, ensuring that both this clause and Clause 109 are narrow in scope and would apply only for the purposes of such a trial. Importantly, the clause expands the duty to participants of the gas transporter running the trial to undertake the required work without charge. It also makes certain modifications to the Gas Act 1986 to build on existing provisions concerning powers of entry. This will ensure that the gas transporter running the trial has clear grounds to enter private properties to: carry out any essential works, including replacing appliances and installing and testing safety valves; undertake inspections and tests for the trial, such as safety checks; and safely disconnect the gas supply in a property.

It is important to emphasise that gas transporters already have powers of entry into properties through the Gas Act. We are merely extending these powers in a very limited way to conduct the necessary work to set up and deliver the trial. Gas transporters will only ever use these extended powers as a very last resort once all other attempts to contact property owners and reach an agreement are exhausted. The existing rules on powers of entry requiring a gas transporter to obtain a warrant from a magistrates’ court will continue to apply, of course. I reiterate once again that nobody will be forced to use hydrogen. I have already covered the plans for alternative arrangements in my comments on the amendment earlier.

Finally, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that the majority of responses to the public consultation the department ran last year on facilitating a hydrogen village trial were broadly supportive of our proposals to change legislation in this way. I therefore urge that Clause 108 stands part of the Bill.

Clause 109 provides the Government with the powers to establish consumer protections for people taking part in this world-leading hydrogen village trial. It will do this by giving the Secretary of State two delegated powers to make regulations which require the gas transporter running the trial to follow specific processes to engage and inform consumers about the trial, and ensure that consumers are protected before, during and after the trial.

The department is of course working closely with the gas transporters as they develop their plans for consumer engagement and protection. It is worth saying that there is quite a bit of support in these communities for the trial. The council leaders in the areas concerned have expressed their support and one MP in particular is actively campaigning for their area to take part in the trial. Opinion is obviously mixed in both communities, but we want to make sure that it has the maximum level of support required. I have already highlighted the importance of consumer engagement and support in my earlier comments. Regulations made under this clause will ensure that people will have all the information required to make an informed choice about whether they wish to participate.

The second power in this clause, to introduce regulations for consumer protections, will work alongside existing protections such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Gas (Standards of Performance) Regulations 2005. This recognises that it is a first-of-its-kind trial and will allow the Government to introduce additional protections for consumers in the trial area. These might include regulations to ensure that consumers are not financially disadvantaged by taking part in the trial.

I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that these provisions, which—as I said, again—were well received by stakeholders when we consulted on them last year, are crucial to ensure the fair treatment and protection of people in the selected trial area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I am giving the noble Baroness that assurance now, and it will be in the regulations. I am happy to put it in writing, if she wishes. It is not in the Bill, because that is not the place for secondary regulations. The Bill provides the principles and the powers for the Secretary of State. Of course, when we make the regulations, there will be further potential for that to be discussed both in this House and in the House of Commons, and I am sure that it will be.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The Minister mentioned having meetings. Has he actually met scientists, who know more about this than do people involved in financing the scheme?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I have met a lot of people to discuss these schemes.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Scientists?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has her very passionate views, but there are lots of alternative views out there as well. We are saying that it needs to be properly looked at and studied on the basis of evidence—I know that the Greens are sometimes not big on evidence, but we believe that policy should be properly evidenced and studied. That is why we think that it is important that we should do these trials.