Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, who speaks with great knowledge and great passion. I refer to my interests on the register, in particular that I am president of National Energy Action.

I take this opportunity to welcome what is a significant Bill, about which our expectations are extremely high. We are looking to achieve security of supply with stable prices against the backdrop of the implications arising from the war in Ukraine. Clearly, the impact on households, families and businesses has been considerable, so I particularly welcome the package of measures to which my noble friend referred in introducing the Bill this afternoon.

I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend to what extent the Bill will encompass not necessarily new sources of energy but sources of energy that I believe we have not developed to the extent that we should. I am thinking in particular of energy from waste. The reason why I am firmly committed to energy from waste is that it solves two problems in one go. It not only takes waste that would otherwise go to landfill—in many instances, these sites are now full—or that cannot be reused or recycled, but it creates a new source of energy at the same time. One successful example is in North Yorkshire, in the heart of my old constituency of the Vale of York, at Flaxby. In that case, the energy that was created was fed into the national grid, which I think is a mistake. I believe that it should be fed to the local community, to enable it to feel the benefits from this locally sourced energy.

I believe that, as others have suggested this afternoon, we should learn from other countries. I am particularly pleased that just this week the EU has signed a memorandum of understanding with Azerbaijan, securing a more stable gas supply than from other unreliable and less dependable sources—let us face it, that means Russia. Gas imports from Azerbaijan will be doubled to 20 billion cubic metres by 2027. That has to be extremely welcome.

Others have referred to Denmark—and, being half Danish, it would be remiss of me not to refer to Denmark too. Denmark was completely caught out in 1973, in the original oil crisis. It did not have natural sources of oil or gas to the extent that Norway and other states did, but it turned that around in a short period and now relies almost totally on renewables, including distance warming and energy from waste. In Denmark, the local community benefits from the reduced cost of heating, energy and hot water in their homes. I believe that that immediately makes the community accept what in this country there can be huge resistance to, such as a chimney being part of a facility, as I found out to my cost.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister a number of questions that arise from a first reading—on this occasion, a Second Reading—of the Bill, if I may. He referred to the part of the Bill that talks about offshore wind. What research has been done on the impact of offshore wind farms on marine mammals and wildlife? In its latter days, the Energy and Environment Sub-Committee took evidence in which we heard various academics state that they estimated the damage to marine mammals and wildlife to be considerable. I suggest that, before we consider having any further offshore wind farms, we consider what research lends itself to the damage that can be done.

I take issue with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said with regard to onshore wind farms. One of the dangers of both offshore and onshore wind farms that we are not necessarily told about when planning permission is first sought—I hope that, on a different occasion, there will be an opportunity to amend this in the levelling-up Bill—is that, once an offshore farm reaches shore and when an onshore farm is onshore, each relies on ghastly overhead wires and pylons to transmit the electricity to the national grid or, in the case of North Yorkshire, to some distant southern part. We must accept that 30% of the electricity is lost in transmission; it is utterly wasted. We have to look carefully at why we still rely on the overhead transmission of electricity. I remind your Lordships of the damage caused by Storm Arwen, when thousands of houses lost their electricity—for six days in some cases—last autumn. To a large extent, that was because we in the north are completely dependent on transmission via overheard wires.

On the role of Ofgem, my noble friend the Minister referred to it being appointed to regulate the heat networks. For what reason does the Bill not give heat network customers equal market protections as would apply to gas and electricity customers? For example, the Bill should include a price cap and rules to regulate customers fairly to ensure that debt is collected at a rate that is affordable to customers. If it is in the Bill and I have missed it, perhaps my noble friend could explain to me where it is.

As I am sure all noble Lords have, I have received a number of helpful briefings for this afternoon. I refer to one of them, from the Association of Convenience Stores. It points to the part of the Bill—Part 10, I think—on fuel retailers without a wetstock management system. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that they will be requested to provide information on their fuel stock levels only in emergency circumstances? I remind him that the association includes more than 7,000 convenience stores that trade from fuel sites, which provide 88,000 jobs across the UK.

I also want to look at how the Bill seeks to empower the raising of new levies on customer bills, in particular the new levy on gas bills to fund hydrogen. Will my noble friend give the House an assurance today that these new costs will not be put on the standing charge? As he will recall from the statutory instrument that we debated in Grand Committee last week, I believe that standing charges have already been increased by too high a level and that any further increase should be seriously considered before being imposed on a standing charge.

I am delighted to see that Ofgem has raised an investigation into potentially unjustified increases in the direct debits of households by six energy companies. I am struggling to think which the other companies are—I thought we were down to about six major energy companies—so I look forward to the outcome of that investigation with great interest. With those few remarks and those few questions, I give the Bill, for the most part, a very warm welcome this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 5 in my name, and thank the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, and my noble friend Lord Frost for their support, and to speak to Amendment 231, also in my name. Before doing so, I should say that since I joined your Lordships’ House, my entry in the register of interests has shown my membership of the advisory board of Stirling Infrastructure Partners, a relatively new corporate advisory boutique. Stirling Infrastructure seeks business with a wide array of major corporations, some engaged in the energy field, and it struck me after speaking at Second Reading that I should perhaps have specifically drawn the House’s attention to my registered interest at that point. I have not received any remuneration during my time on the advisory board, and I have since then terminated the interest.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for bringing forward Amendments 1 to 4 as a matter of general principle, because they are right that a Bill which seeks to articulate and implement our energy strategy, particularly our energy security strategy, should have a preamble that is strategic in character and should provide a setting so that we know where the Bill is heading and what it is trying to achieve. My difficulty with their amendments is that they are rather general in character and not entirely strategic. I hesitate to say this, conscious as I am that the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, may choose to speak, but simply aiming to win the war is not a strategy. A strategy requires something on resources, a plan and a general conception of how you are going to do it. If we are to achieve net zero, there are certain knotty issues that the Government need to be clear about so that we understand exactly what their strategy is at the level of detail appropriate to strategy. I, for one, am rather confused about the whole thing.

The purpose of my Amendment 5, which I have to admit is drafted in a rather convoluted way, for today’s debate is to elicit from my noble friend on the Front Bench some answers to three particular knotty questions. The first is the cost of net zero by 2050. One would have thought that we knew what the cost was going to be, but my understanding is that the only estimate the Government have had available to rely on was produced by the Climate Change Committee, which estimates that it will be in the order of 1% of GDP a year.

I do not have an objection to dedicating government expenditure on the basis of a certain percentage of GDP. If the Government want to say that they will spend 2% or some other percentage of GDP on defence, or they will spend 0.7% or 0.5% on international aid, for example, that is perfectly legitimate. But, of course, the figure of 1% a year from the Climate Change Committee is not of that character. We are pledging to spend not 1% a year but whatever it takes to deliver net zero by 2050, and 1% a year is an estimate. Moreover, it is an estimate that relies to a high degree on certain built-in assumptions, particularly that things are going to get cheaper—that the various inputs will fall in price over time. While that might be true of some, there is no reason to think it is going to be true of all. Part of the purpose of this amendment is therefore to call for the Government to commission an independent assessment of the cost of meeting net zero by 2050.

Then, we come to the question of affordability. Achieving it by a certain date—the date set in statute—doubtless has one cost attached to it. This amendment also calls on the Government to consider as part of that assessment what it would cost to achieve it. Would it be cheaper—more affordable—especially in the current crisis we are facing, if the terminal date were not 2050 but later? I put in two particular dates but if the Government choose others, I would be happy to go with those. The issue is the principle of whether achieving net zero over a longer period would be more affordable for the people of this country.

That is the first thing this amendment is trying to elicit the Government’s views on: do they have a reliable cost for achieving net zero by 2050, and would it be affordable if we took longer over it? As I said at Second Reading, bearing in mind that this country contributes a very small fraction of global emissions, the idea that achieving it by 2065 or 2050 will save the planet is simply self-delusion. We are doing this principally for exemplary purposes, rather than because of its practical effect.

Secondly, I do not wish to cause the slightest difficulty or embarrassment for my noble friend on the Front Bench, but I find the Government’s existing strategy, particularly the energy security strategy, the 10-point plan and so forth, rather weak in terms of strategic content and cost assessment. What are they going to cost? Also, implementation dates are largely lacking. We also need to know the relative contribution that each of the Government’s proposed measures will make to achieving net zero. Some might be very significant and others not, but we do not understand that from the documentation. That is the second purpose of this amendment. It is an important strategic question and I hope my noble friend will be able to say something about it.

The third point concerns the crucial issue, which I raised at Second Reading, of the intermittency of renewable sources. What do you do when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining? An obvious source to use to make up for that at the moment is gas, and that is largely what we do. Will we continue to use gas? That is one option. At Second Reading I quoted Professor Sir Dieter Helm saying that that makes the gas expensive in itself, because switching it on and off all the time is very inefficient and increases costs. However, is that the strategy? When I said that at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, drew my attention to a recent report from a Finnish university that said that intermittency can be dealt with without recourse to gas. Afterwards, she kindly gave me a link to it, and I have studied it. The solution suggested—it is not unique to that university; it is fairly widespread—is that intermittency should be dealt with by way of battery power. When the wind is blowing and you do not need the electricity, you charge up the batteries, and when it stops blowing—it is the same for solar—you take the electricity out. That seems plausible at one level, and maybe it is the solution the Government are coming to; there is stuff about batteries in the Bill. However, it raises questions about the environmental consequences of extracting the minerals needed for the batteries, and about their disposal, siting and so forth. Can the Government tell us what role they see for batteries—if it is to be batteries; maybe it is not—in dealing with intermittency?

The third suggestion I have heard is that pumped water should be used. This involves using surplus electricity to pump water up so that, when you need it, it falls down again. I believe that some installations do that—indeed, one of them is hidden inside a mountain in Snowdonia—and that a couple are to be built in Scotland shortly. My understanding is that they produce very little power. They are an interesting idea. Is it the Government’s intention to roll them out at scale? What is the cost? Where are they to be sited? These are the things on which we should have some indication before we give the Government these powers. I note that there is stuff in the Bill on exactly this.

Finally, I have heard that we should use surplus power to produce hydrogen, but that assumes that there is a distribution network to take the hydrogen where it is needed when the wind is not blowing. So there are serious potential solutions to this problem. All of them have costs, both financial and environmental. Which do the Government prefer?

I have spoken quite long enough so I will come to Amendment 231 in my name, which asks a question that has been on many people’s lips over the past few weeks: how do we price wholesale electricity? At the moment, as I think noble Lords are aware, the price paid to generators is the price of the highest input needed to achieve the demand that exists in the system in a particular half-hour period. In recent weeks and months, that has become gas. Whatever they use to produce electricity—be it wind, solar or whatever—everybody is receiving the same price as for gas.

To be perfectly clear, though, not everybody is receiving the same price because many of those producers will have entered into a contract for the difference—a swap arrangement—with a government-owned company. Effectively, this means that they have a guaranteed price, and it does not matter what the price is in the pool. At the moment, this is something that the European Union is looking aggressively at in terms of whether it should be changed, whether we should have a different system and whether there should be two separate pools, with one for carbon and one for renewables.

These are all things that I would like to hear the Minister say something on. I sympathise with him because today is the last day of the current Administration. Tomorrow, there will be a new Prime Minister. It may be that the Minister does not have the answers to all these questions at his fingertips in the way we would all like to hear at the moment, so an answer in due course as Committee goes on would be extremely welcome.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 6 in this group; I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, for his reference to it. It is intended as a probing amendment. I like to think that it is short and perfectly formed; I am grateful to the clerks for their assistance in drafting it. I remind the Committee that I am the president of National Energy Action. As the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, referred to, there are worries about households that have already fallen into fuel poverty and the strong likelihood that, by October this year or January next year, 1.5 million more households may be at risk.

Some further background to this amendment is my concern that most of the talk in the White Paper and the British energy security strategy from April, most of the talk in the recent leadership election campaign and most of the concentration of the press and media seem to focus on household fuel bills and the price cap relating to them. We must not lose sight of the impact of fuel and energy costs on small, medium and large businesses. Many have recently cited the instance of launderettes, which may not be big employers but serve a particularly useful function and are obviously highly intensive users of energy.

However, there are many others. In what was previously the Vale of York constituency, there is the York brick company, which has kilns to make its clay bricks on the go for probably two-thirds of each day—often over weekends, I imagine, if it is trying to complete an order. If we lose many such small and medium-sized companies, this especially will have a grave impact on the UK economy going forward.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

Well, yes, it hates to spend money full stop, but especially on resilience. Whether it is the loss of our GPS system and how we would counter that or PNT, there is a whole raft of areas where it is really unwilling to move and spend money even though these things are crucial. In this case, it is extremely important that we have the ability to store gas as we move into the future. I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the amount we have to store may vary quite dramatically.

Earlier, the Minister spoke about how we have infrastructure built to bring LNG into this country. We certainly do—I was heavily involved in ensuring that we got the right ships from the North Dome in Qatar to Milford Haven and setting up the infrastructure there. It was meant to provide 15% to 30% of our LNG. That was fine when people were not outbidding us for that LNG. That is the problem now; we cannot guarantee that that LNG will come to us, so we need some form of resilience. I believe that resilience should be our having some gas storage capability.

I have to get a naval thing in. It is interesting that, between the two wars, we forced the Treasury to ensure that our then 850-ship Navy—it is a bit smaller now—had sufficient fuel stored in this country to fight at war rates for six months. Someone in government had calculated it. We have to have a calculation; 25% might be wrong, but there is a requirement for some storage. We need to think very hard and the Government need to come up with a view from their experts on how much that should be. It may dwindle in time, but we certainly need it in the near term as quickly as possible. I very strongly support Amendment 225.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I join the noble Lord in his support for my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 225. I have been minded to table something similar, so I was delighted when my noble friend was able to fill the gap. I believe that the amendment seeks to address not just resilience but security of supply, and I am delighted that it is in the form of a probing amendment and that we leave open the amount of storage that we seek.

My concern, which we touched on in Oral Questions, is the woeful shortage of gas storage at this time. I understand the reasons why Centrica closed its gas storage, which I understand was in Yorkshire, in 2017. But, as my noble friend Lord Callanan said in response to the Question today, the circumstances then were very different from today. I understand that, currently, the facility could possibly store between 10 and 12 days at full capacity. I understand that talks are ongoing in this regard; what status are they at? If they are successful and Centrica, or indeed another operator, was minded to open or reopen these facilities, what is the optimum number of days of storage? I prefer to talk about this in days of storage rather domestic consumption, but I will leave that to those more expert than me. What is the current capacity for gas storage? Back in March, I understood that Germany had something like 120 days’ storage and we had only a possible maximum of 30, which may even have been an overestimate of the capacity.

What percentage of gas is currently being supplied to this country by interconnectors from Norway and perhaps other suppliers? Also, what is the percentage being delivered by tankers? For the reasons of resilience and security of supply, and given that there are European countries that are more dependent on Russian sources of gas than we are, can we be absolutely sure about the threat that the current supplies to this country through interconnectors and tankers might be diverted to other European countries if the situation in Russia were to deteriorate further? I understand that this is a source of some concern. Germany is one of the countries most dependent on Russia for current gas supply. I understand that it reached its target for days of gas storage ahead of schedule. It has also stored underground just over a fifth of the gas used in the whole of last year, 2021.

Finally, the flip side of gas storage and the potential cap on spending, which we might learn of tomorrow, is trying to encourage all of us to use less of the finite resource of electricity and energy. Could my noble friend shed some light on that? Will we hear more tomorrow?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 225 in the names of my noble friend Lord Moylan and others. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, raised some good questions in this area. Gas storage is not only important; it can also be a thing of beauty, as I know from my days watching cricket at the Oval, with its famous gas-holder backdrop. Perhaps it can be revived—I say rather fancifully.

This year’s crisis has shown how vulnerable we are with gas. When I was Energy Minister, I often emphasised the importance of energy security, which was very unfashionable then, as energy was plentiful and prices were low. I used to say that, if I or anyone else in that role became the Minister of Blackouts, it would be terminal in career terms. I would like to understand how much of a risk there is with gas now, and indeed how quickly top-ups could be accessed from the North Sea, if that is another possibility. In any event, I urge my noble friend Lord Callanan to make our gas supply less volatile, increase physical storage if possible and/or encourage allies like the Norwegians to do so as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I will leave that as a comment; there is nothing I can reply to on it. When I have further information, I will update the Committee.

The commitment proposed by my noble friend Lord Moylan to have in storage gas equivalent to 25% of forecast domestic consumption by 2025 is extremely ambitious. It is also horrendously expensive to do and, I submit to the Committee, unnecessary. The Government fully recognise the importance of gas storage, as I said, and officials continue to work on the future role that it can play in the clean energy landscape, particularly as gas production, as a number of noble Lords have said, can start to decline. But, of course, the fact that we get 45% of our production from our own continental shelf is, in effect, a giant gas storage facility and that is why we have traditionally had much less than continental countries which do not have those advantages. There is an integrated market—that is correct—and both sides benefit from it. As I said, the interconnectors over this year have been operating massively in the direction of the rest of continental Europe from the UK.

I think I have answered all the questions that were raised about gas storage facilities.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am sure it is on the departmental website, but do we know how much gas is supplied by interconnectors from Norway, and how much is supplied by tankers from Dubai and other countries in the overall scheme of things?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

When my noble friend says “tankers”, I take it she means LNG tankers. I forget the exact figure, but we get 45% from our own domestic capacity and about 3% to 4% through interconnectors, so I guess the rest will be made up from LNG shipments. We have three LNG gasification terminals in the UK. Those figures are off the top of my head; I will correct them if they are not right.

Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I am sure he expects the reply that he is going to get. As he will be well aware, changes to tax policy are considered as part of the Budget process. As Treasury officials are always very keen to tell me whenever I put forward such proposals, they have lots of proposals from people for exemptions from various taxes but not many proposals for how to make up the revenue that would be lost from them. I am sure that the Chancellor will want to take that fully into consideration in the context of the Government’s wider fiscal position. I fully take on board the points that the noble Lord made. The Government keep all taxes under review and always, the Treasury tells me, welcome representations to help inform future decisions on tax policy.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 222ZB, 222ZC, 222ZD, 222ZE, 222ZF, 242I and 246A in my name. They will deliver on commitments we made in the British Energy Security Strategy to support the simplification of the offshore wind consenting process while continuing to protect our marine environment and meet our international conservation obligations.

The UK is a leader in offshore wind—we have the most installed capacity in Europe, as the Committee will be bored of hearing me say. Our ambition is shared across the devolved Administrations and we recognise the key role of Scottish projects in particular, as well as Welsh projects in the Celtic Sea. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations as the Bill progresses through Parliament and as we develop subsequent secondary legislation to ensure a streamlined and efficient consenting process across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Amendment 222ZA sets out definitions for the subsequent clauses and Amendment 222ZB allows the use of strategic compensation measures to discharge obligations under the habitats regulations, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Scottish and Northern Irish equivalents. If all feasible options to avoid, reduce or mitigate any adverse impact on protected sites have been exhausted, the consenting authority may decide that an offshore wind project is in the public interest. However, it must first satisfy itself that sufficient compensatory measures are taken or secured before granting consent.

Identifying ecologically robust and securable compensatory measures in the marine environment frequently causes delays to project consent. To date, these measures have been delivered on a project-by-project basis. This is likely to become increasingly challenging. This amendment will enable earlier identification and agreement of suitable compensatory measures on a larger scale across multiple projects, which will help to support quicker decision-making on consents. Ministers in the devolved Administrations will retain their current roles in consenting. This amendment will ensure that they are also able to agree and secure strategic compensatory measures to satisfy compensation obligations for projects to which they consent.

Amendment 222ZC will enable the creation, operation and management of one or more marine recovery fund. The funds, once established, will be an optional mechanism for offshore wind developers to discharge a specified consenting condition that will help to compensate for damage to a protected site by paying into the fund. The Secretary of State will be able to delegate functions connected with the marine recovery fund. It is our intention to delegate the functions necessary for devolved Administrations to operate their own funds where appropriate, so that their Ministers may choose to use a marine recovery fund to undertake the delivery of measures related to projects to which they consent.

Amendment 222ZD will help to speed up the consenting process by streamlining assessments, including the habitats regulations assessment process. It will do this by enabling future regulations to address environmental protection of all protected marine sites early enough in the pre-application planning process to inform adequate and ecologically robust mitigation measures. This amendment also allows the Government to consider enabling developers to provide compensatory measures that improve wider marine ecosystems. I must emphasise that this broader approach would be considered only where developers have already avoided and mitigated their environmental impacts, and where like-for-like measures are not possible. Consent decisions will remain subject to advice from Defra’s statutory nature conservation bodies and their equivalents in the devolved Administrations.

Amendment 222ZE requires the Government and the devolved Administrations to consult each other, as well as statutory nature conservation bodies and marine regulatory bodies, on changes to the process prior to making regulations on environmental assessments.

In addition to Amendment 222ZA, Amendment 222ZF sets out some key definitions for the purposes of these new clauses. Amendment 242I ensures that the provision about affirmative procedures in the UK Parliament does not apply to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under Amendment 222ZD, which will instead be subject to affirmative procedure in the Scottish Parliament. Amendment 246A sets out the commencement date of the clauses in this chapter. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to congratulate and thank my noble friend the Minister and the department on bringing forward the amendments to which he just referred. He promised these at Second Reading and they form part of a package, from April 2020, in the British energy security strategy. So far, so good. However, as I mentioned at Second Reading, in the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee some two or three years ago we took evidence to the effect that there should be a moratorium, particularly given the scale of the programme, the numbers involved and the massive area to be covered by offshore wind development; as my noble friend said, that is a very ambitious programme. However, the government amendments are flouting the mitigation hierarchy that I am sure he would wish to sign up to. The amendments seem to be proceeding to the end stage, which is only meant to be a last resort in law: that is, mitigation and compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and the broad support for the government amendments. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on summarising quite well the dilemma that we all face in these matters: we can spend lots of time doing lots of very detailed environmental assessments and take everything into account, but the practical effect is that we continue with the existing power generation system that we know is damaging. I am not pretending that any of these issues is easy, but we think that we have provided a balance.

I start by providing reassurance that these amendments will not change the level of environmental protection, only the responsibility for delivering those actions, to ensure that they are implemented at the earliest opportunity and across a broader area than planned.

I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her Amendments 242C and 242D on the impact of offshore wind farms on wildlife and marine habitats. On her first amendment, I reassure her that the Government already have in place rigorous environmental protection processes which each offshore wind development must undergo. These include a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the relevant statutory nature conservation body and an examination of each application by an examining authority—in this case the Planning Inspectorate—which makes an independent recommendation to the Secretary of State. When developers submit their applications, they are required to provide information to enable the competent authority—in this case the Secretary of State—to undertake various assessments, including an environmental impact assessment and, where relevant, a marine conservation zone assessment and/or a habitats regulation assessment. These evaluate the impacts that the projects will have on the environment throughout their operational life cycle, from construction right through to eventual decommissioning.

Turning to Amendment 242D, I welcome my noble friend’s interest in our marine protected areas network. The current planning and legislative frameworks already ensure that offshore wind developments undergo rigorous scrutiny to identify impacts on marine protected areas, including the environmental assessments that I have just outlined. If at any stage of its life cycle the offshore wind farm would have impacts on protected sites and those impacts cannot be avoided, reduced or mitigated, but at the same time the project is considered to be in the public interest, then the Secretary of State, as the appropriate authority, has a duty to ensure that the necessary compensatory measures are put in place.

Defra is currently leading work with the offshore wind industry and other stakeholders to develop a library of ecologically robust and commercially feasible strategic compensation measures. Those compensation measures within the library will have had their effectiveness and feasibility tested before they are ever placed in that library. We also intend to introduce a set of offshore wind environmental standards for offshore wind farms, including a noise standard. The standards will apply across the industry and will, we hope, reduce the overall environmental impact of the sector.

It should not be automatically assumed that offshore wind developments will necessarily be harmful to marine protected areas. In many cases, such developments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington said, may be compatible with the conservation objectives of the marine protected area in question. In any event, the Secretary of State cannot provide consent for an offshore wind development unless they are satisfied that the sequential legislative tests have been met.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I understand that in Norway oil and gas firms are required to publish the environmental data that they hold. Would my noble friend see fit to ensure that the same happened here? What sort of environmental impact assessment is done before planning is given?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I have just outlined to my noble friend all the different assessments that are carried out before permission is given. The Planning Inspectorate makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State, and all those documents are published when relevant consents or others are given. If that is not the case, I will correct that for my noble friend, but as far as I am aware they are all published.

In respect of the comments that were made about the onshore grid, the amendments here apply only to the offshore elements of the wind farm development, which are the generation station itself and the offshore transmission. The building and the upgrade of the onshore network infrastructure—I am well aware that that is a very controversial subject in certain parts of the country, particularly East Anglia, at the moment—will always be subject to separate planning applications from National Grid, which is undertaking that work.

I reassure my noble friend that the wider offshore wind environmental improvement package has an evidence programme looking at all environmental impacts of offshore wind and how to address them, including a workstream on the impact of noise on marine mammals. The offshore wind environmental standards will use that evidence base to suggest any appropriate mitigation measures that developers can take. With that explanation, I hope my noble friend is reassured that existing legislation provides for robust protection for wildlife and for our marine habitats, and will therefore feel able to not press her amendments.

I turn to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about whether the fund is voluntary. The marine recovery fund will be an optional framework through which developers could discharge a condition of their consent, to compensate for any adverse environmental effects on a protected site or sites that cannot otherwise be avoided or mitigated. Developers will of course retain the ability to deliver compensation outside the MRF. Again, Defra is currently looking at a range of potential operators for the fund. We will set out further details in the regulations when they are tabled, and I am sure we will have further debates on that important subject. I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Would my noble friend explain the status of the mitigation package, with compensation coming last and mitigation, recovery and all the other aspects coming first? What is its status in law?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

Yes, of course, mitigation avoidance will always come first. It is only as a last resort, if it cannot be avoided or mitigated, that compensation will be looked at as an alternative—only at the very last stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

I dispute that point completely. It is not about virtue-signalling; it is about moral leadership. There is a difference. When the UK stood up and passed legislation on climate change, and took those measures to pass net zero, the rest of the world took notice. We can do the same on this issue, and we will need to. It does not have certainty because it depends on who you talk to in the City. At the moment, many people in the City are saying, “Woohoo!” Everybody is piling on to fossil fuels, with record high profits and huge amounts of money to be made in the short term. That short-termism is going to send us as a society collectively off a cliff. We do not want to see that. What happens in that uncertainty is speculation. A huge amount of trading that goes on with these commodities creates a bubble that all of us then pay for. I do not want to see any more of that; I want it to become a regulated industry that is declining according to an agreed strategy. Otherwise, I have no doubt that they will push us off a cliff; arguably, they already have.

I turn to other amendments in this group. I do not want to get into a debate about fracking but, for the record, I remember being on the Front Bench when we debated fracking regulations in our debates on the energy Bill that introduced them. Why did the industry not spot this at the time? Perhaps it was a clever move by the Lib Dems that it did not spot, although I would find that surprising. There is a host of regulations that have been passed on this issue. I am not averse to us looking at these seismic limits again because nobody wants to hold the Bill back on that basis. However, my contention is that the time has passed and it will be too slow to make a significant contribution to our domestic gas supply. We would be far better off electrifying everything and reducing primary energy demand by at least a third in that process.

That brings me on to Amendment 224, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Surprisingly, I quite like this amendment because it would force us to think about how we could reduce our domestic reliance on gas. Within that timeframe, no fracking is coming online, I am afraid, so the only option left is massively reducing our dependence on gas. That means electrification, not just because it is abundant, clean and cheap but because it is much more efficient. It is an energy-efficiency measure to electrify, taking down primary consumption. I feel confident that, if we were to produce a strategy, we would see a huge amount of electrification being brought on. That may well be what we should be doing; in fact, Amendment 242, which we debated previously, would have asked the Government to do just that. Perhaps there is something here to come back to on Report.

I turn to Amendment 227A; it was not debated but I am sure that we will come on to it. I just want to say that I lend my support to that renaming.

On Amendment 227AA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, flaring is absolutely ludicrous in the sense that we should not be allowing this resource to be burned without it being captured and brought to market. However, there is something worse than flaring: venting. I want to hear some reassurance on the banning of flaring—it has been banned at times, specifically for wildlife protection reasons as I remember it—because it can lead to venting. That means allowing methane to be released into the atmosphere, which would be far more damaging and much harder to track. I would not want to see this amendment agreed to unless that issue was addressed.

We have had a debate about coal. If we are looking at this Bill holistically—I offer the Minister this thought for free—there is a way through the apparent contradiction around allowing us to exploit in environmentally sensitive ways the continued use of our own fossil resources where that will avoid us bringing in more polluting sources from America, which I think is the case at the moment. What about a climate recovery fund? We have just created a marine recovery fund for the almost non-existent damage that the offshore wind industry creates. What about a climate recovery fund for the very real damage that the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels causes? Why do we not innovate around that policy? It would be easy to implement it. It could become a condition of all future licensing of fossil fuels in this country. We could work out the price we think should be paid and give the industry an incentive to make CCS work. That is something the Government could look at; I would be happy to meet the Minister to discuss it but I have only just thought of it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak, but I think I am the only person in the Committee who has had first-hand experience of a planning application for fracking, which was in my then constituency. This is a classic example of what a broad church the Conservative Party is, because I support Amendment 223 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.

I think my noble friend the Minister is going to reply that the government position is that we will only proceed to frack—if I am completely up to date—if local communities are agreeable to it. My concern is how you determine whether the local community is agreeable to it. I am minded to be guided by the science, which is very clear. The British Geological Survey says that

“it is well known that hydrocarbon exploration and production can result in man-made or ‘induced’ earthquakes”.

It goes on to say that fracking is one of the usual causes of these manmade earthquakes.

I am more pro-European than pro-American. What works in America—in the wide open spaces of North America, which are very sparsely populated and have a very isolated population in most cases—does not work in counties like North Yorkshire.

One of the reasons I took the title of “Pickering” is because there was an application in Kirby Misperton. It was well funded by Third Energy and underscored by Barclays. I am delighted to say that the reason it failed—and why I think no future application will be made—is that there was nowhere to put the polluted water. That area is prone to water stress, not only because of its proximity to Scarborough, but because that north-eastern corner of North Yorkshire is prone to water stress. Sometimes we have flooding, as there is in York at the moment. That particular corner is very water stressed. The problem was that there was nowhere to put the polluted water. There was also the usual problem, which all MPs are familiar with, of very narrow rural roads and heavy lorries coming in at the construction phase. The locals did not like the congestion. It was also very close to Flamingo Land, which is probably the second most frequently visited attraction after the North Yorkshire Moors Railway. That is also in Pickering.

With those few remarks, I am minded to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rather than my own Government’s position.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for the discussion. I want to start with Amendment 223 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but I do not intend to open another strand of debate on this. Obviously, the Minister will come back to it.

Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, from all my experience in planning, I really struggle with leaving these decisions to the planning system. There has obviously been the intervention of the Planning Inspectorate in the decision on the coal mine in Cumbria. We must have much clearer policies to guide us as we go forward, rather than effectively setting people against each other. One year ago, would we have anticipated that this debate could have such a devastating impact on the Government of the day, with the Prime Minister effectively falling afterwards? The heightened emotion of this debate in the Commons is something to behold. I want to clarify that Labour Party policy is to move to a permanent ban on fracking. I think it is very clear where we stand in that regard.

I will also comment on the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on coal mines and Amendment 232. I honestly do not think that we could sum it up any better than the president of COP 26, Alok Sharma. On hearing of the possibility, he said:

“A decision to open a new coal mine would send completely the wrong message and be an own goal. This proposed new mine will have no impact on reducing energy bills or ensuring our energy security.”


This was quoted in the Observer on 3 December. I do not know whether noble Lords looked at the press coverage around the world following the decision, but the reputational damage that was done to this country in this space through that one action is incalculable—it is, frankly, shocking.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 233 is on the capacity market. In the last couple of weeks, the Government have started a consultation on this—exactly around decarbonisation—and I very much welcome it. As we all know, the capacity market had a bad reputation when it started. I seem to remember that the first round was all about diesel generators, but we have moved well on from that. I would like to understand from the Minister the way that we move forward. Is it likely to include demand-side management as well, and all forms of storage technologies? It quite rightly encourages long-term storage strategies, but does it cover all storage strategies? The capacity market is an important way in which energy security works in this country. I believe that this is exactly the right way forward on looking for more decarbonisation. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 229, which is tabled in my name.

Although I am against fracking, I am very much for energy from waste, and I am very proud of the facility close to the A1 at Allerton which is creating energy from waste material that is difficult to dispose of and used to go landfill. The benefits of energy from waste are twofold: we are creating an energy strand and we are disposing of waste. I think there is still an incinerator in Sheffield. I understand it was created by the Liberal Democrat administration at the time of the severe floods in the 2000s. One of the reasons for it was that there was a large quantity of furniture and other items damaged by the floods that needed to be disposed of very quickly. I hope that my noble friend will be minded to do more on energy from waste. Where it works, it works very effectively. We could learn from the experiences of other European countries, notably Denmark and other Scandinavian countries, Austria and Germany. In Allerton at the moment, the energy created is going into the national grid. I argue it should go to the local community. Allerton is one of the coldest parts of the country, and it would be in its interest to have a cheaper source of fuel.

The criticism that is made of energy from waste is around potential emissions. Looking at the BEIS figures which were brought to my attention thanks to the House of Lords Library, I see that the emissions figure for waste incineration was static between 2016 and 2020, at just 0.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, whereas the waste management total stayed at around 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and landfill was off the stratosphere, with extremely high methane emissions. That is another argument in favour of energy from waste.

I hope my noble friend will look favourably on rolling out more projects on energy from waste, such as those he knows about from exchanges we have had on the Floor of the House.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I have Amendment 242A in this group, which is supported across all parties in the Committee—I am grateful to noble Lords who have signed it. It is similar to Amendment 228, which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. There is a choice of amendments for the Minister, because we have the Labour amendment later on.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I am in some ways indifferent to which of the three amendments the Minister supports or to whether he wants to put forward different drafting himself, but I hope that the number of ways the Committee has brought forward this issue will persuade the Government to move. It is worth saying that there is not just support from different parties and political support, and from the Skidmore report, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, but great support for replacing the existing language of Ofgem’s objectives and duties in the Electricity and Gas Acts with a new text which makes reference to enabling the Secretary of State to meet the targets set out under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act.

As has been said, the future systems operator—the new regulator created by the Bill—does have a specific statutory net-zero objective linked to our climate change targets. However, this is weakened by the fact that there is no equivalent provision in relation to Ofgem, which has only the much more limited duty given to it in the Energy Act 2010. In their consultation on the future systems operator, the Government noted that

“There were several strong calls for Ofgem’s remit to be reformed to focus on enabling net zero in the most economic and efficient way”.


This view is also shared by your Lordships’ Industry and Regulators Committee. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, who signed my amendment, will go into the committee’s rationale for this recommendation.

The case for updated net-zero duties goes far wider than this House or political circles. It has been argued for by environmental organisations such as Green Alliance but also by industry bodies such as Energy UK, the main trade body for energy, representing over 100 energy suppliers and generators. It has said that strengthening Ofgem’s statutory duties to explicitly support the delivery of the legally binding net-zero target would help ensure it balances the needs of both current and future consumers.

As has been said, the Skidmore review has been published in the last few days. It recommends that this change takes place to ensure that Ofgem gives sufficient weight to net zero and to incentivise network companies to plan ahead, emphasising the importance of future-proofing our energy infrastructure. It is essential that Ofgem is given, by government and Parliament, a very clear remit and role as to the importance of net zero and that it recognises the cost to consumers of delayed action. Regulators, given explicit responsibilities by government and Parliament, have a key role to play in demonstrating cross-government commitment to reducing carbon emissions. There is widespread support for this change and I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to it.

I will turn briefly to two other issues. I record my support for the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and hope that she too will get a positive response.

Turning to Amendment 229 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to which I have added my name, the Minister and I have had many exchanges on the topic of onshore wind. I should start by saying that I welcome the movement the Government have made here and that they have opened a consultation on changing the National Planning Policy Framework guidance on onshore wind, to remove the effective moratorium to allow a new development where the proposal has community support and to encompass the repowering of existing sites.

I also welcome the commitment in the Written Ministerial Statement that the Government intend to make changes by the end of April this year. It is important that we move forward with some speed on this. It is now three years since I tabled a Private Member’s Bill to deal with this issue specifically. In that time, wind farms could have been built in the appropriate places, feasibly adding to the grid at this precise moment and reducing our reliance on expensive gas and foreign imports.

The amendment is not overly prescriptive, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has laid out; it simply requires the Secretary of State to set out a plan as to how more onshore wind farms will be deployed. It does not force the installation of turbines anywhere and would complement the existing consultation, which is focused on allowing communities which can show demonstrable support for onshore wind the ability to install it.

It would indicate the need, and the recognition of the need, for an overarching plan. RenewableUK has long called for the Government to set targets for new onshore wind and solar capacity:

“While onshore wind and solar are now eligible for CfDs, there is no clear medium- to long-term ambition.”


I hope the Minister will recognise that setting a target of 300 gigawatts by 2030 would create 27,000 high-quality jobs and add £45 billion to the UK economy. It is time to set a target now and to be ambitious. I hope the Minister will respond positively.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

104: After Clause 244, insert the following new Clause—
“Marine habitats: reducing effects of offshore wind developments(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prohibit offshore wind developments in marine protected areas.(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prevent consent being granted for an offshore wind development if the mitigation hierarchy has not been followed.(3) “Mitigation hierarchy” means a framework for developers to address harms to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by developments, based on the sequential and iterative application of actions to avoid, mitigate, and then compensate for, such harms.(4) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to—(a) an offshore installation used for or in connection with wind energy generation;(b) offshore infrastructure, including cables and pipelines, connected to such an installation;(c) infrastructure connected to such an installation that is being decommissioned, has been decommissioned, or has been abandoned.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would strengthen protection for marine protected areas from damage related to energy infrastructure and ensure the mitigation hierarchy is followed.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Amendment 104. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords with amendments in this group, notably the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, looking at the prohibition of coal mines in Amendment 131. Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, looks at the prevention of flaring and venting, which causes great concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also has an amendment looking at the

“Prohibition … of new oil and gas fields and issuing of exploration licences, and of new coal mines”.


I will restrict my remarks to the mitigation hierarchy. I start by saying that I welcome the government amendments to the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill—Amendments 373A through to 373F—which I understand will add the mitigation hierarchy to that Bill. I thank my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues in DLUHC for listening to the concerns expressed by myself and other noble Lords at earlier stages of proceedings.

However, I will press my noble friend to confirm the extent to which this commitment applies only to new environmental outcome reports. For greater clarity, will this matter relate to all environmental outcome reports or just the new ones that will take effect at that time? Further to that, for my better understanding and to assist the House in considering Amendment 104, to what extent will tests be included within these environmental outcome reports? What will those tests cover? Will my noble friend go as far as to say that the tests will cover the site assessments involved in offshore wind planning?

The purpose of Amendment 104, which I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to today, is to strengthen the protection for marine protected areas from damage related to energy infrastructure, and to ensure that the mitigation hierarchy is followed. I was delighted to serve on the EU Environment Sub-Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for a short period. We took compelling evidence on the serious disruption caused by both the construction and operation phases of wind farms. So I put to my noble friend the Minister that ample academic and other evidence proves that this damage to sea mammals, seabirds and other creatures—indeed, to all marine life—is substantial.

This is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I would be interested to learn to what extent the addition of the mitigation hierarchy, in the amendments that the Government have tabled to the levelling-up Bill, will cover these points—namely, that this will apply to all environmental outcome reports and that this will cover site assessments involved in offshore wind planning. Earlier, I argued that there should potentially be a moratorium—I am sure the Government would not welcome that—on new applications for offshore wind developments, until we understand that the mitigation hierarchy will be followed. With those few remarks, I beg to move Amendment 104.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I did organise a recent meeting with officials to discuss the issue, at the request of the noble Baroness’s Front-Bench colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The noble Baroness had the opportunity to attend if she had wished to.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the discussion that we have had on the various amendments in this group, and that my noble friend the Minister referred to the use of coal on heritage railways. I am delighted to say that I am president of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway and hope that we can continue to enjoy the spectacular scenery and days out that heritage railways offer.

I am disappointed that my noble friend missed an opportunity to explain to the House specifically which areas the amendments to the levelling up Bill will cover. Rather than detain the House further at this stage, I will pursue that through Written Questions, where I will have to get an Answer. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 104 withdrawn.

Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the things that strikes me most about the passage of the Bill through this House is that it is has been the opposition parties saying to the Government, “Get on with it. We actually need this Bill through to give the powers that we need to meet decarbonisation and modernise the energy production system in this country”. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, that the amendments that have been made by this House are absolutely in line with the Government’s decarbonisation objectives. I hope that the Commons, as well as the Government themselves, will consider them as positive rather than negative.

I will not go through the long list of other Peers named by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. What I will do is to say a great deal of thanks to Peers for the Planet for its work in the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, whom I have enjoyed working with very much indeed. From our own offices, I thank Sarah Pughe and Sarah Dobson.

We look forward very much to not having to play ping-pong on this Bill. Maybe that is too much to hope for but I thank the Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for their co-operation during the passage of the Bill. I also thank their teams. I look forward most of all to the Bill being implemented, so that the country as a whole can move ahead in its aims and objectives.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on steering such a major Bill through. I am mindful of the fact that it was originally going to be an energy security Bill. I know that I and a number of noble Lords focused on the environmental aspects, particularly the mitigation hierarchy. I welcome the fact that this is to be enshrined in the levelling-up Bill, and look forward to pursuing it further on that Bill with my noble friend on the Front Bench.

I ask my noble friend to be mindful of the fact that the Scandinavian countries, led by Denmark, have raised a flag about Russian vessels masquerading as fisheries vessels. These are, it is assumed, purposefully undertaking spying operations, particularly to look at the underground cables and the major offshore wind farm operations, notably operated by Denmark. I understand that we are to have a major operation where a lot of this work will co-ordinate around the Dogger Bank, so I urge him to be mindful of the security risk associated with such a major area of the North Sea, where we are extremely vulnerable to such operations by Russian and other forces which may not be so conducive to our energy security as we might wish.