Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Adams

Monday 18th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy).

I rise to welcome the Bill. I particularly welcomed the original version, before noble Members got their hands on it and removed clause 60, which would have delivered on my party’s clear commitment to the electorate before the general election. We promised no new subsidies for onshore wind farms and to give local communities the final say on onshore wind farm applications. A failure to deliver that promise in its entirety would be a failure to balance the interests of onshore wind developers with those of hard-working families in my constituency and right across the country. I also welcome the strengthening of the Oil and Gas Authority’s powers to ensure that we make the most of our reserves.

Almost a year ago, I introduced the Onshore Wind Turbine Subsidies (Abolition) Bill. It had precisely the same objective as the original clause 60 of this Bill. I would like to think that my ten-minute rule Bill was a trailblazer for the Government’s Bill. I introduced my Bill because if we are to subsidise renewable energy sources, it is essential to support technologies that will produce power when we need it, not just when the wind blows. Given that one man’s subsidy is another man’s tax, it is crucial to make sure that when we spend money, we do so wisely.

Onshore wind farms generate below 20% of their stated maximum output for 20 weeks a year, and below 10% for nine weeks a year. That means that wind farms are, in effect, failing to reach maximum output capacity for more than half the year. On average, they exceed 90% of their rated output for only 17 hours a year. There is also a very significant issue about whether those wind farms will be able to reach such heady peaks when they are actually needed. Worse still, Britain’s wind farms are routinely paid large sums not to generate electricity—as much as £1 million each week in 2014. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Lady want to intervene?

[Caroline Lucas]

First, the issue about being paid money when the power is not actually used is not unique to renewable power. [Interruption.] I am not going to engage with someone intervening from a sedentary position. My second point is that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have heard of batteries or interconnectors, and does not seem to recognise that Germany is moving into renewables massively. He is in another century, while the rest of us have moved on.

[Nigel Adams]

I am in a century that backs our constituents and wants an effective energy sector that produces power when we actually need it.

Finance Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Adams

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had done a little bit more homework before making that point, because it is simply not the case. The point about the subsidies to the solar industry is that it has always been deemed that they would come down over time. The objection here is that they are suddenly being forced to reduce overnight at a time when the industry had been told that there was going to be a very different economic situation. Of course the costs of solar are coming down; they have been coming down in a remarkable way, and all credit to the solar industry for achieving that. But they are coming down in spite of the Government—in spite of their chopping and changing, their uncertainty and their lack of vision—and not as a result of something that they have done.

In conclusion, if the Government go ahead with applying this climate change levy to the renewable energy industry, they will strangle an industry that has so much potential for getting climate emissions down, creating jobs and bringing on a stronger and more resilient economy.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to contribute to this debate. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that keeping the lights on is one of the primary duties of any Government. Some of the more senior Members in this Chamber will recall the three-day week in the 1970s—I apologise for glancing over my shoulder to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—when British businesses were forced to conserve their electricity at great commercial cost and television companies could not broadcast beyond 10.30 in the evening. We have come a long way since those bad old days and we cannot and should not allow this nation to find itself in a similar situation ever again.

With that in mind, we also need to recognise that the energy industry in modern Britain cannot be taken for granted. Like any other business, energy companies make difficult decisions every day. They decide what projects to invest in, using reasonable commercial principles. It has not been fashionable in recent years to praise energy companies, but we should not forget the significant number of jobs that rely either directly or indirectly on energy companies in this country. Many Members present will be aware that in my own constituency in North Yorkshire, energy companies have played an important role in the community over many decades, employing thousands of local people and generating millions of pounds in business for local companies.

Recent events in my constituency have prompted me to participate in today’s debate. Sadly, last week the Czech owners of Eggborough power station announced that the station was set to close, shedding 240 jobs in the process. That is not only a great personal loss to my constituents but a great loss to the nation, given that Eggborough provides roughly 4% of the UK’s electricity. I remind the Committee that National Grid recently announced that the capacity margin this winter is only 1.5%, and many analysts predict it could be much lower next winter.

RSPCA (Prosecutions)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Adams

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree, which is why it is so extraordinary that, somehow, upholding the law can be regarded as a political or, worse, a party political act. I do not get that.

It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who secured the debate, has coyly not mentioned the H-word. That is probably because he realises that he has lost that case. We have clear guidance from the Charity Commission, which says that

“the Commission does not consider that the trustees have breached their duty of prudence in the case of this prosecution.”

Having lost that case, the hon. Gentleman is now hitting out wildly with a lot of accusations, not based on evidence, about prosecutions more generally.

Like the vast majority of members of the public, I strongly support the Hunting Act 2004—I am not afraid of using the H-word—and I am committed to strengthening its provisions, as well as to seeing the ban on the use of dogs in chasing and killing wild mammals rigorously upheld. As the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said, as with other legislation designed to protect animals, or anything else, enforcement is critical. That is why bringing prosecutions is so important. The RPSCA is uniquely placed to carry out that task.

Colleagues know that in 2005 a Select Committee concluded that the RSCPA was the only organisation with the requisite expertise to undertake animal welfare prosecutions. The Association of Chief Police Officers has also gone on the record to pay tribute to the importance of this role and its fulfilment by the RPSCA, saying:

“Were the RSPCA, as a charity, to decide next week not to do this work any more none of the rest of us in the public service could pick it up. Animal welfare would not be furthered; it would be significantly disadvantaged.”

Thanks to its excellence and consistent best practice, in 2010, the RSPCA secured the convictions of 2,441 defendants for animal welfare offences and gave out 86,354 welfare improvement notices under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. In 2011, a total of 3,114 convictions were secured, further reinforcing the message that the law is essential to its work as a charity charged with protecting animals from abuse.

This work as a private prosecutor is clearly identified in the RSPCA’s constitution as part of its charitable aims, which include preventing or suppressing cruelty towards animals In the charity’s own words:

“Upholding the law is not a political act but is in direct furtherance of the RPSCA’s charitable purpose.”

That said, it rightly has a clear duty to ensure that any prosecutions undertaken both meet a public interest test and are backed up by strong evidence that animal cruelty is taking place. The Charity Commission says:

“If considering a prosecution, charities must consider whether bringing a prosecution is a reasonable and effective use of the charity's resources, what the prospects of success are, and whether the public interest is served by a prosecution.”

Let me take each of those considerations in turn in relation to the decision to prosecute the Heythrop hunt, as that case in particular seems to have prompted this debate.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree with the district judge who thought that the amount of money was not proportionate? He said that £320,000-odd on the particular case referred to was staggering. Could donors’ money not be put to better use?

[Caroline Lucas]

I shall come on to that in a moment. There are many reasons why that amount of money had to be spent. I do not suppose that any of us would choose to spend money in that way, but, to return to the wonderful comment by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), if people stopped breaking the law the RSPCA would not have to keep spending the money.

Given that the RSPCA has a 98% prosecution success rate, compared with 50% at the CPS, it would seem to be pretty well practised at assessing whether a case looks set to succeed. In the instance of the Heythrop hunt, the charity’s judgment was correct and a conviction secured. It was a landmark case, the first time that a hunt has faced corporate charges for illegal hunting and the first case brought by the RSPCA for breaches of the Hunting Act. That case was based on footage of foxes being chased by dogs, filmed on several occasions in Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire during November 2011 and February and March 2012. Expert analysis verified that the offences were deliberately committed.

All that indicates that the charity thought carefully before bringing a prosecution under the Hunting Act. It considered the evidence and judged accurately that the case was likely to be won. It assessed the impact of the case in acting as a deterrent and in sending out a clear message about upholding the ban on dogs chasing and killing wild mammals, thus preventing animal cruelty. Judging by the interest that the ruling has attracted, the charity made a pretty smart call on using resources effectively.

Green Economy

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Nigel Adams

Thursday 28th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing this important debate.

I am genuinely pleased to observe a fight-back from many Tory Back Benchers who are now trying to make the Government see the huge economic and employment benefits of a green economy, as well as the obvious environmental benefits. The scale of the challenge that they face was amply demonstrated by the speech of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who sounded as though he was still living in the dark ages.

I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman has been for the past few decades, but when I last looked, Germany did not seem to be an economy that was struggling. Germany is doing incredibly well, and it is being built on an economy that is light years ahead of ours in terms of the use of the green economy. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that we ended the stone age not because we ran out of stones, but because we found a cleaner, more efficient way of behaving. In the same way, we will leave the fossil fuel economy behind because we now see cleaner, more efficient ways of behaving.

As for subsidies, there is a world of difference between subsidies that are time-bound until new technologies reach, in this instance, grid parity, and subsidies that have been going on for decades—as they have in the case of nuclear and fossil fuels—and are driving us ever closer to climate catastrophe.

Much of the debate has rightly focused on fiscal measures. Three years ago, the green fiscal commission revealed that a “polluter pays” tax shift would provide a significant boost for UK low-carbon jobs, as well as increasing competitiveness. It suggested that such a measure would reduce emissions by more than 30% by 2020, that it would create about 455,000 jobs, and that it would receive a great deal of public support.

It is important to bear in mind how widespread that support potentially is. Let me quote these words:

“I don’t underestimate how difficult it will be to rebuild public confidence that green taxes are genuine environmental policy… not just stealth taxes… I am… determined to rebuild this trust… As leading green… Professor Paul Ekins has rightly pointed out, this type of green tax switch might be termed a ‘win-win-win’ outcome… The time for action is now. Future generations will not forgive us if we fail.”

Those are all words with which I agree, but if a week in politics is a long time, four years is evidently an eternity. Those words were spoken by the present Chancellor to a Green Alliance conference back in 2008. I agree with all his words from 2008, but unfortunately they have not been matched by any real action since he has been in a position to put them into action.

I hope that today’s debate will enable us to remind the Chancellor of his words of four years ago, and help to convince him that he should throw his weight behind the UK’s aim of becoming a world leader in low-carbon industries. If he does not believe in the environmental reasons for such action, he certainly ought to believe in the economic and employment benefits. I also hope that we shall be able to persuade him to convince the Treasury that its flagship “green bank” ought to be given the power to borrow as soon as possible.

More broadly, I should like the Chancellor to consider measures such as “green quantitative easing”. I was interested to note that even the former Government chief scientist Sir David King has echoed my calls for green conditions to be attached to the billions of pounds that are currently being poured into our banks. I think that the money should be going directly into the economy rather than into private banks, but wherever it is going, the Government should at the very least ensure that green conditionality is involved, so that we can ensure that it goes into low-carbon infrastructure. Crucially, they should also recognise that the low-carbon economy is far more labour-intensive than the fossil fuel economy that it will replace, so it makes good employment sense to invest the funds in green rather than fossil fuel measures.

The one thing businesses are united in calling for is certainty. The CBI says about low-carbon investment:

“Businesses need, above all else, policy certainty, consistency and clarity over the long-term”,

yet that has been conspicuous by its absence under this Government—demonstrating a failure of leadership by them. The sad news about Vestas reversing its previous decision to invest in the wind turbine manufacturing plant at Sheerness is just the latest casualty of the Government’s failure to provide that most basic condition.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that in the last three days Vestas has also decided to close a manufacturing plant in China?

[Caroline Lucas]

It does not make me feel any better to know it is also closing plants in other parts of the world. It has clearly said one of the reasons why it did not go ahead in Sheerness was that it did not have enough orders for turbines on the order book. If that is a problem here in the UK, we should be addressing that, rather than worrying about what is happening in China.

One measure that would provide huge and tangible benefits both in my constituency and the rest of the UK is a massive investment in making the UK housing stock super-energy efficient. As others have said, that would not only be good in terms of getting our emissions down and creating lots of jobs; crucially, it would help tackle fuel poverty as well. This measure should be funded not through more levies on energy bills—as the Government plan, and which is inherently regressive—but from using funds such as the revenue from the carbon price floor and auctions of carbon emissions permits through the EU emissions trading scheme. That would have benefits in job creation, tackling high energy bills and achieving rapid emissions cuts. Some 118 Members have now signed the early-day motion on the Energy Bill Revolution campaign, which calls for precisely this step.

Members support that EDM because they know that, sadly, as it is currently designed, the green deal policy instrument is extraordinarily weak and the energy company obligation part of it—the bit that is supposed to be tackling fuel poverty—looks set to fail miserably both against the Government’s own objectives and in terms of doing what is needed to cut carbon emissions and end fuel poverty. The truth is that the final shape of that fuel poverty package could result in a 50% drop in the funding targeted at low-income and financially deprived households. There will be far less money in the ECO than there is in the measures that are being phased out—the carbon emissions reduction target, the community energy saving programme and Warm Front.