Energy Price Freeze

Debate between Charles Hendry and Albert Owen

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charles Hendry]

I will not, because we are all on a strict time limit.

Some of the projects that Labour says it cares about most will be hardest hit. Low-carbon projects are lumpier and require more investment upfront and so are most difficult to finance. I am talking about nuclear projects, renewables projects and in due course, I hope, carbon capture and storage. If companies looking to invest in those areas think that the terms under which they might invest could be changed retrospectively to their disadvantage, they will move away from the UK. We have to make this country more attractive to investment than elsewhere. If we do not, companies looking at international opportunities—

[Albert Owen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Charles Hendry]

I will not. I know the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for nuclear, and I want that nuclear power station built on Anglesey almost as much as he does. I care very strongly about that.

If we are to get the necessary investment, we must make a compelling case for why companies should come here, rather than go somewhere else.

We have heard reference to the decarbonisation target, but there is nothing in the motion about how that can be met. The measures in the motion would make it harder to get the investment we need to reach that target. Labour is going back to what it has done before, setting grandstanding, ambitious targets without putting in place the road map necessary to meet them. When we came into government, we had to put in place the renewables road map and the fuel poverty road map to address some of those challenges.

The motion is not only counter-productive, but shows breathtaking ignorance of the factors that have driven up prices. We know that prices in this country over recent years have been driven up more by the wholesale price of gas, which is beyond—I believe—even the control of the right hon. Lady and Governments of any colour. The International Energy Agency says that we are moving into a golden age of gas, but it warns us not to assume that it will be cheap, as countries such as Japan and Germany move from nuclear to gas and growth in China and India means a greater demand for gas there as well. Those will remain the issues really determining prices.

Labour’s policy is based on a deliberate falsehood about the causes of energy price increases and would be counter-productive, even if companies did not increase their prices to take account of it. It might play well with focus groups and work as a short-term political initiative, but it will do massive long-term damage to our ability to attract investment into the country, and in the process will do massive long-term damage to consumers, who will end up picking up the tab. That is especially unfortunate, because there are areas in the motion—for example, on transparency—where we could build on Ofgem’s work and deliver the common ground that many of us care passionately about.

So what do we do? First, we need to have an honest debate about the factors driving up prices and to link that with an understanding of the long-term investment we need in this country and how we are going to secure it. As the Secretary of State said, we need once more to take politics out of energy policy, just as John Hutton and Malcolm Wicks did and as we tried to do in the early years of this Government. That is an important objective in its own right. We also need action now on the changes that Ofgem is proposing. These decisions should be taken by the regulator, not by politicians. One of the changes that we have made is to say that the Government should set the policy framework and that a robust regulator should then deal with how the market operates, rather than having politicians constantly wanting to be regulators as well as policy makers. We also need to focus on ease of switching, and we need to do more to ensure that people are on the best available tariff.

Finally, I want to talk about what we in the Government can do to reduce the impact on bills. We could take some of the extra charges off the bills. In this regard, I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the Scottish nationalists. There are two elements of our energy bills that are highly regressive. The charges are borne by consumers including those on the lowest incomes, but the benefits often go to those on much higher incomes. They relate to energy efficiency and to feed-in tariffs for microgeneration, and I hope that the Government’s review of those policies will look at what could be done to fund those areas out of general taxation. They are good, important policies that we should support, but the way in which they are paid for at the moment means that people on the lowest incomes are paying a disproportionate amount towards their delivery. The Government have rightly decided to review that matter, and I hope that that will offer some early relief for consumers.

This is an important debate. We need to get away from the simplistic measures proposed in the Opposition’s motion. We also need to take this opportunity to have a debate about this country’s long-term energy needs, and about how we are going to meet security of supply requirements in a low-carbon way and, above all, in a way that will keep energy affordable now and into the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Charles Hendry and Albert Owen

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

T6. The Secretary of State seemed to misunderstand my question on oil refinery capacity earlier. Oil and petroleum trade bodies tell me that there is a shortage of oil refinery capacity in this country, and that crude oil is exported to India and brought back in. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of that, and how is he responding to that serious question?

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

It is a very serious question and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pursuing it further. Some of the crude produced in this country is not suitable for use here because of the diesel demand and therefore it is exported, and the diesel fuel tends to have to be imported, which results in an imbalance. Through the downstream oil infrastructure forum we are looking at the industry’s strategy to put in place a long-term programme to assess how we can support and build up that industry, and the role of international investors is critical to that process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Charles Hendry and Albert Owen

Thursday 20th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charles Hendry]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. After yesterday’s debate, I think the whole House will be entirely aware of my own inability to switch because of the complexity of the regime online. We have required the energy companies to write to 4 million vulnerable customers this winter so that they understand that they could be on a lower tariff and what more might be available to them in terms of energy efficiency and they get what help is currently available.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

We have heard a lot about last Monday’s summit. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government directly asked the big six companies whether they were prepared to freeze gas and electricity prices or indeed reduce them in the future?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. The important point about the summit was that the industry, consumer groups and the Government were working together. Most of the energy companies have already said that they will freeze the prices right through this coming winter and that there will be no further increases. What we have also looked at is what can be done right now. Sometimes the cynicism—not from the hon. Gentleman but from some of his colleagues—about the measures to check and insulate in order to get the best savings is unfortunate because it means that constituents who could be doing more to help themselves and take advantage of what is already on offer might be inclined not to do so.

Energy Prices

Debate between Charles Hendry and Albert Owen

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charles Hendry]

I will give way if there is time later, but I want to respond to all the points that have been made.

At the end of a year when we have seen the worst nuclear incident for decades, the worst oil and gas incident and unrest in the middle east, where so much of our oil and gas comes from, it was inevitable that there would be upward pressure on prices. Looking ahead to next winter, the wholesale gas price is 40% more than it was last year, and gas makes up 40% of our generation, which makes a knock-on consequence inevitable. In the face of those global pressures, we should focus on how we—the Government, Parliament, industry, consumer groups and individual Members—can ensure that we support our constituents through this period.

I do not say this to make a political point, but we should recognise that there is a legacy issue that needs to be picked up as well. We need to secure investment in this decade at twice the rate of the last decade. We have to play catch-up, and the market reform process, which was put off for too long, now needs to be addressed. We have acted to prevent consumers from being affected by price increases that would otherwise have happened. The carbon capture and storage levy was going to be included in people’s bills; we have taken it off, saving them an equivalent of £1 billion over time. The previous Administration’s renewable heat incentive would have added an estimated £179 to annual bills by 2020, but we have removed it to ensure that we cut the impact on consumers, while the tough decision that we took on feed-in tariffs will save consumers £3.5 billion to 2020. The Labour party could not have been stronger in opposing that, but we believed that it was right to be on the side of consumers rather than wealthy investors. In the renewable obligation banding review, which we will publish shortly, we will show how we want to use those resources most efficiently and effectively to introduce the low-carbon economy that we want to see.

There has been criticism of the level of green charges—the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) was one of the people who raised that—but it is sensible to put them in context. Some £20 of a typical gas bill of £600 relates to green or environmental charges, whereas £41 in an electricity bill of £500 relates to environmental charges—well under 10%—with a further £19 relating to energy efficiency programmes in the homes of some of the poorest in our communities, which is work that we should all support. In total, therefore, we are talking not about the figure of £200 that we read in the press—we have challenged the media to say why they have quoted that figure—but about £80 in a bill of £120, which is not the real reason why energy prices are being driven up. We have said clearly that we will look carefully at how those moneys are allocated to ensure that we deliver the best possible growth outcome in this country.

The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) talked about standing charges and rising block tariffs, which the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) also picked up. My concern is that switching the system would not just penalise people in the largest houses, but would hit the people who, because of circumstances beyond their control, are the major energy users. They are people who are older and at home more, and who need more warmth in the winter. They are people who have disabilities and perhaps cannot get out. They might be large families, perhaps on low incomes, or people who are out of work. In making the kinds of change that the right hon. Gentleman advocates, we would have to be very careful that they did not have a perverse consequence, and that the people who, through no fault of their own, have to use more energy—particularly heat—would not be adversely affected in the process. We will look at the ideas that he has put forward, but we need to be aware of the potential consequences.

We could have made progress on this matter earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) called for greater transparency in energy bills. In the 2010 Energy Bill, we tabled new clause 4 on that subject, but it was voted down by the Labour Government. The kind of information that we will now require, proposals for which we are asking Ofgem to take forward, would have been addressed more effectively if that provision had been adopted. We tried even earlier, when we tabled new clause 4 to the 2008 Energy Bill. That dealt with environmental charges and clarity in bills, but it was voted down by the then Government.

We have heard many contributions on energy efficiency. That, too, is an area in which we could have made greater progress. We proposed the green deal in an amendment to the 2010 Energy Bill, but it was blocked by the Labour Government. We could have had 18 months more progress on insulation, on dealing with energy efficiency and on taking a long-term perspective on these issues, rather than trying to deal with them on a small-scale basis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) was absolutely right to highlight the important role that the warm home discount will play, and the help that it will provide. He was also right about the need to speed up the process on smart meters. We pushed for that in the 2010 Energy Bill, and I have been pushing for it since 2006. Only now are we in a position to try to take some of those measures further forward. In all those areas, we are making up for lost time.

[Albert Owen]

Will the Minister give way?

[Charles Hendry]

I will not give way, as I have several other points that I want to make, including some on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about off-grid consumers. He said that he would like us to meet up and talk about the issues, and I would like him and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for St Ives, and others, to talk to me about how we should take this work forward. Important work has been done by the Office of Fair Trading, and we need to look at how to take that further. The issue that was raised about differential pricing and price on delivery has been addressed, and the OFT has said that it will continue to look at examples of market abuse.

I want to see what more we can do to develop the gas grid, because that would be of real benefit to the constituents of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. I also want to see what additional powers would need to be taken, and where. The OFT’s report suggests that the market is working in almost all parts of the country, but we need to be certain, as our constituents face very high bills over the coming months, that we are doing this in the most appropriate way.

The role of shale gas was mentioned, but that issue will not affect energy pricing this winter. It is too early to know whether it will be a game-changer in the United Kingdom, but it could have a significant role to play. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) that it would be unwise to bet the farm on shale gas, unless his farm happened to be in north America and sitting on top of a shale gas deposit. However, we look forward to these technologies and the contributions that they can make as we will take forward a wide-ranging, all-embracing energy policy.

There has been a legacy of neglect. There has been a failure to secure the necessary investment in new energy infrastructure, and to address fuel poverty, which rose from 2.4 million to 3 million households over the course of the last Labour Government. There has been a failure to give consumers the clarity that they want, and to facilitate an effective changing regime, but that is now being put right. There has been an absolute failure to grip the challenges of energy efficiency. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said that, for too long, those issues had not been addressed, and she was right. For too long, they were not addressed, but we have now taken forward many of the measures that the motion calls for—

National Policy Statements (Energy)

Debate between Charles Hendry and Albert Owen

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman, who understands these issues, will be well aware that the national policy statements concern not the costs of different technologies, but the planning consents for them. If companies decide that the costs have risen and are not affordable, and that they will not achieve a return, they will not go ahead with the investment, but that is not the subject of this debate. However, we have conducted a thorough assessment of the lessons that need to be learned after Fukushima to determine whether any adaptation is needed in the policy statements. That is why we have reflected further, and have taken more time to consider them.

The overarching national policy statement, EN-1, sets out the need for each of the different energy infrastructure technologies. It makes it clear that we need a diverse mix to provide affordable, clean energy. It explains the Government’s policy on clean coal with carbon capture and storage and the need for gas and biomass electricity generation plants to be “carbon capture ready”, and sets out the part that renewables and new nuclear power stations will play in meeting our emissions reductions targets.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, the Select Committee was anxious for wave and tidal generation to be included in the policy statements. When does he intend to produce a national policy statement covering those important new technologies?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we attach tremendous importance to the potential of marine technologies. He will also appreciate that the national policy statements relate to major infrastructure projects involving more than 50 MW. There is currently no possibility of any marine technology of that scale. The national policy statements can be adapted in due course and will be reviewed over time, and as technologies of that scale emerge, it will be possible for a policy statement to be established. However, the schemes that we are currently seeing are much smaller, and can therefore be dealt with through the other planning procedures that cover them.

The overarching national policy statement explains the need for transmission networks, which are vital to get electricity into the grid—from locations where there is no existing network infrastructure—and to consumers. It also explains the need for gas and oil infrastructure to ensure that we can take advantage of diverse supply options for gas and oil. Some fear that our policies will lead to a “dash for gas”. We understand their concerns, and we will keep a close watch on the electricity generation that is coming on line. If in the future we decide that our policies are not having the desired effect, we will review them, but the national policy statements are not the place for that review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Charles Hendry and Albert Owen

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Much of the new low-carbon capacity plan will require either enhanced or new transmission lines. Will the Department encourage National Grid to consider installing underground and submarine cables as well as enhancing existing pylons?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman has raised a particularly important issue, which I know is of great significance to his constituency because of the possible building of a nuclear plant there. I am pleased about the work being done by the Institution of Engineering and Technology, which is trying to establish in detail what the costs of undergrounding will be. Additional work is being done by National Grid to ensure that we fully understand the relative costs of the various approaches, which will be one of the most contentious issues.

Fuel Poverty

Debate between Charles Hendry and Albert Owen

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this debate and thank him for the interest that he has shown in this incredibly important issue. It is vital for his constituents, for Wales in general and for the country as a whole. I also congratulate him on the comprehensive way in which he outlined his thinking and his assessment of the challenges that we face. I reassure him from the outset that we share the same objectives. We both recognise where things have not been working, and we are both determined to do better. I look forward to working with him, as we try to make progress on the issues over the coming years.

I have also been encouraged by the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), and the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), as well as the extremely constructive contributions of many other hon. Members who have intervened in the debate, during which the full range of issues that affect fuel poverty have been considered. That breadth has made it extremely constructive.

Reference has been made to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, and I would like to put on record my respect and admiration for that group’s work, particularly the incredibly assiduous work of its chairman, Derek Lickorish, in drawing attention to the issues and how we should seek to address them.

The figures for fuel poverty, which have been set out by the hon. Member for Islwyn, make it clear that the situation in Wales is worse than in much of the UK as a whole. From 2005 to 2008, the number of households in fuel poverty rose from 2.5 million to 4.5 million, and it is estimated by many organisations that today’s figure is probably 5 million, so it has doubled over the past five years. In Wales, 26% of households—332,000 of them—are estimated to be in fuel poverty. That figure has more than doubled over the past six years. It is, therefore, absolutely clear that more needs to be done to address the problem. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) has said, this is not about rhetoric, but action.

The hon. Member for Ynys Môn talked about the importance of targets. They are important, but every bit as important as a target is a road map—a strategy for how one intends to meet the target. What we have lacked lately is a strategy on how to meet ambitious targets. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said that we need action, not rhetoric, and that is exactly what we are determined to put in place. However, given what we inherited on the issue, we cannot continue to pretend that the previous policy was working. We need a different approach and there needs to be much greater urgency in how we address the issue.

Historically, Warm Front has been one of the main vehicles for trying to achieve that. I have no doubt that Warm Front has done much good work, but it has simply not been up to the scale of the challenge. Between 2008-11, Warm Front spent more than £1.1 billion helping 580,000 homes. In 2009-10 alone, it assisted 210,000 households by introducing 112,000 heating measures and 82,000 insulation measures. That will help to improve the standard assessment procedure rating of those properties from 33 to 66 points on average, which is the equivalent of an energy efficiency rating increase from band F to band D. The scheme has, therefore, been doing a good job on energy efficiency, which has led to average savings of £650 and more in the running costs of those households.

Those are real benefits, but, as other hon. Members have said, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, they have been dwarfed by the scale of the problem. The Association for the Conservation of Energy estimates that a quarter of the homes supported by Warm Front are in fuel poverty. Therefore, even at the peak of its work, when Warm Front was helping 200,000 households a year, only 50,000 of those were in fuel poverty. Some 5 million homes are estimated to be in fuel poverty, so it would take 100 years, using Warm Front, to deal with the problem. That is simply not adequate.

The vast demand for the Warm Front service has highlighted the problems, which is why we had to announce in December that the budget for this year had been allocated and was fully subscribed and that we could take no new applications in this financial year. We will still help 130,000 households in this financial year, and we expect the 55,000 jobs that are still in the queue to be completed by March. The measure is, undoubtedly, temporary and the scheme will open for new applications from next year. However, Warm Front has clearly not been able to deal with the scale of the problem, and we need a better approach.

Warm Front will continue for the next two years with a budget of £110 million in the first year and £100 million thereafter, as we get new measures that we think are more fit for purpose up to speed. We are consulting on the eligibility criteria, so that we can ensure that, for its remaining period, Warm Front is more targeted on the most vulnerable people, who are likely to be those on income-related benefits. Warm Front will be more targeted on the least energy efficient homes in particular, so that it can be more effective. Alongside that, we are committed to maintaining winter fuel payments, which were planned by the previous Administration, at a higher rate of support this winter.

There were some questions about how the cold weather payment would work, and I am keen to receive more information from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about his concerns. It strikes me as a particularly well-targeted benefit. It is automatic and based on a postcode approach. When the temperatures in a postcode trigger a payment for those who qualify because of the benefits that they receive, they should receive it automatically. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to the Department with his concerns, we would be keen to respond to them in more detail to ensure that the scheme is working as effectively as possible.

We are also committed to doing more to work with the energy companies to identify vulnerable customers. The energy rebate scheme has been an extremely effective mechanism. It has matched information from the Department for Work and Pensions about those who are on pension credits with the consumers of each energy company. That has enabled the companies to target those people with an £80 discount on their electricity bills, which has enabled 200,000 households to benefit to the tune of £16.5 million in total, with additional running costs paid by the energy companies themselves. That shows the benefits of the Government and industry working together.

We are determined to build on the success of that scheme through the warm home discount, which will also help to address the issue—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islwyn earlier—of hidden fuel poverty for people who do not necessarily come forward. It will require the energy companies to give a greater discount and to target it on the most vulnerable customers, sharing more information about other people who are in receipt of benefits. We expect it to be £140 a year, which almost doubles the discount on electricity bills. We are also looking at how we can spread the breadth of that for low-income families, those with long-term illnesses and those with disabilities, which are issues that have been raised in this debate. We are in touch with Macmillan to try to make this scheme work for those homes with someone suffering from cancer, for whom we all have tremendous sympathy and wish to help as much as possible. The scheme will be mandatory and worth £1.1 billion over four years. We expect it to help 2 million households a year.

Against that background, we also believe that the time is right for a fuel poverty review, and I am grateful for the recognition and support that it has received from hon. Members who have spoken this morning. It will ensure that the available resources are focused most effectively on tackling the problems underlying fuel poverty. It will be an independent review of the target and the definition of fuel poverty. We believe that that is the right place to start. Given the failure so far to meet the targets that have been set, it is right that the target and the definition should be the starting point. Additionally, if we are to have someone truly independent to chair the review, we are keen that they should also help to frame its terms of reference and its priorities. It will be fundamental in helping us to assess what will be the right measures to deal with the challenges.

We have heard a significant amount—understandably so—from hon. Members on both sides of the House about their concerns about the domestic oil market and the liquefied petroleum gas market. I want to make it absolutely clear that we understand those concerns. As a Member of Parliament, this is the largest issue raised in letters in my constituency postbag. As a Minister, it is the largest element of the letters in my ministerial postbag that express concerns to me in the Department. I have no doubt whatsoever that many hon. Members and members of the public do not believe that the market has been working as effectively as it should.

We recognise that many issues can affect prices—refinery capacity, stock levels, distribution costs, retail margins and exchange rates all have a role to play—and we are liaising with the Office of Fair Trading, which has the responsibility to consider any example of market failure. What has struck me in many of the letters that I have received and in the contribution of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire is the specific—not anecdotal—examples of where things have not worked as we would expect them to. I hope that the Office of Fair Trading will consider those matters very carefully. It is currently consulting on its annual plan and on proposals to prioritise markets impacted by high, rising and volatile commodity prices. The Department of Energy and Climate Change supports such an independent assessment of the off-gas grid supply issues for consumers and competition in the relevant markets.

Many issues need to be addressed in this context. However, we also need to consider how we address these matters more fundamentally. There are plans to extend the gas grid, but it is a slow process and we recognise the challenges that exist. That is also why we have attached so much importance to taking forward the work on the renewable heat incentive. We want to encourage those people who are off-gas grid to look at other renewable ways of heating their homes and providing hot water. The renewable heat incentive, on which details will be announced shortly, will be a crucial way to try to deliver on that.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister is very skilful in his reply. He mentioned the apparent failings of the Office of Fair Trading. Will he consider—I am asking for a consideration—whether DECC will look at the work done by Ofgem on the on-grid and by the OFT on the off-grid? Will he consider the comparisons and think about whether there should be a single body dealing with the matter, because the complexity of making reports to the OFT, which must then do so to the Competition Commission, does not benefit vulnerable people in those areas? I ask him as a DECC Minister to go back to his officials, look at those comparisons and come up with a possible regulator for the off-grid in the future.

[Charles Hendry]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the speeches that I made when I was the Opposition spokesman, he will see that I raised those exact issues. It has been argued that there are many competitive companies in this area. We have heard about some of the challenges to the market in this morning’s contributions. The matter is so important—it is such an enormous part of so many people’s household budgets—that we are determined to ensure that we get the policy right. We will consider how the market is working and the role that the OFT can take, which is primarily independent in its ability to assess these matters. We will also look at the role of Ofgem, as we reform its role as a regulator. It is critical that we learn a great deal from the lessons of this winter.

National Policy Statements

Debate between Charles Hendry and Albert Owen

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Charles Hendry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done to highlight issues such as these. We said in the coalition agreement that prioritising off-grid customers would be an important part of what we are seeking to do. However, the help for them will not come through the measures in the green deal. His constituents will of course be eligible for support for energy efficiency measures through the green deal, but the renewable heat incentive will give them support for other mechanisms such as air source heat pumps, ground source heat pumps and solar thermal installations. There will be a different funding mechanism for that, and we have confirmed that £860 million will be made available for the renewable heat incentive. We will set out the precise details of that in the next few weeks, and it will target precisely the people that he is most concerned about in that respect.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The Minister has been very effective in campaigning for the extension of the gas network throughout the United Kingdom, but what he has just said will be of little comfort to people in many areas who simply want a choice. At present, they have oil or liquefied petroleum gas, but they want mains gas, which is often located only a few hundred yards away from their village or hamlet. Do the Government understand their frustration? Given that the market is failing them, would it be possible for incentives to be given in this regard, and for the regulator to ensure that those gas connections can take place?

[Charles Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Certainly, encouraging people to install renewable heat sources, particularly in off-grid properties, is part of the solution. He is absolutely right to say, however, that for many people, the convenience of being on the grid will be their primary concern. It must be extremely frustrating to live in a house close to the grid that is unable to benefit from it. Ofgem is working to ensure that the grid is extended, but that is obviously a gradual process. We are considering different ways of dealing with the problem. Grid development is mentioned in the planning policy papers, but we are introducing other measures such as the renewable heat incentive, to help people who currently have no alternative to heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas. I hope that it can be said that we are dealing with the issue comprehensively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charles Hendry]

The hole in the argument is that the hon. Gentleman makes that case on behalf of the Opposition when the shadow Business Secretary, shadow Chancellor and shadow Education Secretary voted against the nuclear programme. As long as the shadow Cabinet has anti-nuclear sentiments at its highest level, any suggestion that the Opposition want a nuclear renaissance is fundamentally questionable.

[Albert Owen]

rose—

[Charles Hendry]

I am keen to move on to other issues, but as the hon. Gentleman has such a strong constituency interest in new nuclear I shall give way.

[Albert Owen]

The hon. Gentleman and I were both very solid on nuclear power in the last Parliament when the then Leader of the Opposition thought that it should be a last resort. I am pleased that the new Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made their journey and are in the same position as the Minister and I. The point about the supply chain is important. I know—the shadow spokesman is right—that if this work does not go ahead in Sheffield, Korea is the next port of call. That is not in the British interest. Will the Minister consider that as we go through these new policies and talk about infrastructure, so that we can keep British jobs and British business in the supply chain to help the nuclear industry?

[Charles Hendry]

I have said several times that our decision is no reflection on the quality of the workmanship at Sheffield Forgemasters. The Government came in, identified that £1 in every £4 of Government spending was borrowed, believed that that position was unsustainable and had to make difficult, tough choices about the right way forward.

New Nuclear Power Stations

Debate between Charles Hendry and Albert Owen

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)]

It is a great pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for securing the debate and leading it with his normal approach of combining passion, vigour, commitment and enthusiasm with addressing the issues directly. He is absolutely right that this is a long-term decision, and we must see it in that context. Our decisions on nuclear will be some of the most important taken on energy policy by this Government. We therefore attach great importance to how those decisions are made and realise that they must pass the test of time.

My hon. Friend is also right to remind us that we are discussing national issues. A development such as Hinkley is of national significance, and it will play an important role in our future electricity generation, if it goes ahead. I totally accept the background to his argument. He raised several issues during his speech that do not relate directly to the work of my Department. I am pleased that he is meeting the Secretary of State this afternoon to discuss Building Schools for the Future and I will be interested to know the outcome. However, I am keen to set out clearly the approach of my Department and the Government to the building of new nuclear.

We set out a clear plan for nuclear in the coalition agreement. We are committed to allowing the construction of new nuclear plants, subject to the normal planning process for major projects and the fact that they should be without public subsidy. We will continue to take forward the national policy statement and the process through Parliament.

New nuclear has a clear role in the energy mix, but we are certainly alive to many people’s concerns about the costs of such activities, so we are absolutely clear that there should be no public subsidy. In that respect, our position is broadly the same as the previous Government’s. It is for private sector energy companies to construct, operate and decommission plants, but it is for the Government to ensure that there is appropriate safety, security and environmental regulation.

We will ensure that the taxpayer is protected now and in the future from such costs. Operators will be required by law from the outset to set aside money to pay for long-term waste management costs. Having considered various possible subsidy issues, we will ensure that the taxpayer is protected. I am encouraged that despite those restrictions, which are some of the toughest in the world, Britain is nevertheless the most exciting place in Europe—perhaps in the world—for the construction of new nuclear plants. Many companies are keen to invest on that basis.

We are also committed to removing barriers to investment. The work of the Office for Nuclear Development has been fundamental to that, as has the nuclear development forum, which considers how to address the practical issues that can present challenges. On that basis, we will drive forward work on planning, regulatory justification, the generic design assessment and waste and decommissioning financing arrangements. The Government are required to undertake regulatory justification. We will take a decision after we have finished considering responses to the recent public consultation on how best to proceed.

On waste and decommissioning financing, we must redouble our efforts to deliver a framework for dealing with the costs that protects the taxpayer and provides both taxpayers and operators with clarity. The consultations on the fixed unit price and waste handling regulations have closed. We are now considering our responses carefully and will respond in due course.

I know that, to the companies proposing plans for reactor designs, the process for the generic design assessment is fundamental. I am encouraged by the nuclear installations inspectorate’s recent comments that it is on course to conclude by June 2011. The Environment Agency is consulting on its preliminary findings.

We have also indicated that there needs to be reform of the nuclear regulator, which must be structured and equipped to meet current and future challenges. In its role as a nuclear regulator, the Health and Safety Executive has responded to those challenges, but I am persuaded that reform is needed to meet the specific challenges of the sector. I want an effective, efficient and independent nuclear regulator to ensure that we have transparency and accountability. Those are some of the big national issues that we have to take into account as we consider how the programme moves forward.

I want to pick up on my hon. Friend’s concerns about the planning system. We have said that we are determined to reform the planning system. The changes made by the previous Government addressed some of the issues about the speed of the process, which they were right to identify, as applications and considerations could sometimes go on for years. They put in place a process to deal with that, but it did not have democratic accountability.

We have decided that national policy statements should continue to be an integral part of the process, but that they will be subject to a substantive vote in Parliament. That will give national policy statements greater democratic legitimacy and reduce the risk of judicial review. Following the consultation on the national policy statements, we were required to take account of the public meetings and the thousands of submissions that were received, which we are currently considering. I assure my hon. Friend that we will set out our further consideration on the NPSs as soon as we can, because we understand how significant the matter is to all those involved in the sector.

My hon. Friend also correctly identified the changes that we intend to make to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. Again, we thought that that organisation lacked democratic legitimacy. The changes will mean that the back-office function and the analytical work carried out on individual applications will be done by a dedicated unit—the major infrastructure planning unit—which will come under the Planning Inspectorate. Instead of the unit’s recommendations going to a competent but, nevertheless, unelected quango, they will go to the Secretary of State.

For those who are concerned about the time scales, I can give a clear assurance that there will be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make a decision within the same time scale under which the IPC would have proceeded, so there will be no delays. Critically, an application under the transitional arrangements will continue under the same jurisdiction in which it started. There is no risk that an application made under the current system will have to be started again from scratch when the changes come into place. We want to make sure that people who are investing know there will be certainty about the time scale in which the process will move forward.

My hon. Friend also talked about business rates. It is proper to debate the wider issue of whether allowing some business rates and new business activities generally to be kept locally is a good way of encouraging local authorities to stimulate business activities in their areas. On energy issues—this picks up on the final part of his speech—we have said that we are keen to build a new relationship between energy installations and the communities that host them. If a community is hosting something such as a wind farm on behalf of the wider interest and not purely for the benefit of that community, it is reasonable to find ways of recognising that.

We want to find new ways of achieving shared ownership so that direct funding returns come into a local community. We also want to consider how the business rates that become payable as a result of that development can be maintained locally for the first few years. We are in discussions with our colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to see how broadly based that approach can be, because if that same approach were to be applied to a nuclear power facility, as my hon. Friend said, many tens of millions of pounds would come into the local community, which would make a significant contribution towards the infrastructure and educational changes that might be necessary. I am holding continuing discussions with my colleagues in the DCLG on that basis, and we understand the need for early clarity.

On the specific application at Hinkley Point, EDF is carrying out consultations in preparation for submitting a planning application. Realistically, we think that nothing will come forward until this winter or next year, by which time we would expect the national policy statements to have gone through the parliamentary approval process. Given the legal constraints on those issues, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that there is a limit to what I can say at this stage. We have found the consultation process extremely helpful in understanding the wider picture and the views of local communities and national organisations.

[Albert Owen]

The Minister is being as helpful as he can. On the planning issues, he indicated earlier that when the recommendation is made to the Secretary of State, the same time frame that existed under the old system, which did not get a chance to develop, will be used. Will he indicate roughly what period that will involve? If the companies and developers are going to submit this autumn, when is the unit likely to make its recommendation to the Secretary of State, and how long will the Secretary of State take?

[Charles Hendry]

A consultation process is ongoing. The expectation of the IPC was three months, and we will be looking at the same sort of period. We will be able to provide further clarity in due course. The other advantage of our approach is that it reduces the risk of judicial review. If someone who is accountable to Parliament—someone who can be called before Select Committees, or who can attend debates in Westminster Hall and elsewhere—has responsibility for a decision, it can clearly be shown that that has received greater democratic scrutiny and it is therefore more robust.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset also rightly mentioned nuclear waste. We must focus clearly on how we manage the new generation of nuclear waste and spent fuel, as well as the legacy issues. When the Secretary of State and I visited Sellafield recently, we were both struck by the magnitude of the challenge facing the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It has put in place significant measures to try to deal with nuclear waste and we now have a system that addresses the magnitude of that challenge. However, we must also ensure that measures are in place to deal with the safe disposal of the new waste that will be generated as a result of a new-build programme.

On the hosting of installations, we have been encouraged to note that three local communities in Cumbria have come forward. We are certainly keen to know whether other communities wish to come forward, because we are absolutely committed to a voluntarist approach. The process will not work if it involves the Government saying to a community, in a national lottery style, “It’s going to be you.” The local community must buy into the process, be keen to participate and understand the benefit that it would get from hosting a facility. It has been instructive to see how that has been done elsewhere. A couple of years ago, I went to Sweden to look at how it is carrying out such a process. Two communities were bidding against each other to host a facility because they could see the benefits. It is clear to us that that will be an important part of the process as we go forward.

We recognise that if we are to stimulate the sort of investment that my hon. Friend talked about, further signals to the market will be necessary. There is a great deal that we can do to remove regulatory burdens and streamline the process. However, at the same time, we recognise that there needs to be greater clarity about the carbon price. I am therefore pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his recent Budget that a consultation on the carbon price will take place this autumn, with a view to setting a floor price. Investors need to know what carbon price they will be paying when these plants come online. It is important to state that such a measure is not a subsidy for nuclear, because we believe that the carbon floor price will drive investment in all low-carbon technologies—nuclear, coal with carbon capture, and renewable technologies. That is one of the most important decisions we will make during this Parliament for the sector.

Finally, I shall mention some of the education issues. It is clear that the people who currently work in the nuclear industry are part of an ageing work force—some 80% of today’s industry work force will retire by 2024. Those people have fantastic skill sets and an enormous amount to contribute to the industry, but we must do more to bring a new generation of people into the sector. I am pleased that there have been collaborative projects—for example involving the nuclear advanced manufacturing research centre, to which the Government have committed more than £33 million. That will help to ensure that we take forward opportunities and bring business into the UK supply chain, which we consider to be an important part of the issue. My hon. Friend mentioned the facilities at Bridgwater college. I am glad that it will receive more than £4 million to launch the south-west energy skills centre, which is a specialist nuclear skills training centre. I am also encouraged that EDF already trains about 2,500 people a year nearby at Barnwood, which shows some of the commitment that it is bringing to the sector.

In conclusion, this could be one of the most important energy and industrial sectors for Britain. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a national issue that needs to be treated as a national challenge and opportunity. I hope that what I have said reassures him of the seriousness with which we are addressing the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Charles Hendry and Albert Owen

Thursday 1st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Charles Hendry]

I am very much aware of that proposal because my hon. Friend has been so assiduous in promoting the concerns of his constituents. We are very keen to ensure that such developments have local support. We want to see more local community partnerships in this area and more financial benefit going to those communities. Of course, planning decisions should take account of environmental concerns as well.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has mentioned the coalition Government’s new streamlined planning policy. Does that include, in relation to wind power and large wind farms, a Welsh dimension? Will the Welsh Assembly Government be consulted on it and will there be Welsh representation on the new planning unit?

[Charles Hendry]

We have had discussions with members of the Welsh Assembly Government and we are keen to find a way of continuing to make key infrastructure decisions within the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but of course we understand the desire of local communities in Wales to have their voices fully heard.