Jonathan Edwards
Main Page: Jonathan Edwards (Independent - Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)
Chris Heaton-Harris
Those are two very valid points. I have seen flicker for myself. Although I stood in the flicker of a wind turbine for only 10 minutes on one occasion, I understand how intrusive it could be if it affected someone’s house or their place of work. I know from my constituency—I am sure that other hon. and right hon. Members will have had similar experiences—that when those turbines are moved through small villages, sometimes they cannot get through without some sort of remedy having to be made to the road. A number of people visited me this morning from the lovely village of Guilsborough, where, if a turbine shaft were to be driven through the village to a nearby wind farm, there would be a gap of inches between the turbine shaft and the houses on each side of the road. Those things do cause concern. I would say that flicker causes more concern than traffic movement, and amplitude modulation probably more than flicker.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the fact that in Wales, policy is concentrated in strategic zones, and all developments are put into five or six big development zones? The fact that there is a series of different projects makes enforcement difficult when noise levels go above what they should be. Although technically we are talking about one giant development, as far as the planning regime is concerned it is a series of smaller developments within the strategic zone, so the issue about noise enforcement becomes acute.
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is a very wise point, and one that I will come to later, if I may. I will just tease the hon. Gentleman briefly. It is possible to monitor such noise and predict where it might occur. Therefore, when amplitude modulation is causing distress to nearby residents and that is being monitored, it is possible with the agreement of the wind farm developer to stop the turbines turning during that period of time—this has happened in a couple of places in England—so the noise stops and everybody goes about their business happily.
I know that some of the proposals in Wales have been massive, and I have been working hard with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on some amazingly large proposals for his constituency. I know that the matter is of real concern to many people across Wales.
As I have said, the current guidelines do not require amplitude modulation to be monitored at all. In fact, the noise falls outside ETSU monitoring. I know of only one wind farm planning decision in the United Kingdom in which a planning condition for amplitude modulation noise was imposed, which was the Den Brook development in Devon.
My concern is that everybody has known about this issue for a very long time—for decades—but no one has spoken up about it. We gave the green light to this industry, and I have previously spoken in this place about how some of the developers have not been particularly kind to villages and constituents of mine when proposing developments, because they knew everything was stacked on their side. I have previously made the argument to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that developers could have done a lot better in the past, and we might not have the current problem if it had been recognised that local people’s views should carry a great deal of weight.
For decades, there was no such recognition. The wind industry has consistently denied the existence of excessive amplitude modulation, even though I can point hon. Members to experts who have demonstrated that amplitude modulation is a frequent occurrence that potentially affects all large industrial wind turbines. It often does so for long periods, and more frequently than not during the night. I point to my survey of environmental health officers and planning authorities, many of whom said that they knew amplitude modulation or something of that ilk was happening, but had no powers to deal with it and did not have the correct guidance from Government to point them in the right direction.
People complain about amplitude modulation to Members of Parliament and local planning authorities, but I think there is a hidden silent majority. People are willing to suffer such noise in silence and do not want to complain because they fear the adverse implications of getting involved, such as having to disclose any complaint they have made to a planning authority or a council when they come to sell their house.
The existing legal remedies have been found wanting. Remedies are available for neighbours of wind farms who are affected by turbine noise under ETSU, but they are simply not fit for purpose, and they are certainly not fit for measuring amplitude modulation. Taking action for statutory nuisance has been actively advocated by the wind industry and supported by planning inspectors, but the evidence suggests that an abatement notice is not an effective control to protect nearby residents from excessive amplitude modulation. Other remedies, such as taking action for private nuisance and similar legal actions, have been considered, but they place too much risk and burden on residents for a problem that is not of their making, with the likelihood of adverse long-term financial implications.
In addition, the recent trend is for secondary operators to form individual shell companies for each wind farm. The impact of that was highlighted in July 2015 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) introduced a Bill to require wind farm developers to obtain public liability insurance for any nuisance they caused to nearby residents. That was particularly aimed at noise nuisance. One of his constituents had had a problem with noise from a local wind farm, but had found it impossible to sue because the operator was purely a shell company and had very limited assets.
Of more concern is the effect of amplitude modulation on health. I have read studies demonstrating adequately that wind turbine noise adversely affects sleep and health. It is abundantly clear from evidence examined by a world-renowned expert, Chris Hanning—I asked him to help me, and he worked with the group that I got together—that wind turbine noise adversely affects sleep and health at set-back distances and noise levels that are permitted by the current ETSU noise regulation. There is no reliable evidence—not one single study—that wind turbines are safe at those distances and noise levels. By contrast, an increasing volume of studies and evidence have outlined the contrary. There is a particular concern about the health of children exposed to excessive wind turbine noise. The inadequate consideration of amplitude modulation is a major factor in why I believe that ETSU fails to protect the majority of people who live near wind turbines and why I believe that it needs to be reformed. The wind industry’s denial is reminiscent of other denials of health issues in the past. It could be a very big public health issue.
I contend that the current noise standard, ETSU-97, is not fit for purpose and I have plenty of evidence to suggest that its methodology is completely incorrect. I do not have to go into that evidence because I am fortunately supported by the findings of a recent Northern Ireland Assembly report in January 2015 on wind energy. The report recommends a review of the use
“of the ETSU-97 guidelines on an urgent basis, with a view to adopting more modern and robust guidance for measurement of wind turbine noise, with particular reference to current guidelines from the World Health Organisation.”
I therefore contend that we need an effective planning condition for amplitude modulation. The wind industry’s claims that an amplitude modulation planning condition is not necessary, and that the legal remedy of statutory nuisance provides adequate protection, are thoroughly discredited by the evidence I have seen and that I have published on my website. Without a planning condition, there is no effective remedy for wind farm neighbours who suffer from excessive noise. The relevance of amplitude modulation in causing noise complaints has driven the wind industry to ensure that a planning condition of that type is not applied as standard planning practice. That is why I raise it today when we are having a conversation about renewables obligation certificates and the planning guidance that goes alongside them as part of our manifesto commitment.
Dr Whitehead
Again, the right hon. Gentleman misses the point I am making. This is not about the Opposition attempting to delay the imposition of the law. It is about the rush to close the renewables obligation on the part of the Government, not the Opposition, and the subsequent, rather dilatory way in which the Energy Bill was placed before this House—and, indeed, the way in which it has been scheduled in this House and the distinct possibility that further stages of the Bill may be scheduled. The net result of that dilatoriness in the legislative process is that the Government, not the Opposition, may put us in a position where retrospective legislation is apparently the case and the possibility of legal action is also apparently the case. It is important that we remember that today. One reason I am suggesting that the closure of the RO ought to be much later, albeit still early, is that it would avoid that potential legal action.
In reality, we know that the proposed closure of the renewables obligation a year early is not about implementing a manifesto pledge. The RO is not a new subsidy—that is what was in the Conservative manifesto. Indeed, we had discussions about that in Committee. The proposals before us are not only about putting an end to something that has been in place for a considerable period, that has worked well and that was about to change, in good time, to a new system that allows for degression in underwriting and a path towards effectively dissolving subsidies for a technology that has achieved close to market parity; they are about putting an end to something that industry investors were clear and confident about. Investors were confident not just because the renewables obligation had worked for a while; there was also a clear process whereby it would come to an end and a clear line of progression to contracts for difference—the new system, which we discussed at some length during the passage of the Energy Act 2013—and an orderly roll-out of renewable energy as something progressively more effective and cheaper.
Jonathan Edwards
In formulating his amendments, has the hon. Gentleman had time to consider the recent excellent report by the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, which said that the Government’s current policy would lead to bills increasing due to uncertainty?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to that report and, indeed, to the issue that has arisen not just from these changes, but from a series of other abrupt lurches in policy from the Government in the field of renewable energy. The net result has been a dramatic drop in investor confidence and a dramatic fall from our advanced position as a country that was regarded as a safe, good place to invest in renewable energy. This policy lurch has led to a feeling among many investors that they are now living in a world of confusion, in which it may be recommended in the boardroom that—perhaps in light of the competitiveness of many other countries—they should invest elsewhere when it comes to renewables. It has thrown a great many programmes into confusion and affected a great deal of potential investment in this country, not just in onshore wind but in many other renewables. Policy lurches of this sort tend to creep and spread across confidence in other areas of investment. If things had been left well alone, it would have been possible to envisage the continued progression of a secure investment circumstance, along with a clear understanding of what investors were doing and of how investments would change over a period.
This is not about putting an end to new subsidies; it is about the removal of a well-understood, long-lived subsidy before the point at which investors, the market and everyone else had expected it to be replaced by another system. As late as the spring of last year—after, I imagine, the Conservative manifesto had been written—the Secretary of State announced that the renewables obligation would close in March 2017, and the changeover would then be undertaken. I think that that came as a particular surprise to investors and the market because the Government had previously seemed to be so confident that the procedure would be as it had been originally set out.
It has been claimed that the removal of the renewables obligation at an early date is okay because we are reaching one of our European targets relating to the proportion of renewable energy that should make up our overall energy mix by 2020. The claim is that because the component that is represented by wind, and particularly by onshore wind, is reaching its target, it is okay to throw the market into its current confusion. We must, however, bear it in mind that we are failing substantially on the two other components of our European 15% target, heat and transport. Incidentally, the United Kingdom can be fined for missing that target.
The target can be achieved through overachievement in some areas, even if there is underachievement in others. The 12% renewable heat target, on which we are failing fairly miserably at the moment, and the 10% renewable fuel target, on which we are also failing, could be supported by our continuing to deploy onshore wind in particular. It might be suggested that to cut onshore wind at this time, given the extent of the failure to keep up with the overall energy target, is irresponsible to say the least.
A further claim that we have heard during the Bill’s passage is that all this is being done to help the customers who will have to pay for the underwriting of onshore wind. Of course it is important for us to consider the bills that customers are paying when deciding how best to establish our energy mix for the future.
We will have to establish an energy mix that is the most affordable, the most secure and the least carbonising over the next period, but the claim that this change is being introduced to help customers is in reality paper thin.
If the Government were serious about renewables in general, as they claim, the hole left by onshore wind over the next period as a result of the early closure of the RO—estimates suggest that a loss of investment of £1 billion is on the cards, as the Select Committee has noted—would have to be filled by other renewable sources that are currently more expensive to underwrite than the onshore wind they would replace. The net outcome of this measure could well be that the cost to customers is considerably more than it would have been if the present arrangements had been allowed to continue to their conclusion.
Onshore wind is at the leading edge of market parity. As the Government will be aware, it was on a sustained glide path down to parity, with investor confidence high and costs coming down. I emphasise that the damage to investor confidence as a result of this essentially retroactive Bill will be enormous. If it goes through, it will effectively replace a steady path down to market parity in which competitive deployment could progress—a cliff over which investment will fall.
A further claim that the proposed change is necessary is connected to the levy control framework, the éminence grise in many of our discussions on energy, particularly renewable energy. It is a control framework formed in obscurity by the Government and continuing in background gloom as people attempt fruitlessly to find out about its calculations, its variations and its consequent prescriptions. The levy control framework was devised in 2011 by the Government to get us into a position where about £7.6 billion at 2012 prices of levy payers’ money—money derived not from Government sources but from levies on energy companies, which would pass those costs on to their customers—would provide a framework within which renewables could develop.
However, the levy control framework is based on a static endpoint—2020 in this instance—even though prices will be variable over the period. It is based on the idea of a strike price that renewable energy will receive and that has been agreed, certainly for onshore wind, at an auction process, set against a reference price, which is the median price for energy at a particular time. The strike price is considered in relation to what rewards will be undertaken for that renewable energy. When and if energy prices go down, the difference between the strike price and the reference price widens. Although a renewable energy developer will receive the same amount of money for their energy, the make-up of the amount paid to the developer will be different. The more prices go down, the less the developer will get in relation to the reference price and the more they will get in relation to the difference between the reference price and the strike price, which will come from the levy control framework. Therefore, over a period of time the levy control framework, as designed, increases the reward to those inside the system, even though they do not get a total additional reward. New entrants are squeezed out, because the money goes to rewarding those who are already in the system and less money is provided to new entrants outside the system. Indeed, many commentators consider the present form of the levy control framework to be, in essence, bust as far as new entrants are concerned. The relatively small amount of change that the levy control framework will undergo through the ending of the renewables obligation period a year early is all about how the framework balances itself, which is a pretty thin claim bearing in mind the range of theoretical headroom in the framework and the difficulties it has experienced.
John Redwood
Yes, but, as my hon. Friend will agree, when the wind does not blow, Germany has to use more coal. When there is no wind energy, the replacement must come from fossil fuel. A wind system with fossil fuel back-up does not even work on its own terms, and he is right that the German merit order is somewhat different.
I was going on to point out that from an economic point of view, we in this country have managed to damage every kind of power generation. If we insist on giving priority to dear, interruptible, intermittent sources such as wind, the more reliable, cheaper sources such as gas become intermittent, as they are switched off every time the wind blows and switched back on every time the wind is not blowing, which in itself is difficult and expensive. That undermines the economics of what would otherwise be good-value power. It means that we cannot run the plants flat out. We have higher operating costs because of the complications of switching on and off and managing the furnaces accordingly, with much less revenue coming in because less power is generated and power cannot continuously be sold to the market.
The ham-fisted interventions—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) does not seem to understand the policy that his party put in place and that the European Union supports. The ham-fisted interventions in our energy market mean that we have less reliable energy, because we deliberately subsidise a lot of intermittent and unreliable energy; that we have dearer energy, because, as is commonly accounted, renewables are considerably dearer; and that we have much dearer energy overall, because of the extra cost, which is not included in the way that the cost of renewables is accounted for, which means that non-renewable power becomes a lot dearer per unit as well.
Jonathan Edwards
Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to reflect on the complete U-turn by Energy UK, which now says that the Government need to promote renewables instead of fossil fuels? Indeed, it says that an energy policy based on fossil fuels is a smartphone equivalent of placing all our bets on Nokia as opposed to Apple and Samsung.
John Redwood
No, I have not had the chance to reflect on that, but it does not seem to be a very interesting observation given the fundamental truth that I have just given him, on which the hon. Gentleman has not reflected at all. The truth of our current energy policy—
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
Before dealing with other proposals, I would like to speak to Government amendment 50. As I made clear during our last debate on this issue, I would like to see an equivalent approach taken right across the UK to the early closure of the renewables obligation to onshore wind, to provide consistency to industry and to protect consumer bills. Amendment 50 relates to clause 81—the backstop power regarding Northern Ireland.
In Committee, I introduced a clause with a view to protecting consumers in Great Britain from the costs of any additional support that Northern Ireland may decide to provide to onshore wind. I remind hon. Members that the clause received considerable support at that stage and that it is a backstop power—this is to say, it is intended to be exercised only if Northern Ireland decides not to close the Northern Ireland renewables obligation scheme to new onshore wind on equivalent terms to those in Great Britain.
The new amendment simply clarifies the drafting of the clause to ensure consistency with the provisions relating to the early closure of the renewables obligation in Great Britain by making it clear that the power in clause 81 extends to capacity added to existing onshore wind stations, as well as to new stations. I should highlight that the intent behind the clause has not changed at all.
I thank all hon. Members for their comments on the non-Government provisions. A number of them—specifically amendments 1 to 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell)—were discussed in some detail and at length in Committee. As far as I can see, the amendments have not changed at all since we last discussed them. Following our agreement not to include them then, the hon. Gentleman has tabled them here once again.
To ensure clarity for hon. Members who did not attend the Committee debates and to move forward with this debate, and indeed the Bill, I am happy to set out the Government’s position again. I will first remind hon. Members of the intended effect of clauses 79 and 80. Clause 79 implements the early closure of the renewables obligation to new onshore wind in Great Britain. Clause 80 sets out the grace period conditions under which certain projects may continue to accredit beyond the early closure date.
Let me be clear: the Government remain committed to delivering our manifesto pledge to end new subsidies for onshore wind, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for the clear support they expressed. The Government are, however, also conscious of the need for industry certainty. Therefore, in response to the question from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), I would like to make it clear that, if Royal Assent for the Bill goes beyond 31 March, the Government intend the provisions to come into force from the date of Royal Assent and do not intend to backdate them. I reiterate that there is absolutely no change to our commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind, and our actions have shown that we will be tough on subsidies to keep bills down for families and businesses.
Onshore wind has deployed successfully to date. Based on our analysis, and taking early closure of the renewables obligation into account, we still expect the deployment of onshore wind to fall within our electricity market reform delivery plan projections of 11 to 13 GW by 2020. That is our best estimate of what is needed to meet our 2020 targets and of what is affordable under our low-carbon spending cap.
When we announced early closure on 18 June, we made it clear that it was appropriate to curtail further deployment of onshore wind, balancing the interests of onshore wind developers with those of the wider public. As I explained in our earlier debates, the grace period conditions in clause 80 were developed following extensive stakeholder engagement and have been designed specifically to provide certainty and clarity for industry. In particular, we engaged in detail on the core grace period conditions, referred to as the “approved development condition” in the Bill. This requires projects wishing to accredit under the RO beyond 31 March 2016 to provide evidence that, as of 18 June 2015, they had, first, relevant planning consents; secondly, a grid connection offer and acceptance of that offer, or confirmation that no grid connection is required; and thirdly, access to land rights.
Following further industry engagement and analysis by my Department, the Bill’s provisions have been improved in a number of ways: first, to capture those projects that had a planning application refused on or before 18 June 2015, or where the relevant planning authority failed to determine a planning application where a decision was due by 18 June 2015, and which are then subsequently granted consent on appeal; secondly, to introduce an “investment freezing condition” allowing certain projects that qualify for the grace period an additional nine months in which to accredit where they have been unable to secure debt funding due to legislative uncertainty; and thirdly, to provide that the existing grid and radar grace period will continue to be available so that projects that have suffered delays outside their control in this area will have a further 12 months in which to accredit.
Let me take a moment to reflect on the important point about investor confidence. The Government believe that the early closure and grace period provisions that we have presented within the Bill strike the right balance between protecting investor confidence and ensuring our ability to control costs under the levy control framework.
Jonathan Edwards
The Minister has outlined the criteria for closing the scheme. Does she share my concern that in Wales this has created some difficulty in understanding which schemes will now fall outside the RO and which will fall within it, because in Wales the generation applications and infrastructure applications come separately, whereas in England they come together in the same application?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I think that our grace periods are absolutely clear, and that developers who have sought clarity have been able to get it from the words in our debates and in the Bill.
Investor confidence seems to be the main reason used to support further changes to the grace periods, as proposed in the amendments from the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and in many of the other amendments that have been tabled. The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s inquiry into investor confidence concluded earlier this year. I want to reflect on one point in particular that was raised during the Committee’s very thorough evidence sessions. The evidence given by Peter Dickson from Glenmont Partners suggested that
“investments continue to attract capital in the UK—for example in offshore wind”.
Far from Government policies putting investors off investing in renewables in the UK, in fact it seems that significant investment is still coming forward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for raising with me the important issues around visual, amenity and noise impacts from onshore wind farms and the impact that they can have at local level. I can confirm that our manifesto commitment specifically called for a halt to the spread of onshore wind farms and a change in the law so that local people have the final say on wind farm applications. We are making sure that people’s concerns are addressed. Specifically, the Government are considering measures related to noise and amplitude modulation. We touched on this matter in Committee. As I said then, we are determined to address this and find a solution to the problem. This is possibly taking longer than my hon. Friends would like, but we are taking independent advice and will consider how best to act in the light of that advice, which I expect to receive shortly. At this stage, I cannot comment further, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry will continue to be patient with me in the knowledge that we are looking at this very closely.
On new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig), it is imperative that the early closure applies consistently across Great Britain in order to protect consumers from the risk of over-deployment beyond what has been agreed is affordable under the levy control framework. The new clause would allow Scottish Ministers to provide for further deployment of onshore wind in Scotland under the renewables obligation at a cost to consumers right across Great Britain. In fact, our estimates show that in 2015-16, £520 million, or approximately 60%, of RO support will already go towards funding Scottish onshore wind farms, even though only about 10% of UK bill payers are in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman tabled the new clause in Committee at the beginning of February, and at that time we discussed the question of Scotland being willing to take responsibility for funding its own renewables obligation. During the debate, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill expressly responded to that suggestion:
“The short answer to that is no.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 2 February 2016; c. 133.]
I cannot imagine that his position has changed in the brief period since that debate.
Jonathan Edwards
Further to my previous intervention, is the Minister in a position to inform the House and my constituents whether the Brechfa West project in my constituency will be eligible for the RO? It had generating planning permission but not infrastructure planning permission. Despite my requests to the Department and to Ofgem, nobody can tell me or my constituents whether the Brechfa West project will be able to claim the RO.
Andrea Leadsom
As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, I think our intentions are clear from words spoken in this Chamber and in the Bill Committee. I will certainly look into the case he mentions, but I do not have the information that he is looking for right now.
Amendments 24 to 46 are all intended to delay the early closure of the RO until 1 March 2017, closing it only one month earlier than the original closure date of 31 March 2017. It is therefore my understanding that the hon. Members who have tabled the amendments want the RO to close to onshore wind only a month earlier than planned, while maintaining the grace period provisions set out by the Government. Clearly, such a change would not meet the objectives of the early closure policy, which I have consistently set out in debates on the Bill and have explained again today. To change the early closure date to 1 March 2017 would go against the intentions of our manifesto commitment, and would be likely to make no reduction to overall deployment or costs under the levy control framework.
I remind hon. Members that those limits have been set for a crucial reason. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in a speech in November last year:
“We can only expect bill payers to support low carbon power, as long as costs are controlled. I inherited a department where policy costs on bills had spiralled. Subsidy should be temporary, not part of a permanent business model.”
I remind hon. Members again that the Government have an electoral mandate to deliver on our manifesto commitment to halt the spread of onshore wind, and that is exactly what the clause is intended to do. However, the Government are mindful of the need to protect investor confidence and to take into account the interests of the onshore wind industry. That is why we have set out grace period provisions, which appear in clause 80.
I believe that I have consistently explained that the Government have an obligation to protect consumers from the risk of over-deployment of new onshore wind and rising energy bills. The date changes proposed in the amendments would simply put us back to where we started, providing no protection for consumers and putting us at risk of deploying up to 7.1 GW of additional onshore wind, which is well beyond what the Government have decided is affordable under the levy control framework.
To conclude, I stress the importance of swiftly moving forward with the proposals. I again quote the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, who said in Committee on this very issue:
“We agree that swift passage of the Bill with clear and consistent RO grace period provisions is needed in order to provide certainty to investors in the onshore wind sector as quickly as possible.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 2 February 2016; c. 127.]
Clear and consistent provisions are exactly what the Government are attempting to provide, and we need to be able to move forward with the debate to do so.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I wish to speak mainly to new clause 12, which stands in my name and deals with the need for a strategy for a just transition from fossil fuels and towards 100% renewable energy. I also wish to highlight a few of the other proposals in this group that I support.
First, I wish to speak in favour of new clause 11, tabled by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), and to thank him for the constructive work he has been doing on promoting zero emissions. The new clause would put one crucial part of the Paris climate agreement into UK law. The somewhat convoluted text of that historic agreement makes it clear that globally we must reach net zero emissions in the second half of this century. Many argued that this long-term goal should have been stronger, including by making explicit reference to phasing out fossil fuels. None the less, it seems immensely reasonable for the UK Government to set a date for zero emissions, on advice from the Committee on Climate Change. It seems like a win-win, both economically and environmentally, to have that date set, so that we can have a clear direction of travel and clarity for investors. I am reassured to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has had constructive conversations with the Government and I look forward to hearing their response.
I also support new clause 10, which deals with carbon accounting and the ETS, as it would mean the UK taking responsibility for making our own carbon emission cuts and is another immensely reasonable proposal. The need for such a change is underlined by the recent incredible claims that a new dash for gas would be compatible with our climate obligations. The UK’s renewable energy potential is vast. The costs of solar and wind power are falling, and the need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves in the ground gets more mainstream by the week. There is no longer a case for using the EU ETS as an excuse for not meeting our own carbon budgets by cutting our own emissions here in the UK. The global carbon budget is rapidly shrinking and there is simply no room for free riders. The UK should be leading the race to a zero-carbon economy, not weaselling out of making a fair contribution, which is why new clause 10 is so important.
My new clause 12 deals with a just transition, which is another aspect of the Paris climate agreement that should become a central tenet of the UK’s climate and energy policy. A just transition is about the essential steps a country needs to take to transform into a zero-carbon economy in a way that creates new jobs and supports and engages workers and communities currently reliant on high-carbon sectors.
Jonathan Edwards
Does the hon. Lady think the German strategy, Energiewende, offers a way forward for the UK? It is about that transition from fossil fuels to renewables, with specific targets.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree with what he says, as that strategy does point to a helpful direction of travel.
As we would expect, trade unions are at the forefront of campaigning for a just transition, in the UK, the EU and globally. During the Paris climate talks, the unions made an incredibly powerful case for stronger ambition and faster action to cut emissions, and for making this transition away from fossil fuels. Central to that is the huge opportunity for job creation in new low-carbon industries. I spoke a moment ago about win-win situations, but I should have said win-win-win, as we have the jobs, the economy and the environment and energy advantages of having a clear direction of travel for this transition.