Lord Deben
Main Page: Lord Deben (Conservative - Life peer)
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to follow the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Cameron, because I, too, lent my name to the amendment. I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests and apologise for my croakiness. It will have one advantage: I will be brief.
I am delighted that the Government have tabled broadly similar amendments but I am very concerned about their tentative nature. I started out by being concerned about the backstop and how it would operate because the reality is that at the point at which the backstop kicks in, you are already at the 11th hour. If I may mix my metaphors, it is like saying to someone who is standing on at the edge of a crumbling cliff, “Don’t worry if you fall off; the RAF has a very good search and rescue operation”. It is very troubling that there is no recognition of the stage at which a company or project would be when the backstop was applied. I am delighted that someone as eminent and knowledgeable as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, found the Baringa report a bit impenetrable; I found it totally impenetrable. One of our main problems is that no one is certain about how this will work.
I am slightly jealous of the Minister because this is a classic situation in which a Minister could bring common sense through the middle. The Bill has been about two years in gestation—it has the gestation of an elephant—and we are still at a stage where we do not have the kind of clarity that, frankly, the funding market really needs. There is a fantastic opportunity over the summer for the noble Baroness, with her officials, to go through some rigorous testing of what is proposed here. There is no doubt that we will come back to this on Report because when cold towels are wrapped around heads there will be recognition that we need to go beyond the theoretical and look at the practical. If there is one warning from how the market has operated so far, it is the current attitude of the financiers, the investors.
As the noble Baroness said, when we were discussing Amendment 53BB, no one is blessed with perfect foresight and energy markets are wonderful at knocking people sideways. Things happen off stage that disrupt the functioning of energy markets. That makes it all the more essential to have a degree of flexibility. I can understand why the department has relied so heavily on the big six because they are the big operators in the field, but they are not entrepreneurs. We had an interesting side debate the other day about capitalism. What we are talking about here is entrepreneurialism on the part of the independent generators.
If noble Lords cast their minds back, it was interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, said at the Dispatch Box during Question Time on Tuesday about infrastructure development. He referred to how important renewable energy, particularly offshore renewable energy, would be in helping our investment in infrastructure to move ahead. Yet these independent generators are the very people who are coming along and saying, “Hold on a minute; we don’t have the certainty to invest”. I get the impression that some people, when they are looking at the scale of these investments, think that we are talking about something that will cost £200,000 or even £2 million. There is a project in Edinburgh that could supply sufficient energy for all of Edinburgh and Fife. Its cost is somewhere in the region of £1.3 billion—not small fry. You could buy a very big part of an aircraft carrier for that; you might even be able to buy some planes to fly on it. That project, Neart Na Gaoithe—I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is not here, because I suspect that he is a native Gaelic speaker, which I am not—is in the market at present. This is not a model that we are looking at here; this is men and women out knocking on investors’ doors now and having difficulty in raising money. I ask the Minister, during the summer, when she has had the opportunity to have a good break, to take the chance to jump over the lobbyists and talk to the companies that are investing and experiencing considerable difficulties.
Amendment 55AC refers to the green power auction market. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I am more attracted to that than I am to the idea of the backstop. It is strange for someone sitting on this side of the Committee to be saying, “I am in favour of a fully operating marketplace”, as distinct from those on the other side, where they are talking about market manipulation. I think GPAM would be a clearer way in which to operate but, frankly, I would settle for anything that gives us the certainty in the marketplace that those involved in these investments very much desire.
There is no doubt that we will come back to this. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister say, on returning to us in the coolness of the autumn, “We’ve worked out how this is going to work—this is how we’re going to change it”. The downside is that we have about three months to go and there are investors out there having difficulty raising money. That is the thin end of the wedge and that is what we should be thinking about.
Lord Deben
My Lords, we may have noticed that there is a good deal of support on both sides for what the Government are trying to do. I hope that my noble friend the Minister has noticed the tone in which these discussions have been carried through. We would like to be convinced, and we are unconvinced only because these measures are quite difficult to understand. The document that I have here is not for bedtime reading, unless you wish to give up on the Mogadon, because it is very complex.
One thing in the Climate Change Act that the climate change committee is supposed to do is to ensure that the public understands what it is doing. I do not think that that is a bad thing to have at the back of one’s mind. I just hope that I do not have to stand on a platform at this moment and explain in simple terms what is in here. I suspect that my noble friend the Minister would agree that that is not the most comfortable place in government just at this moment. It is not because there are things that are necessarily wrong with it, but there are extremely complicated things in it, and we want to make sure that it is as good as it can be. That is my first point.
On the amendments, I remind noble Lords that this is no small matter. Electricity from renewables increased last year by 19%, which is pretty remarkable; it is 11.3% of the total. We are not talking about some tiny little thing, which is what the climate change dismissers are always saying. This is no longer a gleam in the eye of Greenpeace; it is a central part of what we are seeking to do. Therefore, we have to recognise that enabling the elbow room for the renewables sector is very important. The Government have recognised that and, on all sides, people have said that the government amendments do extremely well.
I want to put three simple propositions to my noble friend. First, it is instinctively difficult for free marketeers such as me to be entirely keen on a system where the Government are fixing almost every element of the process. I recognise that it may be necessary—and, indeed, if it is necessary, I shall be the first to defend it. But I think that she understands why one starts by being a little concerned about that.
Secondly, we need a convincing explanation of why some kind of auction is not part of the set up. It has been shown around the world that the one way in which you get lower prices is through a descending auction. There is no doubt about that. The advantage of that is that it does have that effect. From what happened in Brazil it is clear—it is not that it has not been tried and found wanting; it has been tried and it works—that you can bring prices down if you operate in that way.
It gives huge confidence to the public because, instead of the Government having to explain in the context of a document such as this why they have delivered this, that or the other, they are able to say to the market, “Look, the price has been fixed at the lowest figure we can see working”. There is a real issue of communication here and a need to explain why—apart from the unconvincing pushing aside in the other place when Ministers said it would be very expensive and complicated. I was a Minister for 16 years and I knew that any civil servant who said we could not do something because it was expensive and complicated had not worked it out. That mechanism is always used; it is the technique. I look with care at those behind my noble friend. An issue may be complicated but you might be able to make it simple, but the idea that it is expensive I have never seen proved in any independent area. I would like to be 100% on the side of the Government on this but the whole concept of a competitive system based upon some kind of auction is so valuable that we should not lose it.
Thirdly, the worst kind of debates in the other place, and even more so in your Lordships’ House, are about what it means rather than about what should be done. My worry in this area is that if we get to the Floor of the House and spend our time trying to work out what it means, we will probably get it entirely wrong. It would be valuable if the Government could clear that bit out.
The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and I have not always agreed on matters over the years but at least on this we can be at one. We want to arrive in October with a clear view of what is being proposed and what its ramifications are so that if we do not agree with it at least we are talking about the same thing. I fear that if we argued about it now we would be arguing about something that was different in the mind of every Member of the Committee. After all, we have chosen to try to understand these things rather more than the generality. I hope my noble friend will treat the amendment with that kind of approach, rather than saying, “It does not quite work in this way or that way”.
Viscount Hanworth
My Lords I shall speak to Amendments 55AE, 55AFA and 55AFB, which are all in my name. Amendment 55AE, together with my subsidiary amendments in this group, covers the same ground as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and others but it is not as specific in what it calls for. The amendment was conceived before the government amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, were tabled. I do not believe that the government amendments provide an adequate answer to the problems. My subsidiary Amendments 55AFA and 55AFB, which seek to amend one of the government amendments, are testimony to this.
Amendment 55AE calls on the secretary of State to make regulations that will ensure that the independent electricity generators that employ renewable technologies will find a route to market for their produce. We are aware that the Government are relying on those enterprises to provide a large proportion of the investment in renewable electricity generation: the figure is anything between 35% and 50% of the new investment. There is also a widely perceived danger that, in the absence of further provisions in the Bill, the independent generators will be squeezed out of the market. The reality is that the big six electricity firms, who supply more than 90% of the electricity that is sold to consumers and businesses, have been expanding their generating portfolios to include an increasing proportion of renewable energy. In the process, they have been dispensing with the services of the independent generators. The renewables obligation, which for a while was effective in obliging the big six to purchase the output of the independent generators, is becoming ever less effective in sustaining them. The suspension of the renewables obligation in 2017 would surely spell the doom of the independents unless some effective measures are enacted to prevent that.
Lord Deben
Did the noble Baroness also notice that the sector much outpaced every other part of the economy and was particularly strong in the United Kingdom, when compared with comparable economies? When the naysayers, who are not represented today—as they rarely have been in this Committee—talk about these matters, it would be good just to remind them that nowhere else in the economy is there development going on like this.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the noble Lord for his timely intervention. I could not agree more. It is a shame that those statistics were not trumpeted more. We would all feel very proud that that happened at a time when the rest of the economy was not doing so well. It was not just that there was good growth in that sector but it positively affected our balance of trade. There are very few sectors in which we can say we have a positive balance of trade with China, but in this sector we can. As the noble Lord alluded to, the global average rate of growth in this sector was only 4%, while we were at 4.8%. Tiny nation though we are, our growth in this sector is outstripping much larger nations. We are up in the top six countries in this sector. I am sorry that I am waxing lyrical slightly here but it is important. We are a nation of innovation and entrepreneurial spirit. We were the country that brought the Industrial Revolution to the world; let us not forget that. Let us hope that we will remain at the forefront of this industrial revolution. I know that that sounds like a grand introduction but it is pertinent to this part of the Bill. We really need to make sure that this sector is protected and that no unintended consequences are meted out to it as a result of the Bill.
Why is there an issue? It is probably fair to say that it was already emerging. The renewables obligation has been a good policy that has driven a lot of investment, but we were already hearing that independent generators were finding it difficult to secure power purchase agreements. At the heart of this issue is the problem, alluded to many times throughout our deliberations in Committee, of the vertical integration of the big six. There is no liquid, open competition in generation. We have an oligopolistic system of six vertically integrated companies that dominate. It will come as no surprise that on this side of the House we believe that the time has come to address that. We would have preferred to see genuine market reforms that required the selling of power into a competitive pool, which would be good for competition, liquidity, the independent generators and the consumer. We know that the Government are not yet there but we hope they will join us soon.
It is true that the Bill helps to make the case even stronger for splitting apart that vertical integration because we are moving into a system of contracts for difference. We are moving away from the arguments in favour of vertical integration, which are that you need it to secure finance and build new capacity, but when you have a CFD the argument is, by and large, weakened. There is also a big intervention in the capacity mechanism. The time is therefore coming, if not now then very soon, for the issue to be properly addressed.
I want to say a word about Amendment 55AGA, to which the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has spoken. These proposals, though welcome, come quite late in the day. As has been mentioned, we have known about this problem for two years and yet here we are addressing the issue on the eighth day in Committee and on the final stretch. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who said that it feels as though we are making things up as we go along. I would not say that it was as bad as that but it does feel as though these measures have been considered quite hastily. Making this a negative resolution risks the ire of the Delegated Powers Committee, which has not yet had a chance to consider it, and we strongly urge acceptance of Amendment 55AGA in order that we may properly scrutinise this complex and rather late addition to the Bill.
I should have said at the start that I want to pay tribute to my colleague, Alan Whitehead, in the Commons, who helped raise this issue. I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who was going to speak to the amendment. He cannot be in his place today but he wishes us every speed.
I have explained why there is an issue and, in the spirit of collaboration and seeking to make the Bill as strong as possible, I should perhaps now explain what I think the solutions are. First, we know that the industry wants to find a resolution to this issue. It is very keen to work with the Government and would like to have proper consultation with the department. It has been mentioned to us that the organised consultation process was slightly opaque. I know that five of the renewables trade associations, as a group, have written to the department requesting more clarity in the consultation process around the detail of these provisions. They are worried about communications not being consistent and they are worried about the timelines. They need reassurances from the department and a clearer process of involvement.
Further to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, this should also include investors, who are absolutely at the heart of the issue. Clause 44 is about facilitating investment and not about liquidity, which is dealt with in Clause 43. It is very important that the consultation process fully involves the investors who will be necessary to get these projects under way.
I have not spoken about the GPAM alternative. I am not sufficiently across the details to know whether the GPAM is a better option than the backstop power but the wording of the government amendment limits the options. At the moment, Clause 44 gives a broad power to do what is necessary. The government amendments would remove that flexibility and narrow it down to the PPA. The PPA may be the right answer but I am not certain that that narrowing down is a good idea. I have been critical of the breadth of some of the powers but in this case, given that it is still in development and that consultation is necessary, I urge the Government to keep open the option of making a different type of intervention if necessary. That would tweak the government amendment. It is important that we do not put all our eggs in a basket that is still being made when we are not quite sure whether it will work.
The industry itself can find solutions. The big six are obviously dominant but there are other players such as independent suppliers who can give PPAs. Unfortunately, the creditworthiness of those suppliers is an issue.
Lord Roper
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Jenkin, I shall move the amendment on his behalf.
My noble friend tabled this amendment earlier this month after discussions with the Wood Panel Industries Federation about the impact of the purchase of biomass upon the supplies of UK-grown softwoods and the viability of the UK-based wood processing companies which make materials such as MDF, chipboard and oriented strand board. Their worry arises because the current subsidies to wood-burning power plants make it increasingly difficult for member firms to compete for supplies. There are no subsidies available for them. They cannot afford to import supplies as it is uneconomic to transport saw wood because of its high water content and they are finding it increasingly difficult to compete. If this industry is driven out of business by the competition from biomass power stations it will be, in their view, difficult to ever revive. They see themselves as having far less influence than the major energy firms in their representations to government.
Interestingly, in Scotland the devolved Government have introduced a cap on support for dedicated biomass plans above 15 megawatts and have used planning restraints to restrict domestic wood use. If energy generators in England were required to provide a domestic fuel sourcing plan for approval by Ministers, this would give a far stronger reassurance than is conferred by any voluntary statement of sourcing intent. That is what the amendment of my noble friend Lord Jenkin is intended to secure. I beg to move.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I think it is valuable that my noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Roper have put this amendment forward. Although I do not support its content, it is an important subject to have raised briefly in this Committee. One difficulty that we have to face is that the way that renewable materials are considered alters very quickly. There was a time when people talked about biomass as though it was the solution to everything. They hardly ever spoke about biomass without saying how wonderful it was. Then we saw the pendulum swing to the other end and no sort of biomass was acceptable to anyone. There was always some good reason why it was not acceptable. In rather a long life, I have usually found that neither of those two positions is a good place for the pendulum, although somewhere in the middle is.
However, there is a central issue which goes beyond biomass. It is illustrated by a circumstance in my own county of Suffolk, where the local council has just turned down a request to build a waste-to-energy installation using straw. The argument against it was not an environmental one. It was a genuine argument about whether it and other straw-burning waste-to-energy installations would have such an appetite for straw locally that the price for straw would increase because of the subsidy structure. The other uses of straw in the area, which were very significant and led to opposition to the installation from pig farmers and others, meant that the planning committee had to say that it did not see that this was the right answer. I am not at all sure that that was the planning reason that it gave, because planning is a rather complex matter, but that was certainly what the argument was about.
I hope that this Committee, the Standing Committee and our future discussions in your Lordships’ House can lead the charge for having sensible discussions about environmental matters and not arguments between those who believe in things and those who do not. Very often, the decision and the choice come somewhere between the two, and this issue illustrates that very well. It is perfectly possible to be an enthusiastic environmentalist determined to combat climate change but to say that a particular straw-burning installation in a particular place is not the answer. The same applies to biomass. However, that does not mean that you are taking a nimby attitude. I am not talking about people objecting to something because it is near to them; I am talking about having more serious discussions about individual issues than is often allowed simply because the two sides clash and the space in between is not available for intelligent debate.
On this matter, it is important that two things are taken into account. First, how does the subsidy—that is what it is—affect other industries; and are there circumstances in which we should look at that carefully? Secondly, how do we make sure that the subsidy is in support of biomass which is properly sourced? I do not want this particular solution although there is a bit that appeals to me: we should make sure that people do not use biomass that has a bigger carbon footprint than what it is replacing.
As chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, I recently received a delegation from America, which is exporting a lot of pellets into this country. I found the discussion rather embarrassing because, when I said to the people concerned, “Tell me, is this certified?”, they said, “Yes”. I asked, “By whom?”, and they replied “By us”. I said that I thought that certification ought to be a little more arm’s length than that. They claimed that all this stuff came from certified forests but I think that there is now some pretty good international measurement that enables one to decide whether “certified” means “certified” or whether it means, “This is a label that we like putting on it because, if we don’t, nobody will buy it”, which seemed to me closer to what they were actually saying.
It is important that we should raise this issue, both for the specifics of the amendment and to say to my noble friend that this is an area—I know that she understands this—where we are all concerned not to restrict biomass in such a way as to lose the real advantages, but not to extend it so that it becomes a front for a worse attitude towards the environment than that represented by the fuels it replaces.
Lord Deben
I assure my noble friend that the industry realises how strong the powers are. That was the reason for the visit of those Americans, who did not like those powers. Also, the Committee would want her to know that we have all experienced businesses who claim that they are in trouble from some government action when in fact there is an entirely different reason. I remember the oleochemical industry made a great deal of fuss about government environmental standards when in fact it had every intention of moving abroad in any case and just wanted somebody to blame.
Baroness Verma
Of course, my noble friend is far more experienced in these matters than I and I am always open to learning from him.
These sources of data have confirmed the forecasts for UK wood use made in the renewables obligation banding review last year, which did not conclude that demand for UK wood for electricity generation would have significant detrimental impacts on other wood-using sectors. That was mainly because we estimate the vast majority of biomass for power to come from imports from countries such as the United States—to which my noble friend Lord Deben referred—which have larger forestry industries and whose companies are able to give power companies the long-term fuel contracts they need. Given the analysis undertaken for the bioenergy strategy and the renewables obligation banding review, and given the latest data we have on demand for wood for electricity, currently we do not see sufficient need to add the new regulatory burden proposed in this amendment on the electricity industry.
The amendment would introduce a new layer of complexity and potential for delay and uncertainty in developing both potential new generating stations and existing plants. It would also be likely to reduce investor certainty in the sector, introducing questions around disqualification from support under CFDs, should the Secretary of State not like a plant’s proposed fuel strategy. Establishing the basis on which a plan is judged satisfactory would be complex and open to legal challenge. Furthermore, the voluntary approach that we have taken is a light-touch regulatory approach that has delivered to us the information we need. We have used this industry-wide data to help develop the sustainability criteria framework on which we have made the proposals. This includes strengthening further some of the reporting requirements.
With these actions, I hope noble Lords will see that the Government are taking this issue seriously and are keen to continue to work with the wood processing and other sectors to give them further confidence that non-energy sectors should not be significantly detrimentally impacted by energy policy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about Blyth power station. Perhaps I may write to her and the Committee with the details.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Roper finds my explanation at least partly reassuring and on that basis will withdraw his amendment.