Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2015

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, this order is makes four amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in consequence of the introduction of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which inserted a new Section 5A into the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Section 5A creates new drug-driving offences of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a specified drug in the body above specified limits. The Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014 were made on 24 October 2014. They specified the drugs and their limits, and will come into force in England and Wales on 2 March 2015. Although the new Section 5A applies to Scotland as well, it is for the Scottish Government to make regulations to specify the drugs and their limits. I understand that the Scottish Government are in the process of considering responses to a consultation and hope to publish an analysis report shortly. The views offered in the consultation will inform their decision on the drugs and their limits for the new drug-driving offence in Scotland. This order therefore applies to Great Britain where the amendments extend the penalties already available in relation to similar driving offences connected with drink-driving and drug-driving to the new drug-driving offences. It also provides for the endorsement of an offender’s driving licence counterpart and the driver’s record in relation to the new offences.

As noble Lords are aware, the review of drink and drug-driving law by Sir Peter North concluded that there is,

“a significant drug driving problem”,

and recommended the new offence. Drivers impaired by drugs kill large numbers of people, and there could be as many as 200 drug-driving-related deaths a year in Great Britain. Statistics show that a drug-driver has 1/50th of the chance of being prosecuted compared to a drink-driver. European evidence from the driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and medicines project—DRUID—suggests that drug-driving is about half as prevalent as drink-driving. We estimate it to be around a third as prevalent in Great Britain, so enforcement related to drugs is disproportionately low. Ensuring we have the full range of penalties and the ability to record offenders fully to support the new offence will thus enable more effective law enforcement and act as a deterrent to those who recklessly risk killing and injuring on the road as a result of taking drugs and driving.

I turn to the detail of the order we are proposing. Section 45 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides for the period during which an endorsement remains effective on the counterpart of a driving licence following a conviction where endorsement of the offence has been ordered. This order amends the Act so an endorsement ordered upon a person’s conviction for the new offence remains effective until 11 years have elapsed since the conviction, in line with other drink-driving and drug-driving offences, rather than just four years as it currently stands.

When the relevant part of the Road Safety Act 2006 is brought into force, Section 45, which relates to the endorsement of counterparts, will be repealed and Section 45A, which relates to the endorsement of driving records, will be in force. The amendments made by the Road Safety Act 2006 are part of the legislative changes which abolish the paper driving licence counterpart so that all endorsements will need to be recorded electronically on a person’s driving record only. This order has therefore been drafted so that when these Road Safety Act changes commence, the amendments made by this order to Section 45A will enable the endorsement of a person’s driving record for the Section 5A offences of driving or attempting to drive with a specified drug in the body above specified limits to remain effective until 11 years have elapsed since the conviction.

The order also amends the Road Traffic Offenders Act to provide for the penalties applicable to the offences of failing to provide a specimen for analysis under Section 7 and failing to permit a specimen to be subjected to a laboratory test under Section 7A without reasonable excuse in the course of an investigation into whether a person has committed an offence under Section 5A.

Noble Lords may be wondering why the Government have tabled this order so close to the commencement of the new Section 5A offences on 2 March. It was originally hoped that the abolition of the paper driving licence counterpart would have been completed by the end of October 2014. Our intention was to wait for that legislation to be made and make the amendment to Section 45A—“Effect of endorsement of driving records”—which would come into force instead of amending a revoked Section 45. However, industry asked for more time to get ready for the abolition of the counterpart. To accommodate the needs of industry, and so that Parliament does not have to revisit this piece of legislation in the future, this order has been drafted to refer to Section 45 but also to Section 45A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, to cover the situation where Section 45 is revoked and Section 45A is commenced.

The Government believe that it is important that those drivers who continue to commit drug-driving offences and put lives at risk have their counterparts or driving records endorsed for a considerable period of time and so are able to feel the full force of the law when prosecuted. With the power of social media, it is also important that potential drug-driving offenders are not incentivised to refuse to provide a specimen or to refuse to allow that specimen to be analysed, in order to get a lesser penalty. I urge Members to agree that we must send a strong message that this House, Parliament and wider society will not tolerate those who persist in drug-driving and the threat they pose to other road users. I therefore recommend that the Committee approves this order. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I have come very recently to this debate, but I was interested to come along and listen to it. I am interested in two areas, which are probably old territory—I hope that the Minister will forgive me. This is an important bit of legislation; drug-driving is equally as dangerous and as much of a hazard to fellow citizens as drink-driving. However, I am still unclear how the enforcement of this testing is to be done in a practical way. We always think of drug-driving as being about illegal drugs, but presumably some legal highs or even medicinal pharmaceuticals, particularly tranquilisers, can be equally dangerous. Is that covered in this legislation? I would be interested to hear and understand that context.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and content of this order. As she said, and as the Explanatory Memorandum sets out, the order amends the 1988 Act in consequence of the introduction to the Act, through the Crime and Courts Act 2013, of new drug-related road traffic offences, which make it a criminal offence to drive, attempt to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle with a concentration of a specified controlled drug above a laid-down limit. The amendments in the order extend the penalties connected with drink and drugs, including failure to provide a specimen, to the new drug-related road traffic offences and provide for the endorsement of an offender’s counterpart and driving record in relation to the new offences. As the Minister said, the new offence comes into force shortly—at the beginning of next week—in England and Wales. Regulations determined by Parliament last October, I think, specified the controlled drugs and their limits.

I appreciate that the key debate on this issue has already taken place and the decisions have been made, but can the Minister give an up-to-date indication of the number of proceedings per year expected to be brought under the new offence of driving having taken a relevant controlled drug above the specified limit and whether the ability to test for and prove that drugs above the specified limit have been taken is sufficiently robust to expect a proportion of guilty findings similar to that applicable to drink-driving proceedings, namely 96%? Perhaps she could also say something about whether the necessary equipment to undertake these tests on those who it is felt may have been driving with a concentration of a specified controlled drug above a specified limit is now available, so that we are ready to go as far the bringing into force of these new offences is concerned. What is the cost of that equipment? How many police forces already have it? Who has to pay for it? Does it have to be used back at the police station or do we have equipment that can be used at the road side? It would be helpful if the Minister was able to comment on those points.

As I understand the penalties and levels, a zero-tolerance approach is being adopted towards anyone who is found to have a concentration of a specified controlled drug unless they are able to show that it resulted from having taken a drug for medical reasons.

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“No formal consultation for these amendments has been undertaken as these are consequential amendments upon the creation of new drug driving offences”.

Has consultation taken place previously on what the penalties should be and whether they should be on a par with, lower than or higher than those related to drink-driving, or has it just been assumed that they should be on a similar level? Was a view taken on whether driving having taken drugs is likely to have a lesser or greater impact on driving ability than having consumed alcohol? One assumes, in the light of the comment in the Explanatory Memorandum that the penalties are on a par with those for similar driving offences connected with drink and drugs, that the impact is deemed to be the same. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that point because, if the impact is deemed likely to be greater, one would have thought that that would have been reflected in the penalty; if it was deemed likely to be lower, likewise it might have been thought that that would have been reflected in the penalty the other way.

Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 12 that a supplier has been selected to evaluate the effect of the new drug-driving offences. Could the Minister say who that supplier is?

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, my comments on these three amendments reflect my comments on the first group. I welcome them. Again, we spent a lot of time debating them, and it is really good that the Commons listened to the very strong pressure from the various cycling organisations and persuaded the Government that the new clause under Amendment 6 should go in. It covers everything that one could have asked for. It follows on, as the Minister said, from the delivery plan. A duty to deliver a strategy was needed, and what is in these amendments is very good. Subsection (9) even says what happens if the Secretary of State does not produce a strategy, which is very welcome. It would be nice if the Minister could give an indication as to when the first one might appear. Is it this year, next year or sometime never? I know it is always difficult for Ministers to commit themselves.

One thing occurred to me on reading this amendment. I read it as applying to all roads, not just trunk roads, but maybe the Minister will confirm that. I know that there are not many cyclists on trunk roads, as most find it much too dangerous, but trunk roads are useful highways, connecting towns, villages and cities that are a little further apart with a bit more capacity and higher speed. In the Netherlands, they are making high-speed cycle lanes where people are expected to go a bit faster.

However, it is a really good start. I congratulate the Government on listening to all the pressure that has come from the cycling organisations. I look forward to participating and taking this forward.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I, too, very much welcome these amendments. As we discussed in Committee and on Report, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, we felt that this was an important bit that was missing from transport strategy. The Infrastructure Bill is an excellent opportunity to put that right. The early clauses sounded very woolly to me, but as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, new subsection (9) makes it rather clear that this is expected to happen rather than being something that is optional. That is a major step forward. I assume and hope that this will go forward and that we will approve it as soon as possible.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I join the two noble Lords who have just spoken in very much welcoming these amendments. Throughout the passage of this Bill there has been very consistent pressure from the cycling organisations. They have established their case against a background, which we are all too aware of, where cycling is still too dangerous a pursuit in certain parts of the country, particularly in our great cities.

I always think of Lord Dormand, who was in this House for a number of years. When he was in the Commons, he used to cycle from Westminster to the National Executive Committee meetings at Walworth Road. That meant a journey around Parliament Square, the roundabout at the far end of Westminster Bridge, and Elephant and Castle. I thought that it was the most dangerous journey in the world as a cyclist, which is why, every week he threatened to do the journey, I sought to dissuade him. He always made the journey and always lived to tell the tale.

However, subsequently there has been an increasing number of cycling accidents, if not on trunk roads, often on large roundabouts, which are difficult to negotiate with a very slow vehicle such as a bicycle as you go past a number of exits from which other vehicles will make definitive and often rapid moves. We have a lot to do to make cycling safer, but I am pleased that the Government have been persuaded of the case that the cycling organisations, the general public and we on these Benches have pushed as hard as we could. We are delighted with the outcome that the Minister has described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

I am sorry to put this point but it is a worry and it comes from my own period as Minister of Agriculture. I remember a case in which the rules about poisoning squirrels in Scotland were different from those in England. One has to make the delicate point that neither beavers nor squirrels know when they cross the border. I therefore hope that we have adequate methods of dealing with this issue, simply because it makes a nonsense of this if we do not have a common view where we have a common land border. I know in many people’s minds this is a trivial comment, but it is an issue for all these devolved concerns. I wonder whether we are totally satisfied with the careful relationships between the nations and the English Government—otherwise, people will find themselves technically liable for having broken the law, simply because of the fact that animals move where they wish to and do not obey anybody’s law.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, perhaps I can also tackle beavers? The bigger problem, diplomatically, would be if they crossed the Tamar, rather than the Bristol Channel to Wales. I will leave that aside for the moment.

Whether these are Eurasian or American beavers has been a question for some time. I find it strange that it is so difficult to determine this. It is presumably a question of DNA, rather than their accents. Can we hear from the Minister when this might be resolved? Presumably if they are not Eurasian, a much darker alternative has to be faced.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

I apologise to the House because I am going to make a very technical and limited statement. We very much approve of this group of amendments but we have one concern, which has been articulated by those who know a great deal more about beavers than I know about anything. Consequently, we listened to their advice with the greatest care. It has come from a number of well intentioned sources—by “well intentioned” I mean those who want to ensure that our environment and natural life flourish. We are concerned about the welfare of species.

Our concern is that the European beaver—a native species that has established populations in the UK—has been excluded from the species control order. The classification of the beaver under Part 1B of Schedule 9,

“Animals no longer normally present”,

is regarded as bizarre. It lists them alongside the wild boar, hence our anxiety. It seems strange that, despite European beavers being recognised as a native species to the UK and a natural component of British river systems, they will need a licence from Natural England to continue to exist in the wild.

The Minister will know that we proposed an amendment in Committee, which was supported by a number of NGOs including Friends of the Earth, that the Government’s definition of invasive, non-native species should correspond to the European Union habitats directive, which was adopted in 1992. That will clarify exactly the status of the European beaver. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that that representation is a worthy one and is taken account of by these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that this House agrees with the House of Commons in its Amendment 20, as well as with Amendments 32 and 38. I shall also speak to the subsequent Amendments 20B and 20C, which the Government have tabled in this group. I restate this Government’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. To meet our challenging climate targets we will need significant quantities of renewables, nuclear and gas in our energy mix, and we are committed to listening to the experts and their advice on how to reach those targets. The Committee on Climate Change said that for flexible power supply, the UK will,

“continue to use considerable, albeit declining, amounts of gas well into the 2030s”,

which will leave,

“a considerable gap between production of North Sea gas and our total demand”.

The committee argues that this demand,

“can either be met through imports or UK production of shale gas”,

and concludes that,

“if anything using well-regulated UK shale gas to fill this gap could lead to lower overall lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than continuing to import LNG. It would also increase the proportion of energy produced within the UK, improving our energy sovereignty”.

Notwithstanding this, concerns have been raised in both this House and the other place about how the UK’s shale industry will affect our carbon budgets. We therefore tabled amendments in the other place that will place a duty on the Secretary of State to seek advice from the Committee on Climate Change as to the impact of petroleum produced onshore in England and Wales on our ability to meet the UK’s overall climate change objectives over time. The Secretary of State must consider the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and report on his conclusions at least every five years.

The Government now seek to further strengthen this commitment by specifying that if the Committee on Climate Change advises that shale gas may adversely impact climate change objectives, the Secretary of State must either make regulations providing that the right of use for petroleum and deep geothermal exploitation will no longer be available for future projects or report to Parliament on the reasons for not doing so. Amendment 20B and the consequential Amendment 20C seek to address this commitment. By introducing these amendments we are making it absolutely clear that shale development will remain compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I welcome these amendments and very much welcome what my noble friend just said. I do not point at my noble friend in saying this, but I am always disappointed, given the truism about gas being the future, that we have not made more effort to make sure that, in the short term, gas is substituted for coal and that we have a far more rigorous gas industry than we have at the moment. That was the route forward, but we have been unable to put it to bed during the passage of the Energy Bill and now of the Infrastructure Bill. I hope that it is something that can at least be given greater attention after the election. However, I welcome these new clauses.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group touch on the role of the Committee on Climate Change in advising on the impact which combustion and fugitive emissions from petroleum have on the carbon budget. I understand that this was introduced in the other place as a result of a Lib Dem initiative, and we are fully supportive. We have always said that, if fracking is to take place, we would need the appropriate framework for regulation and need to consider a wider range of issues on which it will have an impact, including climate change. The Climate Change Act 2008, which was introduced by the then Labour Government, was an important piece of legislation that subsequently established the Committee on Climate Change. We therefore support the Committee’s role in advising the Government.

[Lord Teverson]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, sits down, can I just point out one thing that I want to get off my chest? The Climate Change Act was a great thing that the Labour Government did, but among the amendments that they did not allow was one about excluding traded EU ETS certificates from the carbon budget. That means that the power sector is still largely excluded from the Climate Change Act and carbon budgets. It is a big hole in the system and it is regrettable that those changes were never made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I, too, will not make a Second Reading speech, as that stage took place last year. I very much welcome the Opposition’s amendment that was tabled in the House of Commons and the fact that the Government have brought back a version of it that is legally sound. In practical terms, I do not think that it adds a great deal to the environmental protections that we already have and which I consider are strong enough. However, it is good to clarify those and to make sure that the Bill has a more balanced approach to fracking.

However, I thank my noble friend the Minister for having excluded geothermal energy from the amendment, because the issues around that are quite different from those around hydrocarbon fracking and it is appropriate that these amendments do not deal with that particular sector. That is important because at last, after much effort by many people, that industry is starting to show dividends. Geothermal heat, which is relatively low-level in terms of ground exploration, is starting up under the renewable heat incentive. We have two planning permissions in the south-west for potential geothermal electricity generation. It would be tragic if that process stalled after the 20 years or more that a number of us have campaigned to make this very practical renewable energy come through and contribute to the UK’s energy. Clearly, certain regimes will have to apply to that process as well. It is excellent that the change on trespass has allowed that industry to move ahead as that was a major barrier. Therefore, I very much welcome these amendments and hope that the House will not divide on the issue and will decide unanimously to move forward quickly so that both industries can move ahead.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to say a few words about the relationship between fracking and our ancient woodlands. Sadly, I fear that it is not really appreciated by everyone responsible for planning and building projects of all kinds just how precious our ancient woodlands are. Individual trees, if lost, can be replaced. It is true that there is a huge loss to its surroundings because it takes many years to replace a mature tree, but it can in time be replaced, as can avenues and shelter belts, however much they are missed initially. Indeed, some might argue that they are better off being replaced when they get to a certain stage.

Similarly, our forests are planted for their timber—technically a crop, albeit a long-term one. While they provide an excellent contribution to the environment over a period of years provided the right species are planted, they are routinely felled for timber and replanted.

Our ancient woodlands are centuries old. Thankfully, they have survived, largely by chance. They are precious in a unique way and are quite simply irreplaceable. It is essential that they are given very special treatment, which recognises their importance, the contribution they make to our environment, and the truth that once they have been destroyed, however clever we are, they can never be replaced.

Whatever the pros and cons on the subject of fracking, the simple existence of our ancient woodlands need not be a barrier, provided the companies concerned understand their importance and the public concern for them. I quote the Woodland Trust:

“While we believe that, as long as the geological fracturing activity associated with fracking takes place at great depths underground it is very unlikely to have a direct impact on any ancient woodland located above the fracturing sites, we do have concerns about the potential significant impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the drilling wells necessary to enable fracking to take place, and the associated infrastructure that may be put in place to access and transport shale gas/oil. We would therefore like to ensure that areas of ancient woodland are specifically protected so that licences may never be issued for fracking within or adjacent to these highly precious habitats”.

The Minister said that the protected areas have not yet been decided upon. I hope that she will think very carefully about our ancient woodlands. I urge her to indicate in her response, if she can, in the clearest possible terms that the Government accept that our ancient woodlands need very specific protection.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK stands to benefit enormously from the safe and effective development of the offshore shale gas and oil and geothermal industries. The Government have introduced provisions into the Infrastructure Bill which provide a right to use deep-level land 300 metres or more below the surface for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy.

I explained on Report that I had listened to the concerns expressed by stakeholders and by noble Lords that the right to use deep-level land could disadvantage landowners if claims were brought against them in connection with petroleum or deep geothermal operations. While the existing regulatory regime is robust, I agree that we can do more to reassure landowners. We need to be clear that these sorts of claims—brought by a third party against a landowner whose land is accessed through the right of use clauses—cannot be made against a landowner who has done nothing wrong. To this end, I committed to table an amendment to address this issue.

The amendment will provide protection for landowners against claims made by third parties for any loss or damage caused by the exercise of the right of use provision. It does, however, ensure that landowners—including persons with an interest in land, such as persons licensing the land—will not benefit from the exemption if they deliberately fail to act, or decide not to allow someone else to act. To make this fair to landowners, we also propose that a landowner would not have to do anything that would ultimately involve them in bearing any costs. This means, for example, that if a landowner prevented an operator from accessing his land to remediate any damage caused, despite the landowner not having to bear any costs, that landowner could be deemed liable. If, by contrast, the landowner allowed for the damage to be remediated, this amendment ensures that, as well as benefiting from existing protections, the landowner would not be liable to claims from any third parties for loss or damage.

This amendment will complement the existing comprehensive statutory and regulatory regime by protecting landowners, while allowing this source of home-grown energy to develop in a way that is fair to communities. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for having explained that amendment. I must admit that, when I went through it, I was not at all clear what it was trying to get at. I wondered whether this mystery person “L” would be listening to the debate or appearing in it. We have a number of such letters in this Bill.

My noble friend Lady Kramer has already thanked a number of people. I am not sure whether I am in the right area to do this but I want particularly to thank my noble friend Lady Verma for the work that she has done on this Bill. It has gone through everything from community energy to fracking to this whole area of oil. It has been a pleasure to work with her. We have our disagreements more in DCLG areas rather than here, but the Bill when enacted will make a number of things in the area of energy much better.

I also thank my noble friend Lady Kramer for guiding a Bill through the House when only about 10% included her departmental responsibilities. She has been present for a lot of our proceedings even when matters far from her department’s responsibilities were involved. Of course, I support the amendment.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. I spoke on these issues in Committee. As has been said by both previous speakers, we managed to get such agreement across the building sector and all the organisations that care about these issues as to what the standard would be. When we came in as a coalition Government, we stuck to that. For some reason, we changed our minds. I would really like the Minister to explain what made us question the agreements we had and the standards we had wanted.

I know that two of my honourable friends who have been Liberal Democrat Ministers in the department have pushed to row back from where we were going, and we have now gone forwards again. However, we have not managed to get any farther. We are owned an explanation from the Minister tonight of why we have ended up in this position when we had such a good agreement back in 2010.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome both these amendments; indeed, they are very similar to amendments I tabled in Committee. I am grateful to both the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate for pushing these further to see what response we get from my noble friend the Minister.

I will try not to repeat everything that I said in Committee. On the minimum number of houses to which this would relate, the Bill takes everything the wrong way. It is absolutely clear that smaller builders—whom this clause does not target very effectively, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said—are more capable of building better-quality homes than the large builders. They are in no way constrained by technology. The clause somehow conveys a government view that small-scale builders are merely jobbing builders with no skills. That is absolutely wrong and sends completely the wrong message. They can deliver a high standard of homes as well as any other building business.

I agree with the right reverend Prelate. I certainly live in a very rural area. A number of the developments there are small scale, and they are all off the grid. I am off the grid. Local developments in villages around me are off the grid. We therefore have the problem that we institutionalise for another 50 to 100 years, or whatever the life expectancy of the property is, potential fuel poverty for those who live in those houses—that or we have an expensive retrofitting programme in the future, which we are already struggling trying to make work. In fact, DECC’s own figure for the cost of retrofitting the current housing stock to get it up to a proper level is £60 billion. That is quite a big sum. We should not be starting to add to that figure.

I welcome the proposal to keep a minimum number of houses; I suggested five in Committee, but 10 is quite reasonable. I welcome that fact that my noble friend the Minister, judging by our conversations, does not see the figure being any greater than that. Clearly, we are having a consultation process at the moment and I am sure that he cannot be specific until that is closed, but I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that that number cannot be too large. We certainly need a sunset to this clause. I hope that that will come out of this as well.

My noble friend Lady Maddock has gone through the questions surrounding the standards for zero-carbon homes very well, and how that issue appears to have moved backwards and forwards and backwards. I look forward to enlightenment in that area. I again come down to what the right reverend Prelate said about allowable solutions. I am not at all against them in concept, but wherever possible the targets need to be met within the building itself or very close to it. Once again, if we do not do that, the people who live in those houses will have increased energy bills for as long as they live there. We might neutralise carbon emissions globally—ensuring that is much more difficult on allowable solutions than actually on the property itself—but then you still have the problem that that property requires more energy to heat it and to keep it to the right standards.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

108: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Determination of planning applications
(1) In circumstances where planning permission for a development has been granted pursuant to section 70(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of applications: general considerations), any building work remaining to be carried out as part of that development after the expiry of six years from the granting of planning permission shall no longer be permitted to be carried out in compliance with the Approved Document Part L in force at the time when planning permission was granted, but shall instead be required to be carried out in compliance with the Approved Document Part L in force at that time.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
“building work” has the meaning given in regulation 3(1) of the Building Regulations 2010 (meaning of building work);
“Approved Document Part L” means a document issued in pursuance of section 6 of the Building Act 1984 (approved documents) for the purpose of providing guidance with respect to the requirements of Part L of Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010 (conservation of fuel and power).”

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, this continues a similar theme. I tabled an amendment in Committee to try to get more rigour into ensuring that the building regulations that we have are met and complied with. There is very little point in our legislating if those standards are not met in practice. I quoted the Government’s own adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, which stated that there seemed to be a big gap between what should be happening with the thermal efficiency of homes and what was actually happening. I was not completely reassured by that, but I accept that that is mainly a role of local government.

I am trying move on to address the fact that it often takes—and certainly has over recent years—a long time for a planning permission to become a built-out and lived-in development. We have the situation—I look on it as an anomaly or rather a loophole—whereby the building regulations to which builders must build relate to the date of the planning permission rather than when the development is constructed and completed. If that is only within a couple of years, it makes no difference whatever. We have, however, a number of developments—at certain times more than others—when that stretches over a considerable period. I realise that planning permissions themselves have a shelf life. After three years, if they have not been used, they go into abeyance. However, I remind noble Lords that under that system, as long as you do a certain amount of work—you do not have to complete it—that planning permission remains live. That is something that is done very regularly to make sure that planning permissions are not lost.

I was very impressed by the Minister’s figure of £200 that would potentially be saved per annum by the moving up of building regulations by the Government. Of course, that illustrates very well the extra cost to residents of houses that do not meet those standards—either because they have been exempted under the small development regime that we talked about in the previous amendment or because houses are being built under building regulations that are several years old.

It seems to me that this is something that needs to be fixed—for consumers and certainly for the government strategy on fuel poverty and zero-carbon homes. So I am putting forward an extremely modest proposal that is a longstop: if developments have not been completed within six years of gaining planning permission, at that point they must comply with the building regulations of that time rather than those when the planning permission took place. I have tried to make this amendment as clear as possible. I hope it says that. I very much hope that it is in line with government policy and that this is something of a loophole that we would like to close—particularly when we have periods when building and construction developments take a particularly long time.

Indeed, I would ask whether there is a temptation sometimes to get planning permissions early. Where we have land banks, it perhaps means that construction is delayed but it almost gives a benefit to developers to hang on to undeveloped land. I would like to see this very sensible measure used as an incentive for building, particularly of dwellings when we have such a national housing shortage, to be started and completed within a reasonable period. I beg to move.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for raising a very important and interesting point about developments that are not completed within six years of the granting of planning permission. As we have heard, it requires the development to be carried out in accordance with current building regulations relating to conservation of fuel and power. This is an attempt to address the very serious point that we have delays in the completion of developments, particularly housing. Given the housing crisis we face in this country, the objective should be to encourage sites with planning permission to be built out as soon as possible.

This is one of the issues that the Lyons report addressed for us. Although this is not the occasion for an extensive discourse on that report, one of the interesting points it makes is that some 80,000 unbuilt homes have planning permission from 2010 or earlier. Some of these will be built to 2006 standards, and so be eight or more years out of date. One of the issues that this amendment raises is how practical it is retrospectively to amend the applicable building regulations. There will obviously be issues around homes that are partially constructed at the cut-off point. Getting homes built earlier is good for obvious reasons, although, of course, it does not necessarily do anything to raise the standards of applicable building regulations.

I might resort to going back to the Lyons report. Obviously, not all these recommendations are yet, or will become, policy, but under the heading “Use it or lose it”, it suggests that,

“the life of a planning permission should be reduced to two years with higher fees applying for renewal of expired permissions”.

That would present an alternative mechanism whereby people have to go back and face updated building regulations. Certainly, more substantive work should be required to count as the commencement of development. That is a problem the noble Lord identified. The report also suggests that,

“councils should have powers to levy a charge equivalent to council tax if land allocated in a plan with or without permission is not brought forward within five years”.

Compulsory purchase powers could be strengthened and streamlined to make it easier for public bodies to acquire land where it is not brought forward and where it is a priority for development, so there are alternative ways to encourage developments to take place and perhaps to realign the nature of those developments with updated building regulations. The noble Lord has raised a very interesting point which I am sure will get a full response from the Minister. One hopes that something could actually flow from this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his support and his very good response to the concept that we are discussing. I look forward to the Labour Party developing that policy further. I particularly thank my noble friend the Minister for a very good and useful reply to my thoughts on this. I will read all that he has said very carefully. I bow to his knowledge of this area, which is much more excellent than my own, and which he has both through practical experience and through government. I hope that this might be the start of a further dialogue in this area—one which I will take an interest in, particularly regarding the use of that flexibility that is already there within the legislation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 108 withdrawn.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

The House should congratulate the Minister on the amendment. We have discussed it so often. We have been told on many previous occasions that Governments do not like lists; you can understand that. I shall not table an amendment saying, “Please add Segways and horses” or anything else. I take what the Minister says: this covers everything.

In that vein of thanks, the two other amendments in this group are to do with cycling and walking strategy. Some noble Lords have already spoken on cycling and walking. It may seem odd that on strategic highway routes there is not much cycling and walking. I suggest that there should be. It is important that, as part of the strategies that the strategic highway company will have to look at, it should have a separate cycling and walking investment strategy.

In this House we have debated cycling on many occasions. The pressure is on from many areas, not just from the cycling and walking organisations but also from those who believe that they are pretty healthy forms of transport, to get the Government to commit to a long-term strategy with some long-term funding. So far, Ministers have not been able to make any commitment to funding, but the recommendations from the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s report last year suggested that £10 per head of population per year—which is about half the figure in many continental countries, such as Belgium, Holland and Denmark—could be allocated on a long-term basis to improving cycling facilities, infrastructure and other things,

I know that Ministers have in the past said that this is a local problem and that it should therefore be funded locally. The problem is that local funding does not usually stretch to such things. Many people believe that, combined with a draft strategy, something like what is in Amendment 55 and the proposed new schedule in Amendment 96 should be done for the benefit of health, and for cyclists and walkers, and to reduce road congestion, pollution and the other things that we talked about earlier.

I look forward to the Minister’s response, and take into account that this is only the small tip of an iceberg. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham said, most journeys take place on local roads. Still, it is a start, and if it could happen on the trunk road network, I suspect that the other roads would soon follow.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the Minister’s amendment. It offers clarity and shows that the Government are quite clear that cyclists and walkers are important on the highway network. I admit that I could not resist backing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, because, although I am not an absolutely regular cyclist, I get my bike out quite frequently in Cornwall, which is not the easiest of terrain to cycle.

I was in continental Europe over the weekend, and it was astounding to see how important cycling can be in terms of an alternative transport means and strategy. If it is one that is generally safe, and one that is accepted among families, then it becomes a normal way of getting to school, of getting to work and moving around. Indeed, I remember doing it as a child back in the 1950s and 1960s. I always used to cycle to school, save the bus fare and spend it elsewhere. That was my disposable income for the week.

Given the excellent work that, in particular, my right honourable friend Norman Baker has done in the other place in the past, and the Local Sustainable Transport Fund, this is something that we need to build on. That is why I was very pleased to support this amendment. It would be good to move to a proper formal government strategy in this area. It is also all part of our commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the transport sector, and a very important way of doing that. Having said that, I also understand the argument that—hopefully—as we devolve more fiscal powers to cities and non-metropolitan areas as well, this should be a major part of their focus of work, too.

It would be a sign that the Government is looking at this area and has some strategy that they see as a framework. It would also give a signal that the Government think that this is important, and would get them ahead of the curve on this important change that is gradually happening. It would be so much better for all of us: for emissions, for physical exercise and for congestion. It would have big pluses for all those points of view. That is why I am pleased that the Minister has proposed the amendment that she has, but I hope that the Government can consider this and take it forward in some way or another.

[Baroness Kramer]

I thank noble Lords for that brief but very interesting debate. I suspect that everyone in this House recognises the importance of cycling. I will use the opportunity to name some of the coalition Government’s successes in this area. Government spending on cycling overall since 2010 has more than doubled compared to the previous four years: £374 million has been committed between 2011 and 2015. Cycling spend is currently around £5 per person each year across England, and over £10 per person in London and our eight cycling ambition cities across England: Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich and Oxford. Since that £10 is an important marker number, I draw attention to it.

Our recent investment in bike and rail has been the major enabler in doubling cycle parking spaces at railway stations since 2009. I announced a further £15 million of bike and rail funding in July 2014, to triple the number of cycle parking spaces at railway stations. Cycle journeys are often local in nature, however, and it is right that many of the decisions about the level of investment in cycling are made locally. With unprecedented levels of long-term funding available in the Local Growth Fund, this means that all local areas that wish to can invest £10 per head in cycling. The Local Growth Fund has made £3 billion available for local transport schemes, and that is just so far. This long-term funding is from a total package of £12 billion, which will run until 2020-21, and includes £700 million for packages of schemes that include cycling and walking.

In order to meet our ambition to make the UK a cycling nation, there are other important measures needed as well as providing funding to deliver high-quality cycling infrastructure. We need that commitment from local government leaders to recognise cycling and walking as crucial to the health of the economy, of their local areas, and of individuals. But we have to tackle safety issues, including perceptions of safety. There is no point in funding infrastructure if people are afraid to use it.

As many noble Lords are no doubt aware, we have recently published our draft cycling delivery plan. This 10-year plan sets out our proposals on how the Prime Minister’s ambition—an ambition shared across the coalition—to achieve a cycling revolution is to be delivered. As part of that, it sets out how government, with local government and businesses, can work together to collectively achieve a long-term vision for cycling. It includes ambitions to double cycling levels by 2025 and increase the percentage of school children aged five to 10 walking to school to 55% by 2025.

It also has aspirations to explore with local government and business how we can achieve a minimum funding packet equivalent to £10 per person each year by 2020-21, and sooner if possible. By inviting local authorities to form strategic partnerships with government, it is our intention to build a better picture of the infrastructure, funding structures and capacity that each partner authority needs to really deliver transformational levels of cycling and walking in their areas. I hope very much that your Lordships will contribute during the consultation phase that follows the publication of the report, which also addresses the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s recommendations in its Get Britain Cycling report and some of the recommendations in the All-Party Parliamentary Commission on Physical Activity report, Tackling Physical Inactivity: A Coordinated Approach, setting out how cycling and walking will contribute to the Government’s work to ensure a physical activity legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Rail and strategic roads are national networks; local roads are just that—local. Of course, where cycling and walking is integrated with these national networks, such as through station parking or providing safer cycling facilities on the strategic road network, I would expect the Government to be involved. I believe that through the cycle rail programme, and the programme to cycle-proof the strategic road network, the Government are already making major inroads in this area. But surely a national cycling and walking imposition would go against the principles of localism, whereby we believe councils are best placed to know what their local communities need.

Of course there is a role for government to explore how we can best support local authorities and local businesses to deliver their ambitions for cycling and walking, and we have set out how we propose to do that in the draft cycling delivery plan, as we seek to create strategic partnerships with local government. I hope that the approach, which is reinforced by further announcements this week on devolution, has set out and demonstrated that we are committed to cycling and walking in addition to all other forms of transport. On that basis, I hope that the reassurance provided to your Lordships will enable them not to press the amendment with the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, on behalf of the House, though there is almost no one here to hear it, I thank the Minister and civil servants for listening to those of us in Grand Committee who argued particularly on two issues. First, this is a controversial subject. As I said earlier, we all agree that we need to control non-native invasive species, but the range of views among stakeholders is controversial. That the code of practice will be open to full public consultation, which was not in the original Bill, is a very welcome initiative. Equally, I am grateful that Peers had the opportunity to see the draft of those codes of practice before Report. That was extremely helpful.

Secondly, the other issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred earlier is the fact that the Bill now rightly includes humane standards of dispatch for any animals which are subject to control orders. That was a large oversight which has been rightly rectified. If animals are going to be controlled, as some will have to be, it should be done with minimum suffering, pain and distress. It is to the credit of this coalition Government that that has been included.

[Lord Teverson]

I add my congratulations. I contributed to this debate in Grand Committee. It is good to see that a great deal of listening has taken place and some practical action has occurred. I am impressed that the Minister is also such an expert on areas such as non-native invasive species. The fact that a lot of these issues have been resolved is a good example of how government can work with the House to resolve important issues such as this one. Given globalisation, this area will grow in importance as the years go on. It is important that we get it right now. I congratulate the Minister on what she has managed to achieve.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister might have expected the odd congratulation from her own supportive Benches, although whether she would get the same commendation after Christmas as we get closer to the general election is a different matter altogether. However, from these Benches I also congratulate the Minister on the extent to which she listened and responded to the points made in Committee. This is one of the few occasions on which I have tabled an amendment and then seen the Government table an amendment which is as close to being identical as one could have. Therefore, talk about taking the wind out of my sails—I was actually breathless and unable to carry on with my comments. I end on that, I hope, helpful point.

[Lord Teverson]

We on these Benches have great admiration for the work that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has done on this part of the Bill. He made excellent speeches in Grand Committee.

Amendment 72 agreed.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I very much support the amendments of my noble friend the Minister. The socialist in me would say that I do not see why individual landholders should have particular rights over ground more than 300 metres deep. It does not in any way disturb their properties above; 300 metres is a long way down. Certainly all shale gas, conventional gas or oil, geothermal or hot rocks geothermal extraction takes place below that level.

I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin for his excellent exposition of geothermal; I can see that the exchange of information will be more than two-way in the future and he will quickly overtake me on this issue. There has been an uncertain legal position over the right to heat; how do you define heat? It is not a substance but a characteristic of substances that you then extract. These proposals make the situation absolutely clear to developers so that geothermal extraction can start to take place and investors can have some confidence in this form of energy.

I had a great experience earlier this month. I went to a quarry called Rosemanowes, near Penryn, some 10 miles away from my home. More than 20 years ago, the then DTI carried out some boring for geothermal experimentation there. Under DECC’s Energy Entrepreneurs Fund, an organisation called Geothermal Engineering Limited has been able to reuse that borehole by putting down another polypropylene pipe for 1.5 kilometres. Water was pumped down and came back up from that depth at a temperature of 60 degrees. The company reckoned that they could increase it to 90 degrees. Obviously, the further you go down the more you can increase the temperature. With the renewable heat incentive introduced by the Government, deep geothermal heat becomes possible. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, in the short term, extraction of heat from geothermal will be far more important than the potential for electricity generation; you have to go down to some 9 kilometres to increase the temperature to 200 degrees. With much smaller investments, there is potential to reuse existing boreholes —the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that there are 2,000 scattered around England—for geothermal heat. That is why I particularly welcome these new clauses.

I predict that in the medium to long-term future, geothermal will be far more important than shale gas. I also think that the shale gas revolution, which I am not against as a substitute for North Sea oil strategically in our energy security, is probably overhyped. However, if it can be made to work under exacting environmental standards, I do not want to get in its way. I therefore welcome these clauses and accept that they must be considered within the context of very strict environmental control and licensing outside this piece of legislation.

As to some of the other amendments, I agree with my noble friend Lord Jenkin and do not understand why there is an exclusion regarding geothermal energy. I agree also with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that there should be some specific restrictions in the legislation. I am not sure the whole of her list should be included but we need to be firm about certain areas, and it would be useful if it were stated in primary legislation.

I very much agree with the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but am not sure about some of the detail. Why do we need a whole 12 months of monitoring beforehand, looking at base data? I am sure there are all sorts of technical reasons for that but I wonder if they go a little far sometimes in standing in the way of a development that can go ahead. I agree that there are a number of areas that we have to be very careful about. Whether those are put in secondary legislation or in the Bill, I am not sure. I congratulate my noble friend on bringing these amendments forward. They will do great things for our energy mix in future.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, I must apologise to the Committee as I have not read the consultation response and so am not up on all the issues that have been looked into. I declare an interest as an owner of land in Scotland.

As we venture into this field of land at a depth of more than 300 metres and questions of ownership and interest, I just wonder whether all aspects have been looked at. One thing that is quite useful is that all coal, petroleum and so on are in the power of the Government but there is a chance that, once a shale extraction site has been established and there are large channels out under various properties, people may find that something else can be developed within that property. That might be coal gasification or something like it at deeper levels. I do not know how deep coal mines go in this country. I hope, with any luck, that they are not more than 300 metres but some coal mines are very deep indeed. One has to think of what effect establishing the shale gas network will have on other interests within the land.

I was very interested in the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talking about the knowledge of the Environment Agency in monitoring this. In fact, it may well be that the skills that my noble friend Lord Borwick referred to in being able to detect deep drilling will become rather more vital. Presumably the Environment Agency can tell that drilling is more than 300 metres deep. It would be perfectly possible to drill a hole 300 metres deep and then put out side-feelers at less than 300 metres, saying “Oh, but we drilled to the depth we needed to”. That is where more surface problems might arise.

I guess that the question of why heat is not included in the Scottish powers is that we did not reserve heat to Westminster when we passed the Scotland Act. No doubt the Minister will tell me what the correct answer is on that. The other thing I thought of is this: supposing this network is established at great cost and somebody then does something to damage it—certainly an earthquake would damage it but you could not blame anyone for that—what rights do the owners of a shale extraction business have to their assets that are underneath other people’s property?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, when I saw this amendment, I thought that it looked remarkably familiar. It took me back to the trauma of four years of the Energy Bill, and the White Papers before it. However, I am actually very pleased to see it because it was an important principle of an amendment that we tabled at the time. To explain this a little more from where I stand, this is one of the areas where white is black and black is white in coal terms. Making coal plants far better for the world in their nitrous and sulphur emissions, which we all want, means that they can escape the rundown that is caused by the European directives that mean that these coal stations have to go. The way in which the emission performance standards were written into the Energy Bill means, effectively, that they have a free life up to about 2044, or something like that—if you can keep them going—when we can change the emissions performance standards and they lose their grandfather rights. That is the issue.

I have not gone into this matter in the great detail that the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has, but I can see that there are ways by which being able to participate in the capacity mechanism gives enough financial stability for the energy companies to take on the investment that would enable them to comply with the large plant combustion directive and its successors and so continue to be high carbon emitters in this economy for many years to come. That has to be a bad thing. I will not go all the way through the arguments that we had in previous debates but, clearly, it is bad in terms of emissions. Coal is not good in that regard. I am not absolutely against coal being part of the capacity mechanism. I would prefer it if it was not, but I do not think that it is absolutely fundamental. What worries me is that, by investing to comply with European directives, we then have them for a long time into the future, which we would not otherwise. That is bad, but, at a time when an argument has emanated from the Treasury wishing gas to be particularly strong, it works against gas investment as well. That is investment that the Government has rightly said is important for medium-term fuel strategy and clearly is half the level of carbon emissions.

Without going through all the arguments again, this sort of amendment gives a double win for the Government on greater incentives for gas investment in the medium term and on meeting its carbon targets more certainly as time goes on. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will find a way to realise those objectives, which are from both sides of the coalition, by looking at this very carefully.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I support the amendment and my noble friend. The arguments she made during the Energy Bill have come to pass—I do not think that Bill lasted for four years, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, but it felt like it. The reality is that while in America the arrival of shale gas has driven out coal, to the benefit of carbon emissions—this links back to previous debates—it has also had the knock-on effect that the world price of coal has gone down. Therefore, the economics of coal in the rest of the world now look much more attractive. The economics of continuing to run coal-fired stations look dramatically more attractive.

A number of things were not clear during the debate on the Energy Bill and when it passed, including the exact way in which the capacity mechanism would work and who would be eligible. Some of that has become clearer with the regulations that have gone through. We now know which plants are being put in as a capacity mechanism; it includes some pretty old coal plants. Plants that companies such as EDF gave a clear indication, seven or eight years ago, would close about two or three years from now are now being rolled forward. The way to square that would have been for the performance standard to apply to old coal as it does to new coal plants, but it does not.

While the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is right that we encourage all plants to fit this abatement of sulphur et cetera, we have not applied the new emission standard in the Energy Act to all this old coal plant. As I understand it, the purport of the amendment is to ensure that they will be treated in the same way as new plants. That would change the economics of coal.

The other thing that has changed since the debate on the Energy Bill is that it was assumed at that time by some of the modellers that, as was originally intended, there would be a ratcheting up of the carbon price floor. That would also have altered the relative price of keeping on old coal, to the detriment of the coal industry. Of course, within a few weeks of the Energy Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Chancellor announced that we are no longer going to ratchet up the carbon price floor. Leaving aside the principled arguments about the use of a carbon price floor, the effect of that is that the economics do not look the same as they did when we were discussing that Bill. Clearly they were expressed as looking that way by the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, it could mean that old coal plant could be running for decades as a result of the emissions performance standards not fully applying and the abolition of the carbon floor price ratcheting up.

The amendment is intended to ensure that that is not the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has said, the immediate effect is to make our energy supply more dependent on old coal and less attractive to investment in new gas. Therefore, the higher the level of old coal that qualifies under the capacity mechanism, the less investment there will be in new, efficient gas generation.

In all terms, the economics have been made more difficult. The environmental cost of carbon emissions could be substantial. I therefore hope that the Government at least understand part of that argument and recognise that they have to do something along the lines my noble friend is arguing in support of these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, it is approaching 6 pm and we have been here for some time, so I do not propose to speak for long on this amendment. However, it relates to another important aspect of the Energy Act that we need to revisit. The Act’s first sections are about the need for decarbonisation. Indeed, that was the justification for all the measures that followed; we were about to embark on a process of decarbonisation, which was why we needed contracts for difference and to make all the interventions that we did. However, those sections are very oddly worded and actually prevent a decarbonisation target from being set until criteria are met. In effect, rather than setting a decarbonisation target, the Act prevents one from being set and ties the hands of a future Government. That is not good lawmaking and certainly, if there is a change of Government, we would wish to set a decarbonisation target as soon as possible to clear up the mess, and give the signal to investors that this is the target we are aiming for them to meet and that that is how they should make their investments. The provision in the Act is inappropriate, and this amendment seeks to delete the part that restricts the setting of a decarbonisation target and ties the hands of future Governments. It has no place in the Energy Act.

If it is true that the Government’s intention is to use the Act to decarbonise, why would you then restrict the decarbonisation target from being set? It makes no sense. Let us be clear that the Minister rightly pointed to some investments coming into renewables. That is being driven by a legally binding European target that expires in 2020. That is just around the corner in energy investment terms. There is absolutely nothing in the Government’s policies that means we will continue to do renewables—nothing, at least, that is legally established. If we see the continuation of opposition to all renewables on the basis that they are more expensive—when, in fact, their costs are falling rapidly—we could see that whole industry being undermined and stopped, post 2020, in the absence of any other target at a European level.

Now, I do not happen to agree with targets being needed at a European level on renewables specifically, but we need decarbonisation targets. We need a clear plan and to create the right investment climate so that people can make the right decisions—not the wrong ones. This amendment is simply to allow us to do that. Should we have a Labour Government in 2015, we are absolutely clear that we would set a decarbonisation target. We seek to move this amendment so as not to have our hands tied by what is a very inappropriate piece of legislation in the previous Energy Act. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

Since we are in Committee, why did the noble Baroness not just delete the whole of subsection (5) altogether?

[Baroness Worthington]

That is a good question. In the interests of taking out the most annoying part of the Act, we restrict ourselves to simply removing the part that restricts us in the timing of when a decarbonisation order could be set. That is the reason.

--- Later in debate ---

He went on to tell his audience that this happy state of affairs “requires … political courage”. It is that political courage that I am looking for from the Minister tonight. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on putting forward this excellent amendment. It would be very good if something like this appeared in the manifestos of however many parties we have in the general election next year.

This comes down to the stewardship of the proceeds of non-renewable resources. That is the point. My part of the world, Cornwall, was one of the richest mining areas in the 19th century. Over a period of about 60 years it had the equivalent of billionaires and some of the greatest exports. It was certainly one of the richest parts of the UK. Where is it now? It is one of the poorest EU regions and receives some of the highest forms of EU aid in the European Union. Not one penny of that income from tin, copper and arsenic was retained, so we have an example of how that generational opportunity was very soon dissipated and lost to today’s generation. Perhaps that is a very simplistic illustration, but it is a very real one. We have one small quasi-sovereign wealth fund in the UK: the Shetland Charitable Trust. There are issues around that, but that local authority has managed to keep some of the proceeds from North Sea oil.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made the point extremely well. As he said, the Norwegian fund is so large that for each citizen—some 5 million of them—it would be something like $200,000 within a three-year period.

Having spent the income from North Sea oil, I do not see that within a European context overall we are wildly ahead of some of our neighbours because we had that asset. Clearly it is a challenge to government, and I suspect that the Treasury is not so keen in this area, particularly when we are tackling a £90 billion per annum deficit. It may be that this is a difficult time to persuade the Treasury that we should start banking it rather than paying off the mortgage. However, I think this is an important area. It is intergenerational. We think more about those issues these days. You have to start somewhere with something like this. You start when you start to explore and use a new non-renewable resource, and unconventional gas or oil is one of those. The start may be modest but I hope that as we reduce the deficit in our public expenditure such a sovereign wealth fund can take up the slack and be of benefit to future generations.

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to support this amendment. It is probably two weeks ago today that I was in Norway on an Inter-Parliamentary Union visit. We were privileged to have a presentation about the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund: how it started, where it was and the fact that during the recession we have all suffered, the sovereign wealth fund did not suffer. It was interesting to see it from that point of view, but we need to be aware of two things that are very different there.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, after the destruction of habitats, the introduction of invasive non-native species is perhaps the most urgent threat to biodiversity. There are more than 3,000 non-native species in Britain today. Some are very familiar, such as the grey squirrel or the Himalayan balsam that clogs up our riverbanks. Others are less obvious, such as the signal crayfish or harlequin ladybirds, but their impacts can be just as serious.

The economic impact of invasive species on the UK has been estimated at £1.8 billion every year, which includes £1 billion to the agriculture and horticulture sectors and more than £200 million to the construction, development and infrastructure sectors. More personally, invasive non-native species impact on our sense of place—what makes our corners of Britain distinctive and precious. That is why it is important for the Government to act. I warmly welcome the principles behind Clause 16, which would introduce new powers to compel landowners to take action on invasive non-native species or permit others to enter their land and carry out those operations. However, I have introduced Amendments 64A and 65A to explore two apparent weaknesses in the drafting of the clause.

The Bill defines a species as non-native if it is listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or if,

“it is not ordinarily resident in, or a regular visitor to, Great Britain in a wild state”.

Both of these definitions seem to me to be rather problematic. Defining something as non-native if it is not ordinarily resident in Britain could end up rendering species that have gone extinct as non-native, just because they are not currently resident. As it is drafted, new paragraph 2(3)(b) of Schedule 9A effectively sets the status quo of British biodiversity in law—a one-way system for biodiversity loss, as once an animal ceases to appear in the wild, it ceases to be native.

Of course, this definition applies in the case of species-control powers, so I accept that it will be up to the environmental agencies when to use those powers. However, it would seem perverse to create a legal definition of “non-native” that could apply to species that return to our shores after becoming extinct, or that we wish to reintroduce. I am concerned that this definition could create a precedent or perhaps interfere with important future reintroduction programmes. Reintroductions help to enrich biodiversity in the UK, contribute to international conservation and improve people’s enjoyment of nature. Species that were once indigenous to the UK that have been reintroduced include capercaillie and short-haired bumblebees.

The second problem with the definition in the Bill is that it would define animals and plants listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as “non-native”. Why would that apparently define several species that are currently resident as non-native? The schedule was last revised in 2010. Part 1 lists:

“Animals which are established in the wild”,

and currently includes 67 non-native species that are considered invasive, such as the grey squirrel. However, it also includes nine species or birds that are indigenous, two of which became extinct in Britain but have been reintroduced: the capercaillie, which I mentioned previously, and white-tailed eagles. Birds such as the barn owl, the chough, the corncrake, the goshawk and the red kite were added in 2010. Amendment 64A would exclude indigenous species from the lists in Schedule 9, so species such as the white-tailed eagle would not be wrongly defined as non-native. Amendment 65A would simply add the words,

“and has never been indigenous to”,

to the definition of “non-native species”. Ecologically, “indigenous” refers to the presence of a species in a region as a result of natural processes, without human intervention. My amendment would therefore exclude from the definition of “non-native” animals that were once naturally resident in the UK and have at some point gone extinct.

Clause 16 seems to define as “non-native” several species that are in fact indigenous to the UK. There is an important principle at stake here: that species that have gone extinct, often because of human actions, should not subsequently be considered non-native. My amendments are intended to help to improve the definition of “non-native”, and equally would help the Government to commit to enhance the UK’s biodiversity, as they have promised to do on numerous occasions. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I very much support my noble friend’s amendment, to which I have added my name. I was looking through Schedule 9 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act to see what sort of things were in it. There is everything from budgerigars to Egyptian geese, night herons and parakeets, so there is quite a bit there. The thing that struck me about the importance of this issue is that if we look at Cornwall not as a nation—which of course it is—but as a sovereign nation, its national bird, which features on its coat of arms with a fisherman and a miner, is of course a chough. It is widely known in Britain as the Cornish chough. Regrettably, it disappeared from Cornwall in 1947, but I am pleased to say that it reintroduced itself from Ireland in 2001 and since then has been fairly active in reproduction and has succeeded in west Cornwall. If we went back and passed this legislation in 2000 and looked upon Cornwall as an ecological area, we would now see the chough as an alien species, despite the fact that it is our national bird. I use that as a broad illustration of the issue. Having said that, it is an important issue. I absolutely support this part of the Bill and see this as a very important area.

We really should not mention Japanese knotweed, although that is in Schedule 9. If we are not allowed to talk about Japanese knotweed I could call it Polygonum cuspidatum.

This is an important area, but clearly animals and plants that have been part of the British habitat over a long period are native species and can return. We all know of important reintroduction programmes that have taken place. We should welcome them rather than outlaw them.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, I, too, strongly support this section of the Bill. It was very encouraging this morning at the session that some of us attended at Defra to hear that the UK is ahead of the game vis-à-vis Europe in terms of trying to control and monitor invasive species. The more that we can do it, and the quicker that we can do it, the better. However, I am not certain about Amendment 65A; I am not sure that past claims to being native mean that they would not necessarily be invasive now. I agree about certain species—red kites are one, and perhaps the bustard will be another—but let us take a species that has been in the news recently: beavers. Actually, in spite of the newspapers saying that beavers have recently been discovered in the wild in the south-west, they have been running around in the south-west for some years now, as far as I am aware. They say that it is the first time they have around for 800 years but we do not quite know what effect they will have. Their habit of damming streams and blocking rivers—bear in mind that there have been floods recently in the south-west—might be a problem. I feel that that situation would need to be looked at.

Turning to my native Scotland, there is a suggestion that we might introduce wolves there. I have an interest to declare here: my ancestor Sir Ewen Cameron of Lochiel, who was known as the great Sir Ewen, apart from spending all his life in the latter half of the 1600s killing Englishmen, for which he got knighted by the English king as one tends to do—do not ask me why—also killed the last wolf in Scotland. I have always been led to believe that he swung it round his head and wrapped it around a tree, but that may be a detail too far.

The situation has changed dramatically for wolves in terms of both population density and livestock density in Scotland. So I do not think that you can put a provision like this in the Bill. Every species has to be judged according to its particular habits and interests in relation to the countryside today.

I looked through these amendments to see where I could make this point. Some of us attended the very good seminar at Defra this morning, but one thing concerned me in connection with wild boar and the Forest of Dean. Defra seemed to indicate that where the local community was not in favour of controlling or eliminating the species, that would have priority. This is a dangerous precedent in principle. For instance, there was a lot of outcry from the nation about trying to kill ruddy ducks without the full picture being understood. I am pleased to say that the nation’s views, as expressed in the Daily Mail and elsewhere, were ignored on that occasion, and the ruddy duck is now a great success story—we have brought the number down to almost nil. I bet that a part of the community, not understanding the huge damage that grey squirrels do to trees, forestry and red squirrels, would not necessarily be in favour of controlling and exterminating grey squirrels, even if that were possible.

[Lord Teverson]

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, in Cornwall recently—last year, in fact—a company with which I have familial connections produced grey squirrel pasties, which were extremely successful, and there were no demonstrations whatever outside the shop.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

I am sure that the appetites of the Corns are something to be praised in this respect. My point is that I hope that this principle will not be too rigorously followed when dealing with invasive alien species in future.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I would just like to ask the Minister where this figure of a £2.6 billion saving comes from. The two organisations Network Rail and the new strategic highways company will be quite similar, but one difference between them, which we will come on to in later amendments, relates to the role of the Office of Rail Regulation. Over the past 10 years, the Office of Rail Regulation has required Network Rail to make savings of about 60% of its turnover. That is quite a big saving, which has been achieved, while keeping the service going and the quality improving, because the regulator has very strong powers. If the savings are not made, or if the resulting performance of the network is bad, the regulator can fine Network Rail, as I believe it is planning to do next week.

The problem here is that the rail regulator will not have such powers over the highways authority but will simply monitor. You can sit monitoring things all your life, but you cannot incentivise or require an organisation to make the changes that it should. I am sure that there are changes to be made. I am sure that significant percentage savings could be made over quite short periods. On whether those would be the same as in the case of Network Rail, they probably could be, because Network Rail started off as a nationalised industry, which was probably pretty inefficient to some people. Although the Highways Agency has improved over the years, there is probably a long way further to go. However, unless we can get the ORR to have the same powers not just to monitor but to control and enforce cost reductions, I am not quite sure where we are with this.

Listening to other noble Lords, I am beginning to think that the only benefit from this that I have heard is the idea—which the Minister has, of course, denied—that the Bill is about getting the Highways Agency ready for privatisation.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest in that I, too, am a regular user of the A303. When driving down there, one of the greatest moments for me is being able to see Stonehenge, but I know that the fact that I can do so is not necessarily good for the millions of people who go to visit it. More seriously, perhaps I could also declare my interests for the rest of the Committee stage of this Bill. I am a director of Wessex Investors, which would have an interest in the outcome of some of the planning implications of the Bill, although I do not intend to speak on those particularly. Wessex Investors could also potentially have an interest in some of the energy provisions, as it is starting to negotiate with an organisation on an energy project in the south-west. However, I do not think that any of those affect what I am going to talk about.

I, too, shall be interested in hearing answers to the questions on this asked by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Davies, but I want to make the point that it is important politically that the Government are saying in the Bill that we have had enough of the stop-start, ad hoc investment plans for roads, and we need to move on to a much more mature and grown-up way of looking at infrastructure in the highways sector. Whether that is absolutely dependent on changing the name and function or legal entity of the Highways Agency, I am not absolutely sure, but I know that the Minister will come back on that when she answers the debate.

However, the good thing is that there is a real intention to start to mirror the situation that applies to rail. My understanding of this is imperfect and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will know far more about it than me, but, as I see it, we have a good example from Network Rail, for which we now have a £38 billion programme over the next five years providing the investment needed to keep this country moving and to move things forward and modernise that network. That seems to be incredibly successful as regards usage and how that has worked over the past decade and into the future. If we can start to replicate that in the way we treat roads in this country, that would be positive.

I am not a great person for advocating huge investment in the strategic road network—apart from for the A303—but that clearly needs to be done in some areas, and on a programmed and predictable basis so that the Government, users and contractors know that it will be rolled out and actually happen rather than be subject to the next budget cut. I therefore welcome that, and hope that the Minister will be able to reply in such a way as to show that this change of the legal status of the Highways Agency will enable that to happen. Clearly, we need to do that.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill, which starts to lay a foundation for the most important infrastructure skeleton of our country. It deals with certain areas but many other parts of the government programme have already dealt with parts of the infrastructure. For instance, superfast broadband is rolling out very effectively across the country.

I refute what has been said about the power network. Sure, there are challenges there, but the Energy Act is there to fix that problem and decarbonise the electricity generating network in future. In terms of the levy control framework and other financial indicators, it is already over demand. As for renewables, nuclear is moving ahead and that whole area is being tackled quite successfully. The problems of undercapacity in that sector, given the gestation period of investment in the power industry, certainly did not start in 2010; that is absolutely for sure. We have a new and effective infrastructure to ensure that the power industry can meet demand. I am also very pleased to say, although I do not want to move off to this subject too much, that we have a Government who recognise that there are two sides to that equation, which was never recognised before: there is demand as well as supply, and we are starting to move ahead in that area as well.

In rail, obviously there is HS2, but it is often forgotten that we have a rail investment programme that is worth some £38 billion over the next five years beyond that project, as well as Crossrail. In ports, through private sector investment, London Gateway, Felixstowe and Southampton are all going through major developments. Port of Tyne, which I visited not so long ago, is also developing very strongly.

One of the things that the commission has shown so far is that there is no crisis in runways. This is very much talked up by the lobbyists from the airport and runway industry and, although it needs to be sorted for the future, it is not as immediate as we sometimes think it is.

So I very much welcome the Bill within that broader context. I am not sure just how important it is that the Highways Agency is, interestingly, becoming highways companies—not just one but maybe many—but what is important in the Bill is that we start to get down to having programmes that can be planned and relied on over a number of years, which means that the cost of that infrastructure starts to come down. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will be talking much more about this area later in the debate.

I want to move on to some of the energy areas in particular. I think that the provisions that are being brought forward are excellent. The community energy right is a major step forward that should have happened long ago. The Government have taken the community aspects of energy very seriously. That was not the case before. Here we have the ability of local communities to invest in schemes above five megawatts. There is some criticism of that figure, but I think it is about right in terms of scale. They can invest in those schemes and take local benefit in various financial ways. We will discuss them in Committee. That is a major step forward in the community approach to energy projects in this country, where the resistance to renewable energy is not nearly as great as some people in this House would portray. Renewable energy will be much more important if communities are able to invest themselves.

That is true of what we hope will come through in the clauses on fracking, with direct community benefit, which will be important. We need to change the trespass legislation to bring it in line with many other areas. I am tantalised by the fact that there is such a positive reaction to geothermal energy, which is also affected by this change in legislation. In the Queen’s Speech debate, I started to ask what else the Government can do to help us kick-start the technology for geothermal energy and ensure there is that legal change. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that it has great potential for us as a country. I agree that fracking is important for our energy security in the medium term in terms of gas provision. However, in moving towards decarbonisation, gas can be only a transition energy source but it can be an important part of that formula, given the major decline in North Sea oil production.

Low-carbon homes are not in the Bill at present as we are going out to consultation, which seems a good thing to do. This House will have plenty of time to consider those clauses, probably in Committee after the Recess. I am very pleased that the Government are nailing their colours to the mast over zero-carbon homes. One of my great concerns has been that there will be a major erosion of that and that the proposals rightly put forward by the previous Government, and the commitment made by them, would be lost. We know that that will not be the case. There is some sense in the allowable solutions formula, which means that there is some leeway in finding off-site ways to come to a zero-carbon equation. Having said that, in Committee and on Report we will make sure that that is done through strong controls. I would not like to see a method by which developers can find a way around the regulations and the allowable changes get forgotten in the process. That is a risk we must avoid.

My other area of concern is that we are consulting on excluding smaller developments. I am sure this will come through in the consultation, and I hope the Government will reconsider. I do not see the logic of excluding small developments from the definition of zero-carbon homes. There might be some idea that small housebuilders do not or should not have the skills needed to met this level of insulation and energy-saving. That is wrong and creates barriers to those housebuilders. It is nothing to do with red tape, but is just building to the standards that people are supposed to build to. The greatest challenge may be to ensure that current building regulations are enforced, which we often find does not happen enough. That is perhaps the core issue: enforcing existing regulations and legislation.

Smaller developments often take place in rural communities, where energy is more expensive than in urban areas because they are often off the gas grid. By building homes that have lower energy efficiency, we are potentially giving those more rural and isolated communities a double whammy of problems and costs.

Does increasing energy-efficiency regulation add lots to the cost of the product? We have seen in the automotive industry that the opposite has happened. As time has passed, the real cost of vehicles has gone down despite energy efficiency going up quite markedly. I see no reason why that should not be the case for residential homes in the building industry, as has been shown in the rest of Europe. I very much hope that the Government will look at that consultation carefully, and we will look at it further in Committee.

On invasive and non-native species, biodefence and security—as I suppose one would call it—is clearly important for this country. We have seen this with everything from ash dieback disease to foot and mouth and the whole issue of Japanese knotweed, of which there is lots around where I live. This is a key area, and I very much welcome these extra steps to make sure that we keep our biodiversity secure. That is absolutely fundamental to our nation’s future security, and we will obviously be looking at it in detail in Committee.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I take a particular interest in energy and climate change, so it was some relief to see in the list of Bills that we do not have another energy Bill this Session, the previous one having taken up most of the time of energy teams on all sides from the general election through to December last year. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said earlier in the debate, there is relief that it is all about implementing quickly and effectively all the enabling secondary legislation that will be needed to make sure that our energy supplies in this country—hopefully renewable rather than non-renewable—are guaranteed, protected and in place over the next one or two decades.

Having said that, I particularly want to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that the latter parts of the Bill put much greater emphasis on the demand side of electricity markets, in contrast to the complete and utter focus on supply at the beginning. I ask my noble friends, Ministers and the Secretary of State in DECC to make sure that that momentum continues, particularly when it comes to the capacity mechanism that is out to consultation. A number of important decisions will be made fairly soon on demand-side management, and the demand side should be taken fully into account so that we can benefit from the investment that will lead to further reductions in electricity costs as well. I hope that that emphasis will remain strong.

What we have in the Infrastructure Bill, as has already been mentioned by many noble Lords, is fracking and being able to exploit that resource and get around the legal difficulties and hurdles that there are at the moment. I support this in principle. I think it is quite a difficult message to sell, because stating that you are going to take away people’s rights, even though the fracking will be at a greater depth than 300 metres underground—I think that is the proposal—will mean that there are concerns. It is a way forward through which we can exploit our resources effectively. It has been true of other areas of energy already. However, we have to make sure that the environmental controls on gas from those unconventional sources are absolutely tight, that they work completely effectively—not just partially—and that people can have complete confidence in the environmental checks as that industry starts to work.

Again, we have to remember that gas can only be an intermediary fuel in the UK’s energy mix. I suspect that it is unlikely that we will have a lot of gas that will benefit from carbon capture and storage, or from other ways of taking carbon content out of gas, so it is an intermediary technology. Nevertheless, as illustrated many times by my Conservative colleagues, we have seen that by introducing more gas into the generating mix in the short term, the United States, which is still the largest economy in the world, has managed to reduce carbon emissions quite significantly. I may come back to that theme later on.

What intrigues me from a renewables point of view, as someone who lives in the far south-west, is that the logic—forgive me, I was going to say spin, but I am sure it is not—of this particular development and legislation is also about helping geothermal generation, not just of electricity but of heat. I hope that my ministerial colleague in her answer will state or confirm that with the increased profile of geothermal energy in the gracious Speech we will have further action from the Government in promoting this technology—not just through the renewable heat initiative, which has started to work very effectively, but in terms of electricity generation. We have a fantastic resource, which is completely renewable and not an intermittent power source either. From that point of view, I hope we will see a brighter future for it.

The other area I wanted to move on to is that of zero-carbon homes, which is a DCLG issue as well as one of energy and environment. I am interested to read the proposals as they are published on that, because we have had a target—set, I think, by the previous Government—for the number of zero-carbon or carbon-neutral homes by 2016. That was a very important target but one that was always under threat from the temptation to dilute it as we approached that date. I am very pleased indeed to see that the Government have reaffirmed their intention to meet that target and maybe to meet it in a more practical sense. Through what they describe as “allowable solutions”, there are ways outside that particular development to make sure that overall, maybe through community energy schemes and that sort of thing, developments are carbon-neutral. In particular, I press on the Government and my noble friend the need to make sure that those definitions and restrictions, and the allowances to move away from the building itself being zero-carbon, are interpreted strongly and really are delivered. If that is the case, it will be a sensible way to move forward in this area.

However, I am concerned that there is an exclusion around small developments. No one would wish to promote smaller developments more than I do. I live in a village community. I think it was Prince Charles who asked why we do not have more small developments in village and other communities, as well as garden cities and new towns. I agree—we should have those smaller developments and they should be a significant proportion of the total housing stock—but it is dangerous to exclude them totally from this legislation.

One thing really worries me about this, given my business background. In a way, I can see that there is a sort of logic that says that smaller developers do not necessarily have the skills and are not necessarily able to apply some of these technologies. However, you then create a barrier to growth for those organisations in the future—in a way, this is where the whole construction industry needs to learn those skills and to be able to apply them. I will be testing that exclusion very strongly, because I think it is likely to be a mistake. We have learnt that the biggest mistake over the past decades, particularly in the 1960s and the 1970s, was to build homes that we have to spend an endless amount of extra money retro-converting decades later to make them suitable places that people can live in within sensible energy budgets in the future.

I was delighted with the part of the Speech—I am sure it was not supposed to be quite as marginal as it perhaps appeared—that said:

“My Ministers will also champion efforts to secure a global agreement on climate change”.

This, perhaps, is the most important area for all of us that will develop in Lima in December this year at the international conference and particularly a year later in Paris, where we expect and hope—I certainly do—that there will be a new international agreement on climate change. The announcement in the United States by the Obama Administration that they will start to get tough on their own emissions was a major step forward in setting the climate, if I can put it that way, for those negotiations, not just with Europe and developing countries but with China in particular.

In the past week, I think, the final figures for EU emissions for 2012 came out, and there are already provisional ones for 2013. The 2012 figures showed that European emissions had come down by 1.3% and were very close to the Kyoto target for the European Union of 20% from 1990. That target will be met soon, but there were two major exceptions in those figures. One of them was Germany, where emissions had gone up. The other, I regret to say, was the United Kingdom: our carbon emissions had gone up 4.5% and our overall greenhouse gas emissions by 3.5%. They are coming down in 2013 but not by that amount.

Why is that? It is because, despite the fantastic work this Government have done in delivering renewables, we have moved from a primarily gas-based system of electricity generation to one based on coal. Just over 40% of our electricity is now generated by coal. Those coal stations are expected to move out of production over the next decade, but I ask the Government to redouble their efforts. Regrettably, they did not do this completely in the Energy Act, but they should make sure that while the UK promotes shale and alternative gas, at the same time the old dirty technologies of coal generation disappear. That way, our emissions can come down substantially once again.