Mark Reckless
Main Page: Mark Reckless (UK Independence Party - Rochester and Strood)
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am pleased to join the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) in supporting amendment 11 and voting for it later today.
The Secretary of State is in a bind. His party believes in a 2030 decarbonisation target—it is Lib Dem party policy, after all. His party put the issue in its manifesto. Many of his MPs went further and actually signed a separate pledge in support of a decarbonisation target. Have they not learned the Lady Bracknell rule of politics: to break one pledge may be regarded as a misfortune; to break two looks like contempt for the electorate? The Secretary of State is, however, a decent fellow and he has told me from that Dispatch Box that he favours a 2030 decarbonisation target and would be happy to implement one were it not for the fact that he struck an agreement with the Chancellor. I understand that he refers to this agreement as “the grand bargain”. Hardly: it is more of a Faustian pact.
The Secretary of State was right to negotiate £7.6 billion under the levy control framework to support renewables up until 2020—but a bargain this was not. Old coal will be allowed to provide base load beyond 2023; gas will be incentivised to provide base load right the way up until 2045. All pretence of meeting our carbon budgets and emissions targets will be abandoned, and the jobs and growth that leadership in low-carbon industries would generate will be lost. The combined value to the UK economy of all this is worth many times more than the paltry £7.6 billion that the Secretary of State has negotiated up to 2020. A grand bargain? Not since Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage has a worse deal been struck.
Just 10 days ago, the UK’s independent Committee on Climate Change produced its report on the electricity market reform. The report compared and analysed the relative benefits of investing in a portfolio of low-carbon technologies through the 2020s rather than investing in gas-fired generation. The report finds that investment in low carbon would save consumers between £25 billion and £45 billion. If, however, one uses the higher-end estimates of gas and carbon prices, the Climate Change Committee’s estimate then rises to £100 billion.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the figure would be if we were to use the lower end of the estimates for gas prices instead?
Barry Gardiner
Of course. The hon. Gentleman must be forgiven for not having a memory retention of more than 10 seconds. I did, in fact, say that the lower-end figures were £25 billion to £45 billion, and that the higher end of the spectrum led to the estimate of £100 billion. There we have it. If we compare the £7.6 billion that the Secretary of State has negotiated with the lower-end range of £25 billion to £45 billion, we see what the Climate Change Committee has said the gas strategy might cost us in comparison with a low-carbon investment strategy.
Critically, the Climate Change Committee says:
“Only if the world abandons attempts to limit risks of dangerous climate change would a strategy of investment in gas-fired generation through the 2020s offer significant savings.”
Mr Redwood
China is allowed to have a totally different approach to carbon targets because it is a growing economy. I have a great deal of sympathy with its need, but China is not being asked to cut its carbon emissions in the way that the United Kingdom is being asked to cut emissions. When the Kyoto process was last looked at to try to get much tougher targets across the world, the only countries that were still prepared to be in the game were the European countries, so the European economy as a whole on the continent is saddled with dangerously high prices and restricted ability to generate power in different ways, and the United Kingdom has the particularly virulent strain of this disease because of the House’s passion to legislate for dearer energy.
Mark Reckless
Does my right hon. Friend agree that to an extent the EU may even be dropping out, leaving us with unilateral measures of the carbon floor at £16 a tonne, when in the emissions trading scheme, which is barely working now, it is less than £2?
Mr Redwood
My hon. Friend is right, I fear, but that goes a little wider than the amendment. What we are trying to do today is to stop making matters worse by encouraging the amendment, which would mean that the United Kingdom got even more out on a limb. As he implies, the Germans, having decided against nuclear for a variety of good and political reasons, are clearly going to use a lot more coal, and I cannot see how they can conceivably do that and hit all the targets. They will just move on and in due course Germany’s influence in the European Union may well dilute the target more in the European Union as a whole and leave the United Kingdom even more exposed.
Tom Greatrex
What we have learned from the past three years, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), is that confidence in investment in the UK among those new industries has fallen and is falling. What we have learned from what is happening now is that people are not making decisions because they are seeking clarity and certainty from the Government on a range of matters to do with the Bill, including the specific issue we are discussing. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about manufacturing industry, he should support the target, which will help give clarity and certainty and ensure that manufacturing jobs come to the UK.
Mark Reckless
The hon. Gentleman tells us that he has learned lessons in the past three years. Did he learn any lessons at all from the previous 13 years?
Tom Greatrex
What I learned from the time towards the end of the Labour Government is that a focus on industrial strategy is absolutely key in diversifying our economy, and that the significant increase and activity in the renewable and low-carbon industry, which were happening and are now under threat, resulted from a clear set of signals from the Government. That is what we need from the Government now, but we will not have it unless the target is included in the Bill.
I will make progress, as other hon. Members wish to contribute. Before the interventions, I was touching on some of the points implicit in remarks made by some Government Members about costs and gas. Rejecting a 2030 target will almost certainly lead us to another dash for gas. As I said in Committee and all the way through our consideration of the Bill, gas has an important place in our system. As I have made clear, I do not take an ideological position on shale gas either; it needs to be properly regulated and monitored, but we need to explore what is there before we can know what we can get out of it.
Making simplistic extrapolations from what has happened in the US indicates a bout of wishful thinking, and a hope—and risk—in respect of something that might well not turn out to be the case. We need gas and will continue to need it; it is important for our security of supply and for our being able to deal with peaks in demand. However, the combination of a failure to decarbonise our electricity sector and increased reliance on gas leaves us more exposed to the volatility of that globally traded commodity.
It is essential that there should be diversity in our energy supply even before we consider any of the impacts in relation to emissions and the climate. The danger is that we will be left open to a greater reliance on gas and consumer prices going up even further. Various hon. Members have referred to the increase in cost to consumers, but they know as well as I do that the greatest element of that cost increase in the past three years has related to wholesale energy prices.
Sometimes there are discussions about how far companies properly pass on savings when the costs fall, but over the three years wholesale prices have certainly increased and that is the greatest single part of the increase in energy bills paid by my constituents and those of the right hon. Member for Wokingham and other hon. Members. The target is also vital for that reason.
The problem is the Government’s approach to decarbonisation and how it is characterised in their amendments in Committee. The Government may or may not, at some point in the future that is yet to be defined—it may never be defined or indeed reached—set a decarbonisation target range for the carbon intensity of electricity generation in Great Britain. The definition of carbon intensity itself and the means of calculating it can be changed by the Secretary of State—and, by the way, the Secretary of State can revoke the order. That is hardly the sense of clarity that the amendment seeks.
The illogicality of the Government’s argument is summed up in amendment 52, which the Minister only barely referred to. It would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report from 2014 setting out how he had met the duty to meet a decarbonisation target. I suspect that that report would be very thin, simply reading: “A target will not be set until 2016. There is nothing more to report—move along now.”
It was not only the Secretary of State who said that he supported a target. The Minister here, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), did so in the recent Westminster Hall debate, saying:
“I see the strong merit of the argument for a decarbonisation target”—[Official Report, 17 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 124WH.]
But he also said that we should wait to set it. The Minister’s predecessor said in Committee:
“The principle, that it would be useful and of value to set such a target, is established.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 5 February 2013; c. 489.]
If that is the case, there is no reason why the Government should not at the very least support the amendments that change “may” to “must”. However, as we have heard from the tenor of the Minister’s and some other hon. Members’ remarks, that is not what the issue is about.
The issue is about a deep division in the Government and a damaging and risky outlook that a dash for gas is the best course of action for our energy policy. That is obviously what the Chancellor thinks, but it is not what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury thinks, unless he has changed his mind. The Committee on Climate Change does not think that; nor does industry or the 200 organisations that support the amendment. As I said, the Secretary of State has supported a target and he does not think that either, although he has lost out in discussions with what he referred to as “assertive colleagues”.
There is an opportunity for Parliament to be assertive this afternoon—assertive about security of supply, about jobs and growth, about investment, about clarity of purpose and in our support for the important amendments before us.
Dr Whitehead
I trust the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) will support a number of later amendments on demand-side reduction and routes to market for independent generators and community energy. He put his finger on some of the problems that several people have been grappling with as the Bill has made its way through the House.
It is very odd that when the Bill first made its way to this House in draft form it had no target in it, and yet it was all about low-carbon electricity, routes to market for low-carbon energy generators, the future of large-scale low-carbon energy and how that might be supported to play a much increased role in our energy mix over the next few years, and how the whole electricity market would be decarbonised over the next period in line with what DECC had previously published as its plans for a radical decarbonisation of the electricity market over that period. The Bill was the embodiment of how those changes would be made—how, over the next period, our energy markets, particularly our electricity market, would radically change how they move forward and how they supply energy to us. The Bill also contains emissions performance standards that reduce the emissions that plant may make, also in line with the decarbonisation of our energy over the coming years.
It is blindingly obvious that a Bill of that kind should have a target at the front in order to underpin all the other things that it is doing. Not having that target is rather like someone carefully strapping a belt around their waist and then sallying forth having forgotten to put on the trousers that the belt was supposed to be supporting in the first place. When the Bill first arrived, the lack of a target was a puzzle to a large number of people. In a sense, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West has started to unpick some of that puzzle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) outlined, we know from what the Secretary of State has said to the Energy and Climate Change Committee on more than one occasion that he was very keen on having a target in a Bill and was engaged in work on that target, the details of which he could not yet vouchsafe to the Committee.
In fact, the Secretary of State was engaged in discussions with the Treasury about what might go at one end of the Bill and what might be negotiated away at the other end to secure the things that he thought were quite important, relating particularly to supporting low-carbon energy in the way that I have described. The result, as we discovered fairly recently, is the announcement of the extension of the levy control framework from 2015 to 2020, with a figure increasing from the current amount of £2.3 billion to, allegedly, the whopping figure of £7.5 billion in 2020.
We need to be rather careful about immediately jumping for joy about that aspect of the negotiation, because as soon as we unpack the figures we realise that each year the levy control framework takes along with it the accumulated underwriting of whatever has been commissioned in the year before. That means that by the time we get to 2020, the accumulated contracts for difference, or ongoing renewables obligation certificates, that are caught up in the £7.5 billion make up a good proportion of the total. The actual amount of support contained in the levy control framework up until 2020, per year for new entrants—that is the key thing to look at in terms of the development of low-carbon energy, particularly round 3 offshore wind and the like—turns out to be not much more than is being undertaken at the moment. The idea of its ending up at twice the current level is rather belied by the figures in the levy control framework. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State felt that he had got a good deal.
It is not, however, a particularly good deal and it is clear that the inclusion of a target in the Bill was sacrificed. A belt and trousers had not previously been available, but on 5 February—halfway through the Committee stage—the Secretary of State came along with the belt that had resulted from the discussions. As hon. Members have said, as a result of the discussions, although the Secretary of State could not set a target before 2016, he could set a target at various levels that could be considered then. Indeed, the Minister has made great play of the argument that we will need to have all the facts at our disposal with regard to the future state of the universe in order to decide how we might set a target.
A couple of important things need to be considered during the intervening period. First, the gas strategy set out by the Department of Energy and Climate Change over a number of years assumes a relatively low level of gas over the long term and, while it views gas as essential, it sees it as a back up for other, renewable forms of generation. The recent gas strategy includes an option to reverse that approach and puts gas at the centre of a future strategy. It includes gas plants running at maximum capacity, grandfathered for a long period and playing the main role—not the back-up role suggested by the low-carbon strategy exemplified by the Bill—in energy generation.
Explicit within that gas strategy is the need to take a decision in 2014. The strategy specifically says that, depending on what happens in Europe, a decision will have to be made as to whether to increase the carbon target. Accommodating the strategy could therefore result in a target of about 200 grams of emissions per kWh by 2030, rather than the 100 to 150 grams envisaged previously by the Department and endorsed by the Committee on Climate Change. A significant decision might be taken in 2014—way before 2016—which could blow the potential 2016 target out of the water.
Secondly, regardless of the negotiated outcome, the levy control framework has been extended to 2020, but we have not heard what will happen beyond then. There has been no indication of what support might be given to low-carbon energy after 2020. There is a cliff face.
Mark Reckless
Is not the reason for that that the levy control framework and the contract for difference required to back it up are really aimed at meeting the 2020 target of the European renewables directive, rather than the 2015 carbon target?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It may well be the case that the specific mechanism of the levy control framework relates to meeting that target.
As I have said, I am not sure that the framework as it stands addresses the target in the way we might think. Nevertheless, in order to achieve the target, those companies investing in new, renewable, low-carbon plants, offshore wind and all sorts of other low-carbon arrangements that are at the heart of the Bill have to start on the work now on projects that will come on stream in six, seven, eight, nine and 10 years’ time. However, those companies, which are at heart of the engine of this Bill, will not do that under the current circumstances, because they have to take decisions now and if they see that they will face a cliff face of some height in 2020, they may well decide that they do not want to use their initial investments for that purpose because there will be no business for them after that time.
Mark Reckless
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), but I am not sure whether I agree with him about the logic, let alone the coherence, of the Bill or the amendment. He says that many hon. Members will want to vote for the amendment for logical and coherent reasons, but I do not believe that that is so. Many hon. Members—a very high proportion—although rather less of my constituents vote almost always on the green side of any argument. They vote almost ideologically—they support the greener side of any issue under discussion. The problem with that approach is that it has led to a network of legislation and other commitments in this country that are internally incoherent and make no sense. Instead of hon. Members looking at the matter in the round and seeing how they could best obtain their overall objective, be that decarbonisation or otherwise, they support each and every of various, disparate initiatives that add up to a whole that does not make sense, even in terms of those objectives.
Those promoting the amendment say that they want to bring certainty for investors, and yet the Minister, too, says that that is his objective. The Minister mentioned that he wanted to protect and insulate consumers from price spikes. The problem is that the method by which he seeks to do so, and administers in the Bill, locks in high prices, so that for a very long period, whatever the uncertainties, our consumers will be locked in.
The primary purpose of the Bill is not the decarbonisation of electricity, but to set up the contract for difference model that allows the Government to sign long-term and very expensive contracts with all manner of energy producers—the Government will pick winners through an opaque process—and give certainty to investors that our consumers will be forced to pay those prices and have them added to their electricity bills throughout the length of contracts that could contain a change-of-law clause that it might not be possible to unpick in future should we want to do so. That is what worries me about the Bill. We are changing the pie-in-the-sky, Alice in Wonderland policy objectives that the previous Government proposed—only four or five current Government Members voted against them—but we can undo a Government policy objective for 2050 if we find that it does not make sense or is overly expensive. This Bill, however, essentially makes such a reverse undoable because it moves the policy from the sphere of legislation to that of contractual commitments.
It is sensible that the control levy framework is scored as public spending—I welcome the fact that the Government and the statistics office have ensured that. However, under the framework, the plan is to increase the cap on spending from £2.35 billion to £9.8 billion by 2020. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have said that the sum is £7.6 billion, but it is not. The sum is £9.8 billion, unless we say, “It’s £7.6 billion in real terms from a previous year.” Our constituents will pay £9.8 billion in 2020. For most of our constituents for the past few years, wage increases have been lower than price increases.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that the Bill could mean that poor folk in constituencies such as mine are priced out of heating their homes in order that rich people in London can feel good about supposedly saving the planet?
Mark Reckless
Yes, there is an element of that. Moreover, we will be unable to do anything about it, because a future Parliament will be stuck with the contracts.
I fear that the sum might be larger than the £9.8 billion. Policy Exchange has released a well-considered analysis that adds up the total additions to gas and electricity bills within the levy control framework to £16.3 billion. Even that does not take into account two significant factors: first, the carbon tax floor, which is a tax and not in the levy control framework, which applies to spending; and secondly, the cost of banning coal production—coal production will be banned by shutting down plants through the EU directive, and through the domestic and unilateral legislation to ban the construction of new coal-fired plants. We could be looking at amounts equivalent to 4p, 5p or 6p on income tax.
Almost all hon. Members seem to be prepared to drive that measure through, but almost all of my constituents that I speak to do not want to pay those amounts on their electricity bills. We are forcing the measure through. Obviously, lobbyists and the industry understand this complex area, but it is important that Members get to grips with the Bill and the extent to which CFDs will drive higher prices. The more I understand the Bill from the point of view of my constituents, the less keen I am on it.
The amendment confuses two issues, the first of which is the Climate Change Act 2008 commitment to an 80% reduction in carbon gases by 2050. The commitment applies to the whole economy, but the amendment seeks an electricity decarbonisation target. The Minister persuasively drew attention to that inconsistency. If we are looking to hit the 80% reduction target in 2050—the target strikes me as an enormously ambitious and costly one, and I doubt it will be met—we need to decarbonise large sections of the economy, and not just the electricity sector. As part of that, we must persuade significant sections of the heating and transport sectors to convert from current fossil fuels to electricity. However, the amendment would accelerate the decarbonisation of electricity still more, which will shove up the cost of electricity so much that it will be hugely unattractive for those sectors to switch to electricity from their current fossil fuels. Therefore, even on its own terms, the electricity decarbonisation target risks setting back its avowed goal of helping towards the purported 2050 target for the decarbonisation of the economy as a whole.
None the less, one might say in the amendment’s favour that it potentially exposes the contradictions in current policy. We have heard a lot of the “grand bargain”. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) was honest in setting out how much the Lib Dems have gained from it and how little they have given up in consequence. I do not, on balance, support the amendment, but I am not sure why the pass has been sold on so many other issues to avoid having to make a decision in 2014—we are quite happy to kick it down the road and make it in 2016.
The inconsistencies in the proposals are significant. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—I am pleased he is still in his seat—suggested that it would be cheaper to go down the route of renewable electricity rather than electricity largely from gas. He cited a Committee on Climate Change report, but did not mention the basis of its calculation. The report states:
“Beyond 2030, bills would fall in a low-carbon system as new low-carbon capacity is commissioned at lower cost than the older capacity (assuming learning in deployment leads to cost reductions). In contrast, for a system with a major share of generation from unabated gas, bills would continue to increase as carbon prices continue to rise.”
The basis of his argument is predicated on the assumption that the massive carbon tax will rise—that is within the system, but also endogenous to his own model.
Barry Gardiner
Had the hon. Gentleman paid attention, he would have noticed that I mentioned the basis on which the Committee on Climate Change made its assessment. The Committee concluded that we could assume that the price of carbon will not continue to rise only if the rest of the world gives up its aspiration to avoid dangerous climate change. Only in that scenario could it make economic sense for the Government to pursue the strategy he suggests.
Mark Reckless
On both the occasions that I sought to intervene or have an exchange with the hon. Gentleman, he replied that the problem was my failure of understanding rather than his failure of explanation. Might we perhaps together put on the record the key facts behind that assumption?
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, so I want to respond to it. He will, I trust, have read the Committee on Climate Change report on EMR, in which it states:
“This conclusion”—
the conclusion that he has just rubbished—
“is robust when possible impacts of shale gas on the gas price are accounted for. Shale gas could play a role in the gas mix that helps to balance intermittent power generation, and meet demand for heat, provided appropriate environmental safeguarding regulations are put in place.”
Mark Reckless
Yes, it is robust in that sense, but the reason it is robust is because almost any conceivable change in gas price is completely swamped by the enormous increase in the carbon tax from £16 now—and less than £2 in the ETS—to up to between £200 and £500 per tonne by 2050. Of course the conclusion is robust. If we assume that there will be a massive tax on carbon, it will be cheaper to have lower carbon rather than higher carbon, but so what? CFDs are included in the Bill, but they have virtually nothing to do with this amendment. We keep on hearing that it is about electricity decarbonisation, but it is not. That was only inserted in the Committee stage of the Bill.
The amendment is about hitting the renewable energy directive for 15% of all energy production in this country—not just the electricity sector, which makes up approximately a third—to be from renewables by 2020. However, that will set back decarbonisation across the whole country, because it is a very expensive way to decarbonise. All the savings we can make through energy efficiency, better insulation of people’s homes, or, I hope the Minister will not mind me saying, through different lighting that saves money across the network, are no good or will only work on the denominator, because we are forced to hit, by 2020, the 15% renewables target—33% of electricity—set by the EU Commission. That will be grotesquely expensive and will lead not to innovation in low-carbon technologies, but to the rolling out of fairly mid-tech current generation onshore and offshore wind at twice the price. That will absorb a huge proportion of the £9.8 billion and lead to very little advance in technology compared with what we could do with proper R and D focused activity. That will happen not because of decarbonisation, but because the EU directive that states that this must be done through renewables.
Domestically, we are making the situation even worse by inserting further restraints, such as a 12.5% cap on biomass. One way to get closer to hitting the EU target is to use dual firing, where half coal, half wood pellets emit approximately the same amount of carbon as gas, earning a half-renewable credit on the real constraint, the 2020 EU target. We are not allowing that, however. We could pay other countries—Germany, Spain and perhaps Poland—to do a lot of those things far cheaper than we could do them ourselves. We have a new Government in Iceland, and £2 billion is the estimate of the capital cost of an interconnector to Iceland for its renewable electricity. These measures are not being considered. Even if the objective is to reduce carbon, that can be done so much cheaper than the proposals that will be forced through by the Bill, which will be millstone around our constituents’ necks for decades to come.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I understand fully the call in the amendment for the decarbonisation of the energy sector, and for a target to be enshrined in the Bill. What the target should be and whether it would be realistic is debateable. There have been wide differences and many suggestions about what an achievable target might be. If the target is too ambitious, it will be impossible to achieve. We need to bring some form of reality into the debate and forget the pipe dreams of what people would love to see. This is about what we can actually achieve between now and 2030, and between now and 2050. Is it achievable to decarbonise the energy sector to the degree of 50 grams of CO2 per kWh? That is one suggestion, and I am sure that plenty of Members believe that that is achievable. I find it difficult to believe, however.
Unlike the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), who had a shopping list of issues he wanted to discuss today, I want to focus on carbon capture, coal burn and gas burn—fossil fuels. I want to accentuate the positives in burning fossil fuels with carbon capture. I believe, and the expert advice shows, that it can contribute greatly towards an agreed decarbonisation target. The trick is to transfer the high-carbon electricity generation to low-carbon electricity generation. [Hon. Members: “How?”] Carbon capture and storage is the answer. People seem to forget that fossil fuels provide 70%—not 7%, but 70%—of the UK’s electricity supply, and that is set to continue for the short and medium term. Coal burning is set to increase not just in the UK, but across the world, over the next 20 to 30 years. For whatever reason, however, the role of coal, particularly in the UK, is often pushed aside, swept under the carpet, totally ignored. This is done deliberately in the Commons by many Members of Parliament, despite the fantastic role that the miners of this country have played. They have worked hard for many generations, producing the wealth and fuel to generate this country, so it is unacceptable that they should be ignored.
Only three years ago in 2010, the UK market demand for coal was roughly 54.1 million tonnes. That is what we burned in 2010. During the same period, only 18.4 million tonnes were produced here, with a rough 50:50 split between open-cast and deep-mine sectors. Beyond doubt, then, a lot of imported coal is required to meet the nation’s demands. Coal imports have easily exceeded indigenous coal production since 2003. Coal is not going away. It is here to stay, in the UK and globally. We will not be able to persuade the likes of China, India and America to stop burning coal; they are burning coal unabated right now—that is a fact of life.
Ian Lavery
That is an excellent and important point that I will come to shortly. We have understood for generations that we closed profitable coal mines the length and breadth of the country, knowing full well that carbon capture was in the background. We have done nothing to protect the British deep-mining coal industry, and that has cost thousands and thousands of jobs. We have dillied and we have dallied with carbon capture and storage, including over the past three or four years. The first announcement was made by the previous Labour Government, who committed themselves to carbon capture and storage in 2007. Where is it? It is not here. It has been kicked into the long grass.
My view is simple. We should look to exploit the coal reserves up and down the country, with carbon capture and storage onsite and with clean coal power stations. That would decarbonise the electricity sector and go a long way to ensuring that we can meet the targets. It might even mean that we could reach 50 grams of CO2 per kWh. I am not too sure about that, but it is the answer. The demand for coal is significant here. Electricity consumption is set to increase, as is the consumption of coal, but as mentioned by several Members on both sides of the House, by 2015 approximately 9,000 MW of coal-fired plant is to be closed down, as a result of the large combustion plant directive, so the UK will become increasingly dependent on imported gas for electricity and domestic heating purposes.
What impact will the burning of gas have on our ability to meet our targets? People do not want to recognise that gas is a fossil fuel—coal is not the only fossil fuel—and emits just less than the suggested emissions performance standard of 450 grams per kWh, so when we talk about allowing gas to be burnt unabated, we must think of the consequences. It will mean that we will be unable to achieve any of our decarbonisation targets for 2030 or 2050.
Do people in this Chamber believe that shale gas will be the answer to our problems? Too many questions need to be asked about shale gas, although we need the general public to support it before anything else. There are a lot of problems with fracking. What is the cost of exploitation? We do not know what it is. Is it safe?
Ian Lavery
What are the emission levels? I am not saying it is not safe, by the way; I am saying that there are a lot of things we need to get right. As a member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, I support the fact that we have said that the exploitation of shale gas should not have been delayed, but should have gone ahead months ago, if not a year ago.