Michael Fallon
Main Page: Michael Fallon (Conservative - Sevenoaks)(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 105.
The amendment would give the Secretary of State power to apply the emissions performance standard—EPS—to any existing fossil fuel power station that fits the pollution clean-up equipment that is needed to meet the tighter limits, set by the industrial emissions directive from January 2016, on emissions of oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. Under that directive, plants that do not fit clean-up equipment will from January 2016 be subject to a 17,500-hour limit on their operation, after which they must close, or, from mid-2020 be limited to just 1,500 hours of operation a year. The intention behind the amendment is to use the EPS as a regulatory tool for limiting carbon emissions from any existing coal-fired power station that is not otherwise forced to close and/or have its operation limited under the directive.
First, the Government do not consider that power to be necessary. Secondly, the measure risks deterring any investment in equipment needed to comply with the directive, the consequences of which could be detrimental to consumers. I remind the House that the EPS is intended to support the planning requirement that any new coal-fired power station must be equipped with carbon capture and storage. The EPS is, therefore, about ensuring no new unabated coal, and is a clear and unambiguous regulatory measure that signals our commitment to decarbonisation.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that eight plants are closing under the EU directive already, and if any more plants had to close the lights would go out?
Michael Fallon
I was coming on to the list of stations that have closed. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need urgently to replace the capacity that is coming off the system. Coal, as he will know, currently accounts for around a quarter of our reliable generating capacity, but that is set to decline rapidly over the coming years. Last year, Kingsnorth closed, this year we have seen the closures of Cockenzie, Didcot A and Tilbury, and we expect Ferrybridge C and Ironbridge to follow suit.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Minister mentions that coal is producing up to 25% of the electricity generated. Does he agree that the recent statistics prove that over the last 12 months that has been up to 50% and on average was 41%?
Michael Fallon
Coal has been an important part of the mix, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be with us this afternoon in preventing further coal from being driven off the system.
Coal is being removed from the system due to a number of factors, including the old age of some of the plants, the impacts of environmental legislation, the increasing penalty on high-carbon generation applied under the carbon price floor, and increasing levels of low-carbon generation as we introduce more renewables.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
If a plant fits carbon capture and storage equipment, as a demonstration plant, could it be caught by this amendment and forced to close or not generate so much energy?
Michael Fallon
There is an exemption under the Bill for a plant that fits CCS equipment. I have made that clear to the Carbon Capture & Storage Association and to those working on the various projects.
The coal fleet is old, having mainly been built in the 1960s and ’70s, with only one plant, Drax, under 40 years old. Most of these ageing power stations are now expected to retire completely between now and the mid-2020s. As I have explained, if a station is not to face restrictions and/or closure under the directive, it will need to invest in clean-up equipment. That would require a multi-year programme of investment in the order of several hundred million pounds. Over time, with the carbon price floor and a strengthening emissions trading scheme, the economics of coal generation will deteriorate further compared with gas. Furthermore, as more low-carbon generation comes on to the system through new nuclear and renewables, it will result in higher-carbon coal generation being increasingly displaced. The combined effect is that the economic outlook for coal generation is poor.
Our analysis is consistent with that outlook and shows that unabated coal generation will make up just 7% of total generation by 2020 and 3% by 2025, and probably 0% by 2030. There is no evidence at the moment of a large number of operators planning to upgrade their coal plants, but we should not rule out the possibility that one or two might do so.
We have heard the argument that the amendment would merely make available a tool for future Governments to use, if necessary, to limit the emissions from existing coal stations, but we believe the very existence of such a power would create an additional regulatory risk that could deter the small number of our most efficient stations which might otherwise choose to upgrade. As I have set out, under the directive, stations that do not upgrade will be subject to limited hours and/or forced to close. If the amendment were accepted, therefore, we would risk more coal stations closing earlier than might otherwise be the case.
I have also considered the argument that the amendment would provide greater certainty to investors looking to build the new gas plant that we all agree will be needed. However, the amendment would do so in a way which could create risks for our security of supply and increase costs to consumers. We already face a significant investment challenge with an estimated 16 GW of new gas plant, and about 45 GW in total of all forms of generating capacity, needed over the decade from 2015 to 2024. We are acting to facilitate that new investment through other measures in the Bill, notably with regard to the capacity market. However, we cannot be 100% certain about exactly when all that investment will be delivered. We need a managed transition to a lower-carbon future, in which our existing assets are managed prudently to avoid unnecessary costs to consumers.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the transition we are trying to make in our economy, from what we have now to what we seek in 2050, is so complex that we cannot simply approach it in an ideological way and assume low-carbon energy sources will magically appear? Instead, we need a credible, investable and coherent plan for getting from where we are now to where we want to be.
Michael Fallon
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. When we are dealing with security of supply and keeping costs affordable for our consumers, we must avoid being ideological. Instead, we must be inclusive and welcome new generation from a series of sources.
The Department has looked at a scenario in which all our coal stations close by 2025, the results of which show that average household electricity bills would be about 3% to 4% higher—or about £22 to £28 higher—in the 2020s. That would require more gas plant to be built earlier to fill the gap—at greater cost, ultimately, to consumers. It makes no sense to accept an amendment that unnecessarily creates further risks to our security of supply and further increases costs to our consumers.
The measures in this Bill are about creating the right conditions for attracting the significant investment needed in our electricity sector over the coming decade. Such investment in lower-carbon alternatives will deliver an orderly, cost-effective transition away from high-carbon coal, and that should not be put at further risk.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon, which may be the long-awaited final part of our deliberations on the Energy Bill—or maybe not. The House will not need reminding that we have had long, and at times detailed, discussions on this Bill. Indeed, I noticed while listening to the Minister’s opening remarks that the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) is present, which reminded me that when the Bill was first published and subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny, it was in his hands, and it has since passed through the hands of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) before his promotion to the heart of the Prime Minister’s office, and then on to the current Minister. We have been addressing this Bill for some time, therefore, and a couple of weeks ago we debated extending its time limit. During that debate, we made it clear that the Opposition do not wish to delay the Bill unduly because it is an important piece of proposed legislation, but although the extended deadline of the end of the year is fast approaching, we think there are some issues before us today that merit further serious consideration.
Indeed, these issues are before us today only because of consideration of the Bill in another place and, as the Secretary of State made clear when asked about his attitude to this particular measure, it is not necessarily as simple as sometimes portrayed by Members on the Government Benches. There have been a number of improvements to the Bill in relation to nuclear transparency, community energy and other areas, and much of that still needs to be done through secondary legislation and regulation, which will undoubtedly follow. In part those improvements have been prompted by amendment and debate instigated from both sides of the House and in both Houses, and it is in that context that I believe we should also give due cognisance to amendment 105 passed in another place.
Many of the Members present have faithfully stuck with this Bill through all its stages, and they will have heard me make the point that it is my personal belief that confession is good for the soul. I therefore wish to begin with a confession: I remain somewhat confused by the attitude of Liberal Democrats Members on this issue. A number of Liberal Democrat Members have taken part in our proceedings on the Bill, and have demonstrated their desire to see an improvement in our energy infrastructure and a commitment to decarbonisation. Indeed, if one refers to the speech made by the mover of this amendment in the other place, those were exactly the concerns expressed. Lord Teverson, the Liberal Democrat’s energy spokesman in the other place, is a conscientious and diligent contributor to discussions on energy policy, but I understand that the distasteful realities of coalition mean that Ministers are constrained.
The attitude displayed by the Minister today suggests that on this matter he has won the battle with his coalition colleagues in recompense for other measures we have heard about in the recent past. I wonder, however, whether this, like the 2030 decarbonisation target, is a Liberal Democrat policy that Liberal Democrat Back Benchers feel unable to vote for, or a Liberal Democrat tactic to keep those in the other place distracted. If they vote with the Government against Lords amendment 105, do they intend to vote for it again in the other place? If that is the case, the rest of us could simply leave it to the Liberal Democrats to decide between themselves, and between both Houses, which way they wish to face, or whether they wish to face both ways.
Dr Whitehead
Some of those plants could well be replaced by gas, and some could well close down. Indeed, some could well close down whether the amendment were passed or not. The problem for capacity in the market is that the signals being sent out at the moment are so varied and uncertain that a number of people who might otherwise invest in plant are holding back until, for example, the capacity market comes on stream or until there is more certainty about CCS or about coal generation. As we have seen already, there is a possibility that plants will close down by accident rather than by design. They could end up being mothballed because of market circumstances, rather than because of long-term planning based on capacity.
The amendment would improve that certainty tremendously by making it absolutely clear what was expected of coal-fired power in the future. Coal-fired power would not cease to exist; it would be able to run at certain levels per year, and any existing coal-fired power station that wished to run continuously after the early 2020s would have to have CCS attached to it. The amendment would send a simple, straightforward message.
Michael Fallon
The hon. Gentleman seems to have just repeated an assumption that the amendment would take effect only from 2023. On the contrary, it asserts a power to apply EPS to an existing plant, which would involve upgrading under the industrial emissions directive. Nothing in the amendment prevents the power from being used at any time, as soon as the EPS had come into force following Royal Assent.
Dr Whitehead
The question is the extent to which plants can run, and what hours would be attached to them—a process that has already been undertaken under previous directives—during the period up to the early 2020s. The question for those power stations is not the point at which they switch over or at which they stop; it is whether they can continue unabated past the early 2020s. That is the key issue.
I commend the amendment to the House because of its congruity with current departmental policy and the certainty that it would confer. It brings together a number of elements relating to the trajectory for cleaner, lower-carbon energy, and it would send a clear signal to investors. In the medium and long term, that would give us far more certainty of reliable and secure capacity than we have at the moment.
Mark Reckless
My right hon. Friend is correct. We have learned that the industry at Grangemouth, which the friends and funders of the Opposition—the unions—almost shut down, might stay open and even possibly make money, but that would only be on the basis of importing shale gas from the United States. We have this preposterous arrangement in which we have put an extraordinarily long moratorium on the development of shale gas because there were a couple of tiny tremors near Blackpool. If we, as a country, are serious about pushing ahead economically, we must generate better energy more cheaply and more quickly. Instead, we were involved in a Dutch auction between the parties and doing completely the reverse.
Lords amendment 105 is a case in point. We have the European Union closing down most of our coal plants, with the parties going along with it. Additionally, we are unilaterally indulging in this self-flagellation, through the emissions performance standard—which we have decided to impose as a unilateral burden on UK business while the Germans allow the construction of new coal—by preventing new coal-fired power stations being constructed. Of course countries outside the European Union produce power more cheaply.
What we see today is an attempt by the Opposition and the other place to make the situation even worse. The EU is shutting many of our existing plants. We are banning the construction of new ones, and the Opposition want to bring in a third deleterious measure to extend that ban on coal to part of the plants that the EU would allow to remain open if people spend vast amounts of money to comply with the industrial emissions directive. Labour and the other place would effectively be saying, “Ah, well, if you spend that money, we will put in place this additional burden after which you will then fit this pie-in-the-sky CCS, which is nowhere near to sensible commercial development in the UK, or, in reality, we will force you to close down, and drive up the price of electricity even further.”
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) suggested that electricity pricing depended on gas prices. I take that point to a degree. As an economist, I understand that in a competitive market, which I fear that this increasingly is not, marginal cost tends to equal price. There is a difference between the gas that is already there, where the development costs and capital costs are sunk—which, in terms of marginal costs being set to price, should be discounted for a rational person in a competitive market—and new gas, which is not coming on stream. It is partly not coming on stream because the Minister has said, “If you bring it on stream, we will give you a great subsidy as long as you wait for a few years and do not bring it on now.” Even Chris Huhne, who was at least an economist, thought that was madness.
Now, we are pushing that approach forward in the capacity market, stopping capacity coming on stream for that key period of a few years. It is a key period, because we are looking at an increasing crunch. DECC tells us that it has run the scenarios with Ofgem and has considered what will happen if the demand for electricity is a little greater than assumed. DECC assumes that energy demand will fall and so, to cover sensitivity, it has run a scenario in which it does not fall. All that does, however, is keep demand flat. What happens if—due to the success of the policies of this coalition, what the Chancellor is doing and the resurgence of growth in the British economy—energy demand increases? I dread to think, because of the lack of preparations that have been made—or, when preparations are being made, because of their extraordinary expensiveness. At the same time, we are proposing to cut the coal-fired plants, many of which are completely depreciated in capital and are producing electricity reasonably and cheaply. We are banning them either nationally and unilaterally or through our acquiescence in what the European Union is doing.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West identified three sets of coal plants. If I understood him correctly, he missed out a fourth category—that is, those coal plants where the issue is not the industrial emissions directive but the large combustion plant directive. The power stations might be “hours expired” under that directive, but the plants are still there and could potentially be brought back on stream to generate cheap and reliable electricity for our constituents. However, the Opposition will not let them. Government Members will not let them, either. Not even the European Union will, even though the directive contains article 3(4), which provides for a member state to provide for a derogation, particularly when its plans to arrange for sufficient capacity in the energy market are not working as it had hoped. What better case could there be for doing that?
I am not saying that we should keep the plants open for ever. I go around Kingsnorth in my constituency, and it is a very old plant, but it can still work. This year, E.ON UK has a team of about 20 people in the plant, taking the stored energy out of springs and many other mechanisms throughout, making it safe for demolition by the contractor from early next year. We still have time if we apply for the derogation and tell the European Union, “We have a problem. We are running out of capacity because we have not put the sensible plans in place for electricity that we should have done. We used to have the most competitive electricity in the world, but we have messed the whole thing up on a totally cross-party basis. Can we keep these plants open for just a few more years?”
All I ask is for the parties in the coalition to get together and go cap in hand to the European Commission, to ask whether we can keep the plants open for a few more years. That might just allow our constituents to have slightly cheaper electricity, as old coal can be used rather than new gas, for which the capital costs will have to be paid as well as the marginal costs of the gas supply. That might just help us get through the electricity crunch a bit more safely, particularly if the economy is growing strongly, and it might do something to keep down the cost of electricity—that is preferable to the three parties competing to drive it up while pretending that they are doing the opposite.
The Labour party in the Lords would like us to make things even worse by ensuring that even more coal plants close even earlier. We should make things a bit better by trying to keep a few of the oldest coal plants open for a bit longer, to hold down electricity bills and keep the lights on.
Michael Fallon
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly as I sense that the House wants to reach a decision on this matter.
We have had a good debate. Let me emphasise again that I think that we have been considering a well-intentioned amendment. Nobody doubts the motivation behind it and the issue is not completely straightforward. It depends in the end on a judgment—when coal stations are already being lost to the system, do we want to accelerate the closure of coal? The hon. Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) asked a specific question—others have referred to this, too—about our progress with CCS. The CCS competition is progressing very well. Negotiations are proceeding and we expect to make a decision on the award of the front-end engineering design contracts around the turn of the year. As I have said, we have made amendments to the Bill in the other place to ensure that those projects will be exempt from the EPS for a limited period.
Michael Fallon
The hon. Gentleman might also want to know that CoalPro, the Confederation of UK Coal Producers, wrote to me on 8 November and said that the amendment
“has the potential to turn out the lights, send prices even higher and close down this industry.”
Ian Lavery
When does the Minister expect the first CCS generation plant to begin in the UK?
Michael Fallon
As I said, we hope to sign the first FEED contracts by the end of the year. They will involve a couple of years of engineering study. It will take some time for CCS to be scalable across the system, but we are committing a great deal of money to it and a great deal of effort to the two projects at Peterhead and Drax. I am in no doubt that we have technology that we can exploit, but it will take time.
In the end, as I said, this is a judgment. Is it right now to accelerate the closure of coal and to force all coal off the system by 2025? In my view, that will add to the risks to security of supply and—I must say this to my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches—will certainly add to the costs for our constituents. We estimate that if coal disappears by 2025, there will be an increase in domestic bills of about 3% to 4%, or about £22 to £28, and an increase in non-domestic bills of between 4% and 6%. A large number of Members from all parties attended the debate in Westminster Hall this morning and complained about the costs being imposed on energy-intensive industries, and we estimate that their costs will increase by between 5% and 7%.
This proposal will increase the risks to our security of supply and add to the expense of our constituents. I think that is too great a risk and too high an additional expense and I urge the House to reject the amendment.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 105.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady has made her point and I am sure that those whom she wishes to have heard it have done so, but she will appreciate that it is not a matter with which the Chair can deal at this moment in the Chamber.
Clause 1
Decarbonisation target range
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 2 to 75.
Lords amendment 76, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 77 to 86.
Lords amendment 87, and amendments (a), (g) and (b) to (f) thereto.
Lords amendments 88 to 104.
Lords amendments 106 to 113.
Michael Fallon
As you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many amendments in this group and I will try to be as brief as possible in explaining each set.
The first set, amendments 1 to 15 and amendment 90, extend the decarbonisation provisions to Northern Ireland in order that any decarbonisation target range would cover the whole of the UK power sector. That was always our intention, but it was right that we should seek the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive before making these amendments. The Assembly has since passed a legislative consent motion to confirm its support.
Turning to part 2 of the Bill, Lords amendments 25, 27 and 29 give effect to three substantive changes to contracts for difference. The remaining amendments on this topic—amendments 16, 19, 22, 23, 26, 28 and 30 to 34—are consequential.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on the issue of fuel poverty. My constituency is hit by transmission charging because the renewable energy has to go quite a long way down the line. The unit price of electricity for domestic consumers is more expensive for the same reason. Could we not argue that renewable energy that is generated in the Outer Hebrides can be considered to be serving the domestic market, and thereby eliminate some of those costs?
Michael Fallon
I think I understand that proposal, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the changes that are being made to the strike prices for renewable energy, which should certainly benefit the islands in the north of Scotland. However, I am happy to look specifically at that point.
Mr MacNeil
I do welcome the fact that the difference of islands has been recognised, but I am disappointed that the difference between islands has not. The situation in the Western Isles, the Outer Hebrides, is different from that in Orkney and Shetland due to the existing infrastructure situation.
Michael Fallon
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not wholly satisfied. I thought that the change would be welcome, but I will look again at his specific point about transmission lines.
By fixing the strategy for the long term, the Lords amendments will ensure that our commitment to reducing fuel poverty, far from being reduced, will remain high on our agenda throughout the delivery of our ambitious programme for energy efficiency and the energy sector in the UK.
Amendments (a) to (f) to Lords amendment 87, tabled by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), would, among other things, put a specific fuel poverty target in the Bill. There is also amendment (g) to Lords amendment 87, tabled by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and her colleagues. I think we all agree that there should be an ambitious fuel poverty target, but it is also our responsibility to strike the right balance between what is put in primary legislation, what is subsequently laid out in regulations and what we put into our strategy. We propose setting the target through secondary legislation, which strikes a better balance between the certainty of a legislative target and the need for flexibility in the future.
We know from the independent review by Professor Hills that the way in which we understand the problem can change over time. The issue that we face under current legislation is that there is a specific target that, although well intentioned, does not make sense in the context of how we have come to understand the problem of fuel poverty. For example, a focus on eradication as an end goal is not appropriate for our new definition, but we know that we can make a real and lasting difference to people’s circumstances by improving the energy efficiency of their homes. That is why we have proposed that that should be the basis of the new target.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister not accept that the whole thrust of the Bill, with its emphasis on decarbonisation and greater reliance on renewables—and the thrust of Lords amendment 105, had the Opposition had their way—is to make the whole issue of fuel poverty more difficult to address? We are moving away from cheaper fossil fuels towards more expensive renewables.
Michael Fallon
No, I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I was grateful for his support in the Division. We need more home-grown energy of all kinds, and we should not be ideological about it. We need more new nuclear to replace our ageing provision, more renewables—we are already increasing our proportion—and more gas-fired plant, as so much coal plant is coming off the system. We need more generation of all kinds.
Of course, the setting of the fuel poverty target and any changes to it, even if they are not in primary legislation, will be subject to full parliamentary debate. Given the importance of the matter, we have ensured that the provision will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. I therefore do not think it makes sense to specify the target or a target date ahead of our making the detailed proposals after Royal Assent.
The amendments to Lords amendment 87 also specify issues that a strategy must cover. Our strategy will be comprehensive and cover a range of issues, including health, as we know that there are clear health benefits from action on fuel poverty. Finally, we have already committed to continuing to report on the 10% definition in the future, so I do not think it is necessary to include that in the Bill. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Derby North and the right hon. Member for Don Valley, and that they will agree not to press their amendments.
The second new topic introduced to the Bill in the other place, by Lords amendments 88 and 96, is a provision enabling the Secretary of State to raise the ceiling for small-scale feed-in tariffs from 5 MW to 10 MW. The issue was raised in this House in Committee and on Report, and the Government have listened and responded by tabling amendments in the other place. We intend to limit the increase to community projects only. For commercial projects larger than 5 MW, we consider that market-based incentives continue to provide the best value for money to consumers. We will consult on the implementation of the change after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, am pleased to welcome the Bill back to this House and grateful for the opportunity to speak on those aspects that refer to fuel poverty—namely, Lords amendment 87. Before I do so, however, the Minister mentioned Lords amendment 54 and its impact on the UK, and it is regrettable that the Scottish National party in Edinburgh chose to play constitutional games with the issue, rather than focusing on the smooth transition between the renewables obligation and contracts for difference. There has been correspondence between the Minister’s Department and the Scottish Government, and given that the SNP raised the issue in Holyrood, perhaps the Minister will commit to publishing that correspondence to ensure transparency and so that we can be sure the system is working well.
Michael Fallon
Given that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, I confirm that over a long period—many months—we have given the Scottish Government full notice that we want the renewables obligation closed by March 2017. They have had every notice in correspondence at ministerial and official level and have been in no doubt of our intention for a long time.
Dr Whitehead
I wish briefly to speak in support of the amendments to Lords amendment 87 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and my Front-Bench colleagues on the issue of fuel poverty.
As someone who has sat through the whole process of this Bill, from the very start to the finish this afternoon, I can tell hon. Members that during its early passage we were promised amendments in another place that would address fuel poverty. Here they are in front of us, but they are very feeble. I say that because central to Lords amendment 87 is the word “addressing”. For all the rest of the material in the Lords amendments about a strategy and so on, the amendment concentrates on the various things that have to be done to bring about a position of
“addressing the situation of persons in England who live in fuel poverty.”
Let us suppose that my wife asked me whether I was going to cook the supper tonight and I said, “I will do rather better than that. I will address the issue of cooking the supper tonight. I will have a number of recipe books at the ready and I will produce a strategy for cooking the supper. I will have some vegetables, which will also be ready to address the strategy of cooking the supper.” She would probably conclude that we would be having a takeaway this evening. That shows the central problem with Lords amendment 87: it would not ensure, whether in relation to the previous definition or the Hills definition of fuel poverty, that there will be a strategy in the future to bring about changes that move towards the eradication of fuel poverty.
The amendments to the Lords amendment 87 would simply replace that lack; they would put in targets to ensure that we can address the eradication of fuel poverty through a requirement on Government to act over the next period, rather than suggesting that they may or may not act, depending on how they wish to proceed. Let us not forget that this Bill, when enacted, will bind not only this Government, whatever their intentions, but future Governments on what they need to do about fuel poverty.
One central point about the amendments to Lords amendment 87 is that they make an explicit link between the imperative of moving forward on energy efficiency and the imperative to eradicate fuel poverty. We know that through radical measures to improve the energy efficiency of our homes, we undertake radical measures to eradicate fuel poverty, because of the congruence between people living in fuel poverty and people living in the least insulated homes in our country. It is a singular fact that the price of energy in this country is by no means the highest in Europe, but the bills we pay are among the highest in Europe, simply because of the overall energy inefficiency of our homes. Setting targets and underpinning them with an explicit assault on fuel poverty over the period is a win-win in terms of the move towards greater energy efficiency in our homes, the investment that that requires and the attack on fuel poverty that results.
If the Government are, as they state, serious about continuing to make an assault on fuel poverty, they have to do better than simply produce amendments that talk about “addressing” a position. The amendments to the Lords amendment seek to do better, and I hope that the House will support them this afternoon.
Michael Fallon
With the leave of the House, let me reply briefly to the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and I disagree about the amount of information that should be put in Bills. She wants corporation tax and more about the fuel mix. Let us see what Ofgem comes up with in its search for greater transparency and then perhaps we can debate the matter again.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), who is still in his place, suggested that we were trying to do something against the Scottish Government by the back door. I do not think that taking primary legislation can be characterised as doing something by the back door in whichever House it is introduced; it is right there through the front door.
Let me answer the points that the hon. Gentleman made. First, he seemed to suggest that the Government and the House had no right to close the renewables obligation for Scotland. Yes, we do have that right. The need to close it to new capacity has arisen due to the electricity market reform programme, which is a fundamental change to our policy for supporting renewables electricity generation, and electricity is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998.
The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about the grace period. We consulted on the grace periods to be offered at the point of RO closure. That consultation closed on 28 November, and our response will be published early next year and we will set out the detailed arrangements.
Mr Weir
I understand what the Minister is saying, but will he not accept that under the renewables obligation, the Scottish Government had discretions over how to operate it in Scotland? Until this amendment was tabled, there was nothing to say that the Minister intended to change the law on this particular point.
Michael Fallon
We have made our intention absolutely clear that the renewables obligation was going to be closed by March 2017. That has been made clear to the Scottish Government by officials and Ministers in correspondence over many months now. It is only right that the renewables obligation should be closed evenly for England, Wales and Scotland. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s point.
The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) suggested that some of those involved in the fuel poverty area were not supportive of our change. He quoted Derek Lickorish, the chairman of the fuel poverty advisory group, but let me now quote him. David Lickorish said:
“I very much welcome the announcement in Parliament today by the Secretary of State that will place an enduring requirement for this, and successive governments, to tackle fuel poverty beyond the current legislation.”
The hon. Gentleman also quoted the Association for the Conservation of Energy. Let me tell him what Mr Warren said:
“It has been our long-held view that fuel poverty-proofing our inefficient housing stock is the only permanent solution to the scourge of fuel poverty. We therefore welcome as a step in the right direction the Government’s stated intention to adopt a new target to improve the energy efficiency of the homes of the fuel poor.”
I just want to make it clear that those voluntary organisations that are the most concerned in this area welcome the change that we are making.
Chris Williamson
I think the Minister will find that the organisations to which he is referring took the view that something was better than nothing, because nothing was previously on offer. It is stretching the point to suggest that these organisations are endorsing the Government’s approach, because that is far from the truth.
Michael Fallon
The problem the hon. Gentleman has is that fuel poverty went up. It went up in the boom years when the economy was booming and public expenditure was increasing year after year. That has been the particular problem with his definition.