Nigel Evans
Main Page: Nigel Evans (Conservative - Ribble Valley)
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the wise words of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry).
The Bill, as its long title states, is intended to reform the energy market by encouraging low-carbon electricity generation. Essentially, the Bill should ensure that we have the mechanisms and regulations at our disposal not just to keep the market working well, with a secure electricity supply and reasonable prices for customers, but that that is done over the next 20 years within a framework of decreasing carbon emissions from all energy-producing plants that makes every drop of energy go as far as possible through efficiencies, good management in the system and, just as importantly, by removing from the system as much demand as possible, so that emissions are avoided by not producing additional energy in the first place.
The present energy market arrangements—the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements system—have served us well in some ways. They have ensured that a capacity margin has been constantly available to guarantee supplies and at some stages of its existence has applied downward pressure on prices. However, the world has changed radically since the present market arrangements were first introduced more than a decade ago. Prices are going up, not down, massive amounts of plant are being retired from the system in the next few years and their replacements will need to be far lower carbon than the retiring plants. Most importantly, the trading arrangements of the market are carbon blind and do not, in themselves, advantage low carbon over high carbon; it is left to other devices, such as the renewable energy obligation, and subsequent work with the market to do that.
If the ambition of the Bill is to be realised, three things will be central. First, we cannot in the end use the devices of the past market reliably to achieve the goals set out in the Bill for the future market, yet, remarkably, the Bill claims to reform the energy market without reforming its mechanisms. Real reform, such as the introduction of a pool system to make the wholesale selling and purchasing of energy for retail fully transparent and accessible for all, is wholly absent.
Secondly, we need a sense of where we are supposed to go with the encouragement of low-carbon electricity. What does that phrase mean in practice? Is it just a warm aspiration that can be set aside when the going gets a bit tough? If it is not, it seems essential that a target level of emissions should be included in the Bill, but there is no such target. The Secretary of State favours a target, but I am afraid that we have a bit of a problem with what we might call Liberal Democrat capture and storage. [Interruption.] A glass of water for the Secretary of State, please. During the passage of the Bill, I hope that a coalition of people who believe that there should be a target can get together to rectify that, regardless of party stances.
Thirdly, even if there were a target in the Bill, measures elsewhere in it will still take us in precisely the opposite direction and make its aspiration redundant. They need removing or replacing. I strongly believe that the Bill needs to do what it sets out to do in the long title. We need a robust framework that can guide the next stage of deployment of renewable and sustainable energy and that can establish effective mechanisms for those plants, once deployed, to bring their energy to market. We need a market that can deal with new and existing producers fairly and consistently, so that the goal of a well-balanced marketplace encouraging new entrants, rewarding and supporting the best management of energy and celebrating the removal of demand from the system as the ultimate way to decarbonise it can be achieved.
The Bill does some of those things, but, overall, in its present state and with its manifest large gaps, it is not fit for the purpose that it has to advance. These shortcomings simply have to be remedied, because we need the stability and certainty of a coherent and fair market system to encourage and sustain the unprecedented investment in our plant, our networks and our neighbourhoods that will be necessary for an enduring low-carbon energy environment. The regime needs to instil confidence and last for perhaps twice as long as a central system as its predecessor did. The measures in the Bill, many of which I accept are complex and difficult to get right, fail that test at present.
The Bill needs extensive surgery, and in the limited time available perhaps I can list one or two of the major operations that need to be rostered. Are the arrangements for securing a counterparty to contract for difference deals really right? Is there a potential conflict of interest in the body that the Bill selects to be both the system operator and the delivery body for CFDs? Is the proposed transition period between the end of the renewable obligation and the emergence of CFDs workable? Should there be a longer period of changeover and a better opportunity for next stage renewable developers to work with renewable obligation certificates?
Does the ending of an obligation for renewable power purchase and the disappearance of power purchase agreements not place potentially insuperable obstacles in the way of independent generators of low-carbon energy bringing their output to market? Are the administrative arrangements for the setting of a strike price in the Bill not so weighted as to give an advantage to new nuclear that they risk undermining the veracity of other strike price arrangements and the possibility of meaningful auctions in the future? Is a market-wide capacity payment system not just a recipe for paying too much bill payer money to produce overcapacity, when better, cheaper arrangements such as strategic reserve arrangements exist?
Why are there no demand-side reduction measures in the Bill and why will any measures as yet undetermined by the Government appear only at the very end of the legislative process? Why does the level at which energy performance standards are set effectively exempt all gas throughout its operational life?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. So as to accommodate all Members who wish to speak, the time limit for contributions is now reduced to five minutes.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit is being reduced to four minutes. If hon. Members can make their points in less than four minutes, others may get in.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. May I point out that interventions could result in some Members not getting a chance to speak?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Bill is important for the country and particularly for my constituency, as its economic future is closely linked to the development of the offshore renewables sector, which is a vital ingredient if we are to see the economic renaissance of northern Lincolnshire and Humberside. Indeed, the Government recognised that by establishing the pan-Humber local enterprise partnership with specific responsibility for developing an energy super-cluster for the renewables sector. Growth is already happening, with more than 1,500 jobs having been created in the year to April. More than 20 vessels now sail from Grimsby docks to service offshore projects. Those jobs did not exist two years ago.
The green economy is producing jobs as well as improving the environment, but taxpayers and customers must be convinced. The Humberside area highlights the difficult balance the Government must achieve, as a large proportion of the jobs in or close to my constituency are in energy-intensive industries—oil refineries, chemicals, Tata Steel at Scunthorpe and others—while as I said, thousands of future jobs depend on the offshore renewables sector. Crucial to those long-established employers is the secure, reliable supply of energy that allows them to compete on the world stage. I welcome the scheme that goes some way to compensate some of those energy-intensive businesses.
I make no apology for stressing offshore. I recognise the industry’s preference is for onshore, where costs are considerably less; but it must be accepted that across the country, especially in a constituency such as mine, which is located on the edge of the Lincolnshire Wolds—an area of outstanding natural beauty—an overwhelming number of residents oppose onshore turbines. Recent comments by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), have been warmly welcomed throughout Lincolnshire. I fail to understand why developers do not consider dockland and industrial areas for onshore turbines.
Doubts remain among our constituents as to the value of wind power, and I share them; but the course is set and I want the much needed investment on the Humber bank. If we are to have wind turbines, I want them designed, constructed, serviced and maintained in northern Lincolnshire with the corresponding benefits to existing local businesses, including the supply chain. I am pleased that, after a protracted planning process, progress is now being made with the south Humber energy park. The area is also gearing up, through its local colleges, to establish better training courses.
Whatever course is followed, what potential investors want is certainty, and what those of us paying the bills want is transparency and clear, logical reasons as to why those bills must subsidise large, multinational energy conglomerates. From the point of view of domestic customers, the most welcome feature will be the proposals, helpfully trailed by the Prime Minister, that will result in a reduction in household bills of between 5% and 9% between now and 2030.
This issue is yet another tightrope across which the Government must tread. The public, though still somewhat sceptical about climate change and moves to wind energy, recognise that there are massive costs in its development, but there is a limit to what they are prepared to pay. I have already mentioned the need to limit the costs to industry, but for hard-pressed households, particularly in areas such as my own, where wages are much below the national average, that is absolutely vital. Constant attention is needed to that, and I urge Ministers at all costs to ensure that the consumer is the focus of their—
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
The interpretation that the Secretary of State put on the two main mechanisms underpinning the Bill was, in my view, disingenuous at best and seriously misleading at worst. Under the contracts for difference, the Government will agree a strike price with an electricity generator, offering a guaranteed payment per megawatt-hour of electricity. That means that nuclear generators will have a built-in certainty that, come what may, they will get whatever they demand as a necessary return on their investment—and nuclear plants do not come cheap at £8 billion a time—courtesy of the taxpayer.
Today the Secretary of State repeated again the fake promise that there will be no public subsidy. Parliamentary answers of 8 March 2011 showed that the cost of generating new electricity will be up to £98 per MWh, yet even EDF’s chief executive, Vincent de Rivaz, has estimated that the strike price will be at least £140 per MWh. That implies a public subsidy of £4 billion or more. However, Citigroup analysts have estimated that it is likely to be £166 per MWh. That would require a public subsidy of £5 billion—so much for there being no public subsidy.
Then there is the issue that nuclear costs are on an ever-rising spiral, while renewable costs are set to fall dramatically. For example, large-scale solar will reach grid parity prices this coming year, so feed-in tariff payments to renewable technologies have falling digression rates attached to them, requiring ever lower annual payments for their electricity. Nuclear, however, is a technology requiring an internal subsidy on a rising cost curve. Contracts for difference are therefore in this Bill the mechanism to lock the UK into an ever rising cost spiral for uncompetitive nuclear.
Then there are the so-called capacity mechanisms, which bail out the old fossil fuels. Wind, waves and sun are, of course, free, unlike gas. The obvious policy is to give them priority in meeting grid requirements, leaving the more expensive and polluting fossil fuels to fill in the gaps. That is exactly what happens in Germany, which has reduced the price of electricity at peak demand by between 25% and 40%. If that were done in the UK, it is estimated that it would generate another 77,000 jobs and remove nine out of 10 families from fuel poverty. But that is not what is going to happen in this country under the Bill. Experience in the US of the first six rounds of capacity payments showed that existing fossil fuels took over 70% of the payments under such auctions. It is really tragic that this Government are squeezing renewables in this way, even though they are the most cost-effective methods.
There is one further absurdity. DECC’s own demand-reduction project, published in July this year, found the following:
“We have identified…155 TWh of demand reduction potential…across all…sectors, of which current policy is estimated to capture…54 TWh”.
Frankly, that undermines the whole case for building any nuclear power stations at all, since the 100 or so TWh of savings that remain to be captured are almost exactly the same as the total quantity of electricity that the eight new nuclear power stations are expected to generate.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I tabled a reasoned amendment to decline giving the Bill a Second Reading. I do not do that lightly, and I recognise that there are some small steps forward, including the £7.6 billion for low-carbon energy to 2020, but overall the Bill fails miserably when compared with the scale of the challenges we face. It fails, first, on energy bills and the scandal of 6 million households in fuel poverty; secondly, on the scale and pace of carbon reduction needed; thirdly, because it does not fully recognise the huge potential of energy efficiency and renewable energy, including community renewables, to meet energy needs and create thousands of jobs now and into the future; and finally, because it locks us into a centralised fossil fuel and nuclear energy system at exactly the time when we need more decentralised energy.
Lack of time means that I can focus on only a few aspects. I agree with everything that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) said about nuclear. Let me say a few words about energy efficiency and fuel poverty. It is extremely disappointing that the Bill overlooks the huge potential of energy efficiency and demand reduction, despite widespread consensus that they are the cheapest, quickest, most effective ways to protect householders and businesses against high energy bills and to cut emissions.
The Government’s record is dismal. Ministers have slashed overall funding for fuel-poor households by 26% and cut energy efficiency funding for fuel-poor households by almost a half. I very much hope the Government will table amendments on demand reduction when the last-minute consultation is complete, and that they are commensurate with their own analysis, which shows that demand for electricity could be cut by at least 40% by 2030. Unfortunately, current policies would achieve at most about a third of that potential. It is crucial that any such demand-side incentives do not compete with renewable energy, and I hope Ministers will today confirm that demand-side measures will not be funded by the levy control framework.
It is worth reiterating that whether we see proposals for an energy efficiency feed-in tariff or other mechanisms, they must be additional to wider measures, including high efficiency standards for buildings and the recycling of revenue from carbon taxes and the EU emissions trading system to invest in a nationwide housing retrofit to ensure that all our homes need far less energy in order to keep warm.
On renewables, I welcome the announcement last month that the Government will provide sufficient funds through the levy control framework to ensure that the UK meets its legally binding renewables target by 2020. I sincerely hope that that will help reverse the current situation in which the UK is falling miserably behind other EU countries. The UK languishes at third from the bottom of the league table, on just 3.3% in 2011, a quarter of the EU average.
I am worried also about the future of community energy, on which Ministers deliver platitudes and promises but no policy. As a result, the Bill prolongs the uncertainty faced by small electricity generators, including community-owned renewables. What we need is a radical change in ownership—a move towards many more independent generators, smaller companies located in the UK, and community and co-operatively owned energy generation. Many hon. Members will have in their constituencies projects similar to Brighton energy co-operative that offer a real alternative.
I hope we can work together to change the Bill so that it does not disadvantage such schemes, by supporting, for example, the creation of a purchaser of first option to provide a guaranteed market for community energy schemes and other smaller generation projects; an increase in the fixed feed-in tariff threshold to allow funding certainty for community projects; and a minimum annual target for new generation capacity from community renewables schemes.
I will not go into detail—the House can imagine why—on the many reasons why I am a supporter of putting a decarbonisation target in the Bill, but at the risk of sounding just like the Prime Minister did two years ago, I will quote him. He said:
“If we don’t decarbonise electricity, we’ve got no hope of meeting the targets that we’re all committed to.”
That means at the very least a 2030 target of 50g of CO2 per kilowatt hour by 2030. If the scientific evidence shows that we should have more ambitious targets, however, for either power sector or economy-wide decarbonisation, it is crucial that the Bill provides a mechanism to ensure that that can happen in a timely manner.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To resume his seat no later than 6.40, I call Mr David Anderson.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We face the party that inherited the policies of the past 30 years, the party that believed that to tell Sid was the way to go ahead, but what did it tell Sid? “Buy something you already own”, it said. The party told him that he would be part of the great share-owning democracy. The party told Sid not to worry. Those wonderful private companies were dedicated to serving the public, they would ensure that they invested in the infrastructure, and they would give the country great value for money and transfer all the risk away from the public sector.
What the party did not tell Sid was that 9 million people would be living in fuel poverty by 2016; that it would set up a cartel of six big energy suppliers that would have complete control over every facet of energy policy; that the industry would be regulated by the weakest regulator in history; that it would fail badly to invest in the industry’s infrastructure; that we would face the real possibility of power cuts as a result of that failure; that we would have a national grid that has been described as not fit for purpose; that the failure to invest in skills and training would leave a work force incapable of dealing with the challenges we face; and that, 30 years down the line, the industry would want another £250 billion from the men and women of this country—