Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Alan Brown

Committee stage
Thursday 15th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. You must be delighted to have the Thursday afternoon shift this week. I agree with the Government amendments on the expansion of definitions and capturing other infrastructure required to facilitate service offshore wind generation, especially given the scale of the build-out still required and the renewable energy offshore wind targets that we want to see.

I agree with the principles of strategic compensation for adverse environmental effects in clause 246. Such considerations have been a stumbling block for Berwick Bank offshore wind farm, for example, so having regulations that provide clarity on environmental considerations and possible compensation for other projects is certainly welcome. The key test will be whether sufficient clarity is provided and workable. If we want to deploy renewable energy at a much quicker rate to achieve cheaper bills and eliminate reliance on fossil fuels, we need to be able to look at the environmental impacts in the round and come to sensible, balanced solutions. That means creating environmental equivalence or improvements elsewhere by implementing solutions away from sites if it is deemed that they cannot mitigate the environmental impacts of the site of infrastructure construction.

I have one word of caution; I may not be quite as concerned as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but we need to ensure that these regulations and processes do not become an avenue or vehicle for developers to choose a much easier, cheaper financial solution for them, rather than looking at all avenues to mitigate the environmental impacts at the construction sites. It is critical that robust analysis is undertaken by the relevant regulatory bodies. I realise that subsection (4) is not intended to ensure that everything is looked at and worked through to the nth degree, but we need to ensure that that analysis is not overlooked in the dash for renewable energy and that no shortcuts are taken that allow developers to choose an easy financial solution.

I turn to clause 247. I am sure the Minister is aware that the Scottish Government have concerns that the clause gives the Secretary of State the powers to operate a marine recovery fund in Scottish waters without the consent of Scottish Ministers. Indeed, the Secretary of State will have the powers to completely bypass the Scottish Government and appoint another person or authority, and that is replicated for other devolved Administrations. I understand that the Minister has had ongoing discussions with Gillian Martin MSP—the Energy Minister at the Scottish Government—and other officials on these matters, but as far as I know nothing has been agreed yet. That is why I tabled amendments 176 to 180 to outline my thoughts and put down a marker. Clearly, my amendments were not selected for debate and cannot be voted on, given when they were submitted, but they put down a marker. There is still a window in which the Minister can come to some sort of agreement with the Scottish Government on amendments. It would be good if he could provide the Committee an update on how close we are to a solution. Some form of amendment is still required to subsection (8) in that regard.

There may be issues with clause 247(4), which gives the Secretary of State broad regulation-making powers that could be used in a highly prescriptive manner to direct Scottish Ministers as to how they determine that a compensation condition has been discharged. Again, it should not have been too controversial to agree a way forward. That should be done with the consent of Scottish Ministers before implementation.

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the collegiate working with the Scottish Government and officials. Nobody is trying to being awkward or territorial for the sake of it, nor are they trying to introduce arbitrary red lines. That is why we are giving the Government a bit more time, rather than pushing votes and extending the debate on this; we are trying to find a collegiate way forward. Again, I hope the Minister can give some insight about a solution with regards to subsection (4).

Finally, in relation to devolution, clause 247(9) allows the Secretary of State to cancel functions that Scottish Ministers have consented to under that clause, which seems anomalous. Again, I am looking for some sort of compromise to protect devolved functions in that regard.

Clause 248 does not provide sufficient certainty that Scottish Ministers will retain consenting functions in the Scottish offshore region or waters beyond 12 nautical miles. I understand that the Scottish and UK Governments have discussed this, but what is the timescale for a possible agreement? I believe that the Scottish Government have suggested draft amendments, so what is the UK Government’s view on them?

Subsections (7) and (8) of clause 248 are too broad. They could alter executively devolved powers and fundamentally shift existing arrangements for the consenting and licensing of offshore wind projects in the Scottish offshore region. Does the Minister appreciate those concerns, and does he have a plan to resolve the situation?

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Gray.

I declare an interest, given that we are now talking about renewables: my husband is a company secretary of an organisation called Sheffield Renewables, which is a community benefit society that funds, develops, owns and operates renewable energy systems in Sheffield. Although I hope that Sheffield will not become the coastline—if we do everything right so that vast swathes of east Yorkshire, including Selby, are not under water—I thought that it would be prudent for me to declare that interest at this stage.

As a former shadow Minister for nature, this part of the Bill strikes a chord with me. There are things to welcome in the clauses, but I share some of the concerns that have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. In fact, I agree with the words of an Environment Audit Committee report in relation to the development of offshore wind: we should

“be extremely sensitive to biodiversity considerations given the obvious risks of disrupting important habitats”.

That is important because the Bill represents an attempt to tackle not only the carbon crisis, but the nature crisis. What is bad for one is bad for the other, so it is important that we bear biodiversity in mind with every step we take through the Bill, not least because nature is a massive carbon sink. The UK already faces massive nature depletion—we have has some of the worst nature depletion in Europe—so it is right that we debate how the Bill takes such considerations into account.

I fear that clause 248 provides wide powers to ignore habitat regulations, marine Acts and general duties around assessment, which is problematic. There is also something of a misalignment between some of the wording in the Bill and that in the Environment Act 2021. When that Act seeks to alter habitat regulations, there are a lot of caveats, and it might be worth the Minister considering whether it would be right to have those caveats in the Bill, given that both measures represent Government policy and strategy.

I hope that the Bill does not conflict with 13 by 2030, which we have had a conversation about, and the protection of marine areas. I also hope that we will discuss protections. I particularly support our amendments 166 and 167, because it is important to have that switch-off or death switch, I suppose—I am trying to think of a way of phrasing it. We need to keep those protections in place where we can. If we allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking that the impact on the environment off-sea will not affect us, we are really missing the point. It would have been nice if there had been a reference to blue carbon in the Bill. Obviously, that has not materialised—I understand why, because the Bill is predominantly to do with energy—but we are missing measures in that space as well.

It is incredibly important that the Minister considers amendment 165, particularly as it outlines some of my concerns about the Bill’s alignment with the Environment Act. It is quite clear that the Bill could do more to ensure that environmental protections exist and that we are not cutting our nose off to spite our face with some of our activity.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Alan Brown

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake]

Yes.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Has the hon. Lady heard of the issues with the ECO4 scheme? The energy companies have not met the target number of properties because it needs to be rewritten.

[Olivia Blake]

Those are the exact problems. In recent years a number of Government schemes have either failed because they have not had the workforce to deliver them, or experienced challenges because people have been drawn into other roles, particularly in the building sector and in relation to cladding issues and so on. That is exactly why the Opposition would be very pleased if the clause were protected. We need that action plan. Delivery is only worth something when it happens. We cannot just have targets that we repeatedly continue to miss. It would be exceedingly challenging to argue to the public that we should not prioritise getting their bills down by £1,000 a year or come up with an action plan to deliver that.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Alan Brown

Committee stage
Thursday 8th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I rise to support the amendment, because this is a fundamental issue. The Minister talked about households only, but will the offer that he outlined be available to businesses? That is important, because businesses have different energy needs, even in residential areas.

It is important that we take people with us. They must have the option to say no to such trials and get low-carbon heating by another means. That is all I wanted to say on the amendment.

[Alan Brown]

There is another hydrogen trial ongoing—the H100 project in Fife, which is the world’s first trial of green hydrogen for heating and hot water. Like the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I hope that that experiment is successful.

That trial in Fife highlights the issues that we are debating today. Will the Minister update the Committee on the number of properties signed up to H100? Investigative journalists have reported that the £1,000 sign-up offer was not enough of an inducement to make households sign up. That is the conundrum: it is fine to say that there will be a financial incentive or a consumer offer—the Minister says that we will never need to resort to using the powers in these clauses—but it is clear that some people are reluctant to sign up. If the financial inducement is not enough, how will the Government and the gas operators take those people with them and get this over the finishing line?

It is absolute critical that we take people with us. It is critical that consumers understand the offer they are getting, the risk and the way that the hydrogen trials are being undertaken. It is important that there is transparency in the reporting of the trials. In particular, we need to understand how risks and leakages will be reported. The worst thing that can happen is for rumours or wrong perceptions to circulate.

Amendment 118 is intended to give people an alternative to being part of a hydrogen trial. I support that principle, but that still leaves us with the dilemma of what happens if a household says, “I don’t want to be part of a hydrogen trial and, by the way, you can forget these heat pump things. I am quite happy with my methane gas, thank you very much.” What would happen in that circumstance?

That brings me to the Minister’s argument on Second Reading that the powers will not be used to either force people into the hydrogen trial or leave them disconnected from the gas network. What happens if not enough people are signing up? Frankly, the Government will then have a dilemma. If they want to facilitate these hydrogen trials, they need enough people on the hydrogen network, otherwise the trials will not be sufficient to get an understanding of, or see, the proper operation and benefits of hydrogen.

What will the Government do if not enough people are signing up? How will they facilitate people signing up without forcing them, and how will they get these powers to be successful in terms of mass criticality? There is the old phrase, “You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs.” It might well be that the Government are going to upset some people, but they will have to be honest about it. Just saying, “There is no way we will use the powers in the Bill” might be unintentionally disingenuous. I am curious what the Minister’s thoughts are. It is fine to say that the Government will not use them, but that remains to be seen.