Carbon Capture and Storage (Scotland)

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Tom Greatrex

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on CCS in Scotland and other related factors. It is not a surprise that the debate has sometimes ranged beyond CCS projects in Scotland, because so many aspects of energy policy and energy considerations are tied up with the potential—the potential projects and the success, or otherwise—of CCS. I am sure there are many other issues, from the contributions we have heard, that the Minister will wish to reflect on. He missed the very start of the debate, but what is gratifyingly clear from the whole of the debate is that—despite one comment from the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—nobody taking part in the debate fails to see the potential of CCS and its impact. From time to time there is a view that, because CCS is unproven and has not been demonstrated on a commercial basis, it is a distraction. I do not believe it is a distraction. It is integral to achieving the right, balanced energy policy and the right mix of energy sources, and to reducing carbon emissions at the same time. It is interesting and positive, therefore, that that view has not been expressed during the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing the debate. He touched on many issues from the perspective of representing the Longannet power station. Everybody felt disappointed with the announcement that Iberdrola and the Government had concluded that the Longannet project was not able to go any further without significant additional funds. In fact, even with the significant addition of funds, there may well have been other technical issues that made it impossible to go further. That decision was not necessarily a party political issue. It is, I think, a deep disappointment to everybody who is interested and committed to energy policy.

Some of the commentary around the issue was unhelpful. I had the pleasure—it was not that much of a pleasure—of rereading some of the comments made by the First Minister and other members of the SNP immediately after that decision. While I understand that the predecessor of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was caught up in the moment at his party conference shortly afterwards, his description of the Government turning their back on a world-leading technology and £1 billion of investment not being there was perhaps going further than the facts allowed. That was disappointing in many ways, but not necessarily that surprising.

[Thomas Docherty]

Does my hon. Friend think it is interesting that, for all the bluff, bluster and ranting from the SNP, when push comes to shove they would not have put a single penny into the scheme? We have heard nothing today about how much it is prepared to fund.

[Tom Greatrex]

I think my hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into one aspect of a constitutional debate that we will have, and I am sure we will have plenty of opportunities. I join other hon. Members in seeking clarification from the Minister on what offers of funding for CCS were made, if any, from the Scottish Government. It would be interesting to learn more about that issue if he has the opportunity to address it in his winding-up speech.

I want to reflect on some of the contributions to the debate, because so many aspects of energy policy are tied up in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife touched on security of supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) touched on the importance of the industrial and technological potential that undoubtedly exists in the UK. The clock is ticking, however, and he gave an apposite warning about the potential for missing out on that, as indeed did the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who has experience in the industry and related industries. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made the important point that this is also about reducing carbon emissions, which is fundamental to our energy future.

Scotland has had a relatively long, and sometimes chequered, past—and present—with CCS: from Peterhead to Longannet, and back to Peterhead again. There is also the potential of the Hunterston project, which is currently caught up in the planning process. Other hon. Members referred to the difficulties that can arise with the planning process.

At various points, there has been lots of excitement about the potential of all those projects in Scotland. There is a real opportunity for Scotland to be a world leader in this low-carbon technology. Much of the academic expertise is in the UK, particularly in Scotland, notably Edinburgh. It would be a shame if that potential was not realised first in the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire made clear, we should not overlook the potential for jobs and the value to the economy. Many hon. Members have touched on Scotland’s potential, particularly within the UK. It has access to geological formations off the North sea that are ideally suited to carbon storage, and we have heard about the issues in Germany and elsewhere regarding under-land storage.

All those things make it important that the Government remain committed to CCS, including, potentially, in Scotland. That does not mean that the decision on Longannet was not disappointing, as I have said: it was bad news for the plant, for the local economy and for Scotland. My two hon. Friends here today with local connections made that point eloquently. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire said, we are where we are and we have to deal with the realities. The important thing now is that the potential demonstrated in the work at Longannet is not lost, so that we do not have to start from scratch.

I am pleased to have found out in my discussions with Scottish and Southern Energy—or SSE as it is now formally known—that some work undertaken at Longannet is being used to help inform current work in relation to Peterhead. It is important that we do not have to start from scratch each time, because then our ability to get ahead of the game would almost certainly be lost.

It is important and significant that we understand the difference between CCS being encouraged through other aspects of energy policy, including carbon pricing, in the longer term—as the hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned—and where we are now, because this technology has not yet been proved commercially on a significant scale. The real potential has been demonstrated, but it is reasonably widely accepted, if not universally, that to get that benefit Government intervention and support is needed in the initial stages.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan touched on the Peterhead project, and many hon. Members who are not here have commented on the decisions made in 2007. I am tying this issue into Longannet because sometimes, as I have said, party politics gets in the way of the realities of projects that have potential but, for whatever reason, cannot be taken further forward.

The predecessor of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan talked about the Peterhead project being lost to Abu Dhabi. He is a frequent traveller, at the moment, to that part of the world. I wonder whether he would, either through the hon. Lady or at some other point, inform us what happened in Abu Dhabi, because I understand that BP’s hydrogen power project has still yet to get the go-ahead there. Sometimes the simplistic sloganising around this issue does a disservice to the technological, practical and engineering hurdles that we still need to get over. Sometimes, the degeneration of this important matter into an “England versus Scotland” or a “Scotland being done down” debate does it a disservice.

Funding is important and I am sure the Minister will have expected me to mention that, given that I have used many opportunities in the past few months to seek answers on this issue. It is important that we get clarity from the Minister today, including about the funding that is available going forward. At the time of the Longannet decision, the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said at Energy questions that there would be no backsliding from the Treasury, that the £1 billion would be available for CCS funding, and that that was an absolute commitment. Yet the day before the autumn statement—I am sure the Minister recalls the radio interview—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it clear that the £1 billion for CCS would be subsumed within the £5 billion infrastructure plan, although he was not clear about what would then be available for CCS. The ramifications of the interview on 5 Live that morning were pretty significant and have caused a degree of concern in the industry that has not yet abated. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that and say what that means for the timeline for the development of CCS.

The subject of the debate is projects in Scotland. The Minister will be aware of SSE’s projections regarding when it expects such projects to be up and running: that is, before the end of current comprehensive spending review period. There is a degree of doubt and concern about that, because the Government are saying that the £1 billion will be available, but not necessarily in this Parliament. How can they make that commitment ahead of the next CSR? The industry is concerned about certainty and stability in relation to that funding; it is important that it know exactly where it stands.

Again, will the Minister make clear how much of the £1 billion that his boss said there would be no backsliding on will be available during the current CSR period? How much of the £1 billion previously set aside for CCS will now be used for other infrastructure projects? Will those other infrastructure projects in the Treasury infrastructure fund exclude CCS, and is the money being double-counted? What form will the remaining funding take? Will it be up-front capital, or fixed or variable payments over time?

I am asking the Minister these questions again because on 29 November 2011, I asked the Chancellor during his autumn statement to provide some clarity, but he was not able to do so. On 1 December I asked the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to provide some clarity, but I am afraid his answer was not clear. On 6 December I asked the Chief Secretary again to provide further clarity, but, again, he was unable to do so. On 15 December I even asked the Leader of the House to provide some clarity, and he said that he thought the issue had been dealt with with the appropriate degree of clarity beforehand.

Four Cabinet Ministers were, in the space of 11 sitting days, given an opportunity on the Floor of the House to spell out clearly and without ambiguity exactly how much money was available for CCS in this Parliament, what the impact would be on the timeline for distributing that funding and whether the funding was, potentially, being spread far too thinly to have a positive impact. On each occasion the Government were found wanting: rather than providing potential investors with the clarity they were asking for, they preferred to provide further confusion.

The Energy Minister even claimed, in a written answer to me, that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had not made any announcement on CCS funding. People who heard the interview I have mentioned would beg to differ: although it may not have been a formal announcement to Parliament, that statement by the Chief Secretary has caused such a degree of concern that it is incumbent on the Government to provide the clarity we need now.

I should like to touch on the European NER300 funding package. The lack of clarity about Government funding for CCS projects has a knock-on effect on other sources of funding, which hon. Members have mentioned, whether private or public. One such source is the European Union NER300 programme. The six CCS projects competing for funding from the UK are also doing so at European level.

The Peterhead project is seeking funding. The chief executive of SSE, Ian Marchant, has made it clear that the development of the commercial-scale CCS demonstration is dependent, to some extent, on levels of support from both the EU and the UK Government. The criteria for accessing EU funding are clear. Before any allocation of EU money for a CCS project that is seeking both member state and EU funding:

“Member States will be asked to confirm the value and structure of the total financing of the projects concerned, and any project for which confirmation is not forthcoming will be replaced by the next highest-ranked project.”

Those words are chilling, and unless that criterion has changed, they highlight the urgent need for the Government to get in place their plan in relation to CCS, so that that opportunity is not missed.

The Government held an industry day just before Christmas, which many people were hoping would answer some questions. Given the questions and answers published on the Minister’s website and the views of people who attended that event, I do not think it answered many questions, other than to say that at some point questions would be answered. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to answer those important questions.

Scotland is at the forefront of this pioneering low-carbon technology, which could hugely benefit our energy security and how energy policy is taken forward across the UK and more widely around the world. However, as hon. Members have highlighted, the right support from the Government is needed to get that opportunity up and running. It is time for the Minister and the Government to bring the uncertainty to an end, to provide clarity and to come clean on CCS.

Constitutional Law

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Tom Greatrex

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tom Greatrex]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his excitable intervention. I am sure that he, in common with many other Liberal Democrat Members, was at the last election and previously a great fan of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation, although I note that he now seems to be less enamoured.

Although we are considering this statutory instrument for the first time this evening, it is referred to, and already amended by, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, which has completed its Commons stages and is now being scrutinised in another place. The Bill—which, as I have said, refers to this statutory instrument—will permit the Scottish Parliament elections to coincide with the date of a referendum on AV, something which just about everybody other than members of the Government think is a bad idea. As the Minister noted in the latter part of his remarks, even the esteemed Ron Gould expressed his doubts on that matter. So the Commons has considered the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill prior to the statutory instrument to which it refers having been approved by the House of Commons. That is not only completely illogical, but it is contrary to standard parliamentary practice and represents a worrying precedent. The Minister was careful not to seek to explain it, perhaps because he is embarrassed at such a blatant political fix. Perhaps he will explain it in more detail in his later remarks. I am not an experienced Member or an expert on parliamentary process by any manner of means, but if this is a measure of the tactics used, it leads me to wonder how we are expected to undertake our role in scrutinising the Executive properly.

The Executive have made much of their “respect agenda” towards the devolved Administrations and Assemblies, so why have the Minister and his Secretary of State, who is absent tonight, singularly failed to consult the Scottish Executive on the clash of dates? The Scottish Parliament’s view was clearly expressed last week when, by 89 votes to 30, it said that the elections to which this statutory instrument relates and the referendum should not be combined. It seems that the “respect agenda” has been superseded by the old and regressive new progressivism.

I ask the Minister to address a number of questions about the content of this measure. The Gould report recommended the appointment of a chief returning officer. Why is that recommendation not being followed through? Surely one of the main problems identified by Gould was the inconsistency in interpreting the guidelines. I am sure the Minister will recall that as a result of the number of list candidates who applied to stand in the 2007 elections, the returning officers in both Glasgow and Edinburgh removed a line of instruction to the voter at the top of the ballot paper but failed to consult others prior to making that decision.

Why are the UK government not considering, as the current proposal from the Scottish Government does, putting the Interim Electoral Management Board on a statutory footing, despite the fact that it is now the main source of professional advice and co-ordination for all elections held in Scotland? Do the UK Government believe that there should be two separate electoral management boards in Scotland or that it makes sense for such a board to be formed but not deal with either UK or EU elections? What arrangements will the UK Government establish to co-ordinate returning officers and chief returning officers for the 2011 elections, and for subsequent UK and EU elections?

If the Scottish Government proceed to make the IEMB a statutory body for local and Scottish Parliament elections, what do the UK Government envisage will be the relationship with it if other elections are held on same date and if the Minister’s much-vaunted consultation on what happens in 2015 does not end up in any result? Who will be responsible for what? How are we going to achieve consistency in rulings and implementation of arrangements?

Why is this statutory instrument following the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, rather than preceding it? Surely this statutory instrument should have been presented to Parliament before the Bill was introduced—there has been sufficient time for that following the general election. Will the Minister tell us on how many occasions a Bill that includes reference to a particular statutory instrument has completed its stages in the Commons prior to that statutory instrument being approved by this House? Does he not agree that this sets a dangerous precedent and attacks the ability of this House to scrutinise legislation properly?

Why is this statutory instrument coming to the House less than six months prior to the Scottish Parliament elections, despite the Minister’s acknowledged acceptance of the Gould recommendation that the rules should now be not merely published, but in place? Why are the coalition Government continuing with a joint ballot on 5 May 2011 when evidence and expert feedback suggests that the amount of spoiled papers will be higher? Surely that mirrors the problem identified in 2007 that multiple ballot forms can confuse, particularly those who are frail, those who have learning difficulties or those for whom English is not their first language. What testing has occurred and what methodology did it use? If the joint ballot is to be held on 5 May 2011, can the Minister clarify how the ballot papers will be set out? Will they be on separate ballots? If so, will they be on separate coloured ballots that have been tested and are acceptable for people with eye conditions? What testing will take place? Have all the proposed ballot papers been tested by the Electoral Commission? Have any discussions taken place with the Interim Electoral Management Board in Scotland about the dual poll? What concerns did it raise?

This statutory instrument rectifies the inadvertent problems in the previous election rules that prevented a candidate from being able to run as a candidate with a descriptor for two registered parties and use a registered symbol of one of those parties. I declare an interest as a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. Perhaps in future elections those on the Government Benches may stand as combined party candidates. I therefore ask the Minister when that situation will be rectified for future UK elections as it has been for the Scottish Parliament elections.

On prisoner voting rights, will the Minister clarify when the Government intend to amend the franchise and whether that will occur before the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections? In their explanatory notes, the Government contend that they do not need to qualify their statement on the Human Rights Act 1998 because they do not consider the Scottish Parliament to be a legislature for the purposes of article 3 of the first protocol. Specifically, they mention the Toner case in regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly, in which a ruling has been made. Does the Minister not accept that the legislative competence and power of the Scottish Parliament is considerably greater than those of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and accordingly will he clarify further why the Government have now determined that the ruling will apply in Scotland? Why have the Government not adopted a precautionary approach and what estimate have they made that their interpretation will be subject to legal challenge?

[Thomas Docherty]

Given that the Scottish National party failed to consult this place or the other parties when it took away the tax varying powers, does my hon. Friend share my concern that Scotland perhaps does not have a proper Parliament any more thanks to the SNP?

[Tom Greatrex]

I am grateful as ever for the erudite intervention of my hon. Friend. Given that other matters are being discussed today in Edinburgh, perhaps we will all be able to reflect on those discussions in the fullness of time.

If reforms in prisoner voting rights are not implemented before May 2011, does the Minister consider that there will be further legal challenges on the alternative vote referendum and, if so, are the Government qualifying their Human Rights Act statement as regards that poll?

There are errors in schedule 2 of the printed draft order. Parts 2 to 7 are, from page 64 onwards, erroneously referred to as parts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. As the Minister has mentioned, five additional drafting errors were noted by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. He has clarified those errors. Will he tell us what steps will be taken to provide corrected information and the final order to those who will have to implement it?

On schedule 5, in what circumstances does he envisage a combination of Scottish Parliament and local government polls? Will he consider, given the Gould recommendation, that that is likely to occur only when there is a local government by-election? What provisions will he put in place should a council by-election take place on the same day as a Scottish Parliament election and an AV referendum? I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to those specific questions.

Ship-to-Ship Oil as Cargo Transfer

Debate between Thomas Docherty and Tom Greatrex

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend has been a champion on the issue in Edinburgh for quite a while. She is right that the RSPB is unhappy. I think it is fair to say that it feels that its voice has not yet been heard in the debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a guarantee today that, as part of his consultation over the next six months, he will find an opportunity to meet with the RSPB and me, as well as with my right hon. and hon. Friends, if he can find time in his diary, perhaps in September or October. The RSPB could then have an opportunity, in person, to make its case.

I am conscious that I have been pursuing this issue for some time.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I appreciate that there was some confusion about who would raise this matter, there being two new Members from Scottish constituencies with the same first name. I understand that that caused a little confusion.

I have been aware of the issue for some time, having worked in the Scotland Office. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that, at the time of the build-up to the regulations being laid, there was a considerable period in which there was significant resistance to them from the Department for Transport, although the Scotland Office and other bits of the Government were pushing for them. Could the Minister respond to that point, which is of concern to some of us on this side of the Chamber?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. He obviously has particular expertise and knowledge of the mechanics of government from his former life. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point. It might also be worth his clarifying what representations, if any, he has had from either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for the Scotland Office. We understand that they are supposed to be Scotland’s champions in the Government, and, given that the Scottish Government and the local authorities have raised the matter with his ministerial colleagues, it would be helpful to get an understanding of whether the Scotland Office has been asked for, or has proactively provided, any input to the review.

I am conscious that I am beginning to approach the Minister’s time, so let me make one final observation. Of course, we would never seek to use early-day motions as a method of gauging the overall strength of feeling in the House. I suspect that the Minister and I would be at one in suggesting that they are not necessarily the best way to make policy. However, it may be worth looking at the two early-day motions that were tabled on this subject.

One was from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who I welcome to the debate. I am sure that she will have some thoughts for us in a moment. Her early-day motion, which began

“That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty”,

asked for the regulations to be annulled, and attracted four signatures.

The counter to that early-day motion was early-day motion 308, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and which attracted 28 signatures. Basically, it said that the House welcomed the regulations, and asked for them to be enforced. Curiously enough, however, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) seems to have signed both motions. Far be it from me to try to establish why a Liberal Democrat might think that he can be both in favour of and against something simultaneously—I suspect that the Minister might have more experience of that than I do.

In conclusion, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. So that we are all clear, I accept the Minister’s assurance that he was not seeking or intending to sneak out the announcement. I hope that he can give us some reassurance on the points that we have raised on regulations and other subjects, and I very much hope that he will be able to shed some light on who has made representations to him so far, and on his plans to take further representations from Members on both sides of the House.