Energy Bill [HL]

Viscount Ridley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Worthington]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. The concerns that I have raised consistently throughout the passage of the Bill relate to the Government’s analysis which concludes that we simply do not need any more onshore wind. This is based on false projections of how we are doing in relation to our legally binding EU renewable energy targets. Those targets relate to power, heat and transport. It is true that we are doing reasonably well on power but we are not on track for delivery of our targets on transport or heat. The projections that the department is now having to produce to pretend that it will get to those targets stretch credibility. There is a hockey stick of deployment expected in the other two sectors which is simply not credible. We are tying our hands behind our back, removing from our low-carbon armoury one of the cheapest, safest and most easily deliverable technologies—onshore wind.

I almost feel that I ought to be presenting a eulogy for the wind industry in the UK because it deserves respect. It has a 25-year history. The House almost certainly knows that it was first supported by Margaret Thatcher in 1990. The first support mechanisms were brought in for wind around that time. She recognised the science of climate change and she knew that we needed to address it. She also knew that it would be sensible for the UK to make the most use of its assets. We happen to be one of the windiest countries in Europe, something we should celebrate. In fact, we have been one of the best markets for wind technologies. Our shores have seen innovations and the development of new technologies that we can be very proud of. We have seen investment in jobs and infrastructure, particularly in those parts of the country that need inward investment—I am referring to Scotland and Wales—a great pouring-in of interest and money that has helped to generate jobs at a time when they are sorely needed.

I am not saying that wind farms need to be put everywhere and that everyone should accept them. I actually think that the Government’s other manifesto commitment that local people should have a say in them is a sensible measure. That is something that the Government have sought to introduce through planning. The closure of the support mechanism has to be taken in the context of the other things the Government have done to stop onshore wind, including quite significant changes to planning.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness gets to the end of her eulogy for the wind industry, will she confirm that this is the new Corbyn Labour Party’s policy—to eulogise an industry that is particularly good at rewarding rich people, including landowners, by loading the bills that hurt poor people most?

[Baroness Worthington]

We can debate who benefits most from our low-carbon agenda—possibly it is the Chinese at this particular juncture. However, in the context of closing the RO early, it is some of the smaller schemes—the independent developers and the independent renewable companies—that are suffering the most, and it is the larger companies that seem to be getting the grace period amendments that they need. It is the smaller guys who are losing out. This is not about rewarding the richest or the most powerful lobbyists—that is not what we are seeking to do.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, this is about fairness and a common-sense test of whether, when you read those words in a manifesto in May, you then think, “Ah yes, I know what that means; it means that in about the middle of June, I will see an announcement from the Government that closes a scheme in which I have invested hundreds of millions of pounds, which is already closing with no consultation”. I hesitate to say that that passes the common-sense test, as I do not think it does. Indeed, we know it does not, because we have had a large number of investors come to us to say that this is not the way that they should be dealt with.

Normally, a consultation exercise is undertaken and then the results of that consultation are published. In this case, because we have been racing since 18 June to get everything ready in order to close the scheme early, even though it is closing anyway, we have not had a proper public consultation or publication of the results of any consultation. Therefore we are flying blind and having to work with large numbers of people contacting us to express their concern and dismay at being handled in this way by the Government.

The specific issue raised under Amendment 78C is another important one. As I have said before, I do not think this House will discuss this, but it will certainly be discussed, with far greater passion potentially, when it moves to the other place. Amendment 78C would simply repatriate the closure of the RO to Scottish Ministers. The reason for this is that during the passage of the Energy Bill in 2013, the Government had to take a power to repatriate the renewables obligation back to Westminster. We were told at the time that this would be a technical amendment and that this had to be done simply to make the closure easier, tidier and more efficient. However, we now see that this was not the case: this was a cynical move that gave the Government the power to close a scheme for Scotland without due consultation with Scottish interests. It flies against the spirit of the Smith commission agreement, which is seeking to repatriate more powers to Scotland and allow Scottish people to determine what they want to see built to provide them with clean energy in the future.

That brings me on to the question of fairness and whether the Government’s amendments, and their proposals for grace periods, are fit for purpose. It should be noted that although the announcement was made on 18 June—and a very hard guillotine introduced at that point—and some details were provided about potential grace periods, it was not until 8 October that we were given the full detail of the proposals. That is not a long period for us to consider them, and they are incredibly complex—I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for his forensic and expert deconstruction of some of these issues. It is not appropriate for us to have to wait four months before we see the detail and, when we do see it, for it to be so substandard. This is a cause of great concern. It was of course quite a heated debate in Committee in the Moses Room the other week. That resulted in the withdrawal of the amendments, for which we were grateful. We hoped then that that would result in a bit of reflection and some clearer amendments coming forward.

I am grateful to the Minister for presenting the changes that were incorporated. By and large they were merely technical issues of clarification, but the biggest one, about planning and when you deem planning consent to have been given, remains unresolved. This is what is so strange about these grace periods. The anomaly here could not be more strange: because of the way the Government are interpreting this and putting it into legislation, if you are refused planning permission—if the local council signals that it is not content—and you then appeal and win that appeal, you will be able to get a subsidy. However, if you had consent from the local committee and it was clear that the community wished to see the development, but you were waiting for various formalities to be concluded which then came after the artificial 18 June deadline, you would not be eligible. That seems to fly in the face of the Government’s manifesto commitment—they are evidently keen on their manifesto commitments, as I am sure is right and proper—which is that they want local people to have the final say. There are clearly still weaknesses and great anomalies within the grace periods. The provisions already run to many pages, but we still need the department to go back to think again and come forward with something workable.

I do not want anything that I have said today to be interpreted as our desire to see endless subsidies for particular technologies continuing indefinitely. That is absolutely not the case. As I have said on previous occasions, the issue we should look at on which the Government have refused to give any clarity is what is happening with the new form of support, the contracts for difference, which replace the RO. That is the pertinent question, but whenever I have asked it, I am told that the Government will make a Statement in the autumn. It is not a good answer for an industry with 25 long years of history to be proud of to be told, “We will tell you your fate in our own good time at some point”—presumably, after the Bill has passed its crucial stages. It is not appropriate to be closing one scheme and not giving any clarity over what is to replace it.

My final concern is that the Government have left us little choice but to object to the provision. It demonstrates a Government who put ideology ahead of evidence. There is no place for ideology in energy policy. If the Government have set their mind against onshore wind, as they are demonstrating—that is evident from all that they have done—they are no better than those who take an ideological principle against fracking or nuclear. We should not be singling out technologies; we need every technology to play its part. Some technologies are better than others in certain circumstances, but there is no reason to decide that we should cease to support one over another, especially when it turns out to be cheaper than many of the alternatives, has a proven track record of delivery and is sustaining investment in our country.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but I doubt that he will be able to reassure me on those points, and it is for that reason that I reserve the right to press the amendment that follows.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, I am sure that people will be very pleased to hear that I do not intend to repeat the speech that I made in the previous debate. As noble Lords will be aware, we have tabled an amendment to delete Clause 66 from the Bill. The reason for this is that we do not believe this legislation is ready or has had the right consultation applied to it to ensure that it is fair. We do not find it satisfactory to be told that we will hear about the replacement mechanism in the autumn; it is the autumn now, and in the course of the Bill we should have information about what the Government are planning. As I have said, we have detailed concerns about the grace period.

I want to pick up on the issue of costs, which has been raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Lord, Lord Howell. To be clear, in the Government’s impact assessment the overall estimation of what the measure will save is 30p for a household for a year. The sum that the Minister was kind enough to present us with was £270 million overall, which is a tiny proportion of the amount of money that we are going to have to spend to decarbonise and renew our energy system. It is certainly less than the £350 million in capital that has been sunk into projects that are now falling foul of the artificial grace period. Overall, then, Clause 66 does not deliver a great deal of value to the country as a whole—certainly not to the wind industry, but it does not serve UK plc’s purposes either.

Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the steel industry, I completely accept that the situation is now very grave. The answer to the steel problem is about enabling it to invest in new, cleaner infrastructure. Not only is there a vast global oversupply of steel but we ourselves also have an ageing and inefficient infrastructure. We need reinvestment, and I believe that the way to do that is by helping the industry to invest in green infrastructure and carbon capture and storage. It will actually be through more green measures, not fewer, that we save ourselves. The steel industry’s electricity bills are a tiny proportion compared with its process emissions; in fact, it is true to say that for nearly all the green measures that apply to electricity the steel industry receives compensation. Please let no one be under any illusion that anything we are doing today will help to bring about the demise of the steel industry—far from it.

[Viscount Ridley]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene again. She and I have had an exchange on Twitter about this and now I am bringing it forward to this House. Is she aware of the comments made in July this year by Karl-Ulrich Köhler, the European head of Tata Steel, when commenting on European green emissions policies? He said,

“it is very difficult for the colleagues”,

in India,

“to understand why Europe’s politicians undermine the competitiveness of their steelmakers”.

[Baroness Worthington]

I sometimes also wonder about the European policy and in particular why we have not moved further and faster on carbon capture and storage. It makes sense to me that that should be the technology that will enable us to have steel and still meet our climate change targets. As with many things in Europe, it all boils down to what Germany thinks, and unfortunately, Germany has set its mind against carbon capture and storage. We do not need to, thankfully, and we should press ahead.

To return to another form of low-carbon energy which has an important role to play—onshore wind—I have made it quite clear that I do not believe that this is good legislation, and I have not been reassured why it is being pursued other than it seems to be quite a political move by the Government. The costs certainly should not be a reason for us to consider that this should be brought through. As regards meeting the EU targets, it is simply not true that there is no more room for onshore wind and that we should be throttling back.

We have greatly destabilised investment in the UK, which used to be one of the leading destinations for investment. The hasty, rash and poorly thought-through policies of this Government in their early months in government have produced shock waves. Many other people are also saying this, such as John Cridland at the CBI, and the Government’s funder, Dennis Clark, has sounded an alarm that the Government’s policy now appears to be having very little positive effect and a great deal of negative effect on investor confidence.

For all those reasons and for the reasons I have outlined with regard to it being inappropriate to proceed with this poor legislation, I suggest that we delete it, give the Government more time to consider this in the other place, where I am sure the debate will continue. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Ridley]

My Lords, in declaring my interests at the start, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that my family benefits from one wind turbine but that I give the money away to charity. I thought that he might like to know that.

This is a manifesto commitment and I have never heard such extraordinary legal sophistry from the Opposition on this question. Under the “Foulkes convention”, as we may have to call it, at the next election we will have to have a negotiation between lawyers representing both parties to get the exact wording of manifestos agreed or nothing will be able to get through the House of Lords. That is essentially what is being argued. It is a perfectly common-sense statement that was in the manifesto and we are committing to it—and we are facing a potential constitutional crisis in the way that the Opposition are treating the Salisbury convention.

It is an astonishing suggestion to hear that reducing a subsidy to an industry is an ideological objection to that industry. My objection to the wind industry is not ideological: it is economic and scientific. Wind is making a trivial contribution to our energy supplies—it supplied 4% of our total energy use last year—and an even smaller contribution to carbon dioxide reductions. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, responded to my question about how much carbon dioxide emissions have actually been reduced by the wind power industry by very kindly sending me a link to a calculation that 1,800 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions are displaced or reduced by each 2 megawatt wind turbine. Well, do the maths on that. That means that with 10,000 turbines of roughly that size in this country, 20 million tonnes or so would be reduced. But that is out of 700 million tonnes of emissions, so it is a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of less than 3%—and that assumes that it is displacing grid average emissions, which it is not: it is mostly displacing gas. Nor does it take into account the intermittency or back-up—the point made by my noble friend Lord Spicer—which means that our total wind fleet that we have built up over 25 years, hugely subsidised, is giving us a reduction in emissions of about 2%. That is lost in the statistics. It is an Asterix—sorry, I mean an asterisk—and it comes at a huge cost. Wind subsidies cost this country about £4 billion a year. For that money, one could buy an extra 25% of electricity at the wholesale price, which is an enormous amount.

As I said earlier, in subsidising wind farms we are robbing the poor to pay the rich. It is a regressive subsidy. It hits poor people harder than rich people and rewards rich people more than poor people—not just landowners, but investors of other kinds. We are also killing jobs. We know that the high cost of electricity has killed a number of energy-intensive industries: for example, the aluminium smelter at Lynemouth, in Northumberland, to which I drew attention a number of years ago in this House.

[Baroness Worthington]

I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. He makes a lovely speech, but actually we are debating the impacts of Clause 66, which, as I have pointed out, saves 30p on a household’s bill. We can have a lovely debate about the role of CFDs and replacement subsidies, but we are here, on Report, looking at Clause 66, which is a very specific intervention that has destabilised investor confidence.

[Viscount Ridley]

I do not know where I was five or 10 minutes ago then, when I was listening to a lot of very wide-ranging remarks about whether our opposition to the wind industry was ideological.

I find it odd that the parties opposite are so keen to defend one particular industry—one that is really good at taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people while doing the square root of nothing to reduce emissions, killing eagles, hurting tourism, spoiling landscapes and killing jobs.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

The noble Lord is probably going to move on to it being conducive to falling arches and making children more delinquent. We are talking about correcting an administrative lash-up. Yesterday, I looked briefly at the words that the Government put forth on the consultation on the renewables obligation cessation and the transfer to contracts for difference. That was aimed at making a smooth, seam-free transition between the two subsidy schemes. What we are talking about here is the fact that the transition that came as a result of earlier closure is far from seam-free and smooth; that is all that we are talking about.

On the other hand, I cannot, while on my feet, not challenge the noble Lord on his assertions that any of the environmental or carbon reduction measures are the primary cause of a lack of competitiveness in some of our energy-intensive industries. Our energy-intensive industries have been helped, quite rightly, with the burden that has been placed on them by carbon reduction measures. However, if one looks at the range of factors that makes us competitive in the world compared with other countries, particularly the emerging economies, one will see that labour costs by far and away outweigh any impact that carbon reduction could have.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I am ready to reply to the noble Baroness’s speech, but I believe that that was an intervention on another speech.

[Viscount Ridley]

I had actually pretty well come to the end of my remarks anyway—but on the subject of energy-intensive users, we have good evidence from all sorts of people, including what we heard on the news last night from the head of Tata UK. He said that energy was a huge contributor to its decision. The cost of energy in this country is crucial. As I said before, if this is really just about a minor adjustment to the timing of the introduction of the measure, why are we arguing about the whole industry?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I did not want to make an intervention on an intervention, but may I say something now? I agree that we are talking about whether Clause 66 should stand, but the argument has constantly been widened, and the noble Baroness who just intervened raised again the question of what all this does to energy costs, and whether energy costs are important. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, made some comments about that as well. The facts are the facts. The director of the Energy Intensive Users Group has said that,

“a third of the cost of industrial electricity bills in Britain is being spent on green energy taxes, such as the two-year-old carbon price floor support mechanism … and this would rise to about half of all bills by 2020”.

The director of UK Steel has said that,

“rising energy costs were a critical reason for the crisis afflicting the industry, which also led to the collapse of the SSI steel plant in Redcar last month”.

And so it goes, on and on. We cannot just dismiss all this. It cannot be pushed away. I agree that it should not be the central issue in the debate on this clause, but some of the remarks that have been made cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, because they are just not true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan]

It is a bit rich, this casting aside of planning legislation and saying that what local authorities’ planning committees come to decisions on are somehow an affront to democracy. Equally rich is the Panglossian view that has just been expressed—or perhaps it is the reverse of Pangloss—that any windmill will be an offence to the eye and should not be allowed. There are a number of windmills, of the 10,000 that we have already spoken of today, which help the businesses on whose land they are located. These are not big landowners—I realise that Members on the other side of the House probably have closer knowledge of those individuals than do the ex-peasants on this side. In a number of instances, particularly in Scotland and particularly for hill farmers, were it not for the presence of the so-called subsidy to get the kit running, such farms would not be able to survive. In my own former constituency, in the Ochil hills, there is a big debate about windmills and their subsidisation, but the quality of the walking there, the attractiveness of the hills and the husbandry of those areas are down to the hill farmers. They depend on other subsidies, but they are never sufficient for them to make anything like a reasonable living. It has been said it is only the big, fat-cat landowners who benefit. Obviously, they will get their share and that is reprehensible; there might be other means of dealing with them in the future—Corbyn notwithstanding, I hasten to add. But it is a very one-sided argument to say that we should cast aside local democracy and ignore the economic benefit to vulnerable businesses engaged in agrarian activities.

[Viscount Ridley]

I thought that my noble friend Lord Cormack was saying the opposite: that we should not cast aside local democracy and should allow it to prevail without appeal.

[Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan]

The existing system may not be perfect and it is a source of frustration for many people, but it is tried and tested and it is seen to be fair. The implication of this legislation is that it is going to be set aside.