Sustainable Energy Bill
House of Commons, 4 July 2003.
New Clause 1 — Target for Electricity Generated from Renewable Sources
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)
With this we may discuss the following:
New clause 2—CHP targets—
'(1) Before the end of 2003 the Secretary of State must make a statement specifying those measures that he intends to take to move towards the achievement of the generation of 10 GW of electricity by CHP by the end of 2010.
(2) At any time after making the statement mentioned in subsection (1) the Secretary of State may make a further statement specifying those measures he intends to take to increase the generation of electricity by combined heat and power for the period beyond 2010.'.
Amendment No. 8, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, after '2004' insert 'and ending in 2015'.—
Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'( ) Achieving a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by 2010 based on 1990 levels'.—
Amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 4, leave out Clause 5.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
My remarks will be brief because I am as keen as anybody to see the Bill on the statute book. I am as disappointed as the promoter, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), and most Members at the attitude of the Government, which has resulted in the Bill we supported on Second Reading being filleted of all its important targets in the Standing Committee.
New clause 1 is fundamental. Without it, the measure will not exert on the Government the necessary pressure for renewables. It requires that before the end of 2003 the Secretary of State should make a statement specifying the measures he intends to take to move towards the achievement of the generation of 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2010.
If that sounds a familiar target, that is because it is—it was included in the Labour party manifesto and in the Government's White Paper. Successive Ministers have given a commitment to it. In the Standing Committee, the former Minister for Energy and Construction, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), said:
"I am happy to restate the renewables target, which is that 10 per cent. of our electricity should come from renewable sources of energy by 2010.—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 11 June 2003; c. 5.]
Later, he described the target as "extremely challenging".
Perhaps it was because the target was too challenging that the Government decided to remove references to targets from the Bill. However, I think that such references need to be put back, because since Second Reading we have received the great insights of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Paragraph 214 of the Committee's fourth and very thorough report concludes:
"There is no prospect of achieving the target of 10 per cent. renewable generation by 2010 or the aspiration of 20 per cent. by 2020. There is no chance of meeting the Government's targets for CO2 reductions if current policies and market conditions remain in place."
The most important part of that is the Select Committee's finding, it having taken a wealth of evidence, that there is no prospect of achieving the 10 per cent. renewables target by 2010, despite that being at the core of the Government's energy policy.
Is it surprising that everyone regards the Government's energy policy as being in chaos, and the way in which the Bill has been conducted as a tussle between Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry? The Bill would be immeasurably better if the new clause were included, and I hope that the promoter will accept it.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
I am already in trouble for spending my wedding anniversary here rather than at home, but I will perhaps get into more trouble by sympathising with the speech made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Although stringent targets were originally included in the Bill, they were changed in Committee because of a long series of negotiations, so I sympathise with the points that he makes. However, it took a long time to try to get to a position where the Government, the interest groups and others, as well as the Opposition spokespersons, could accept the Bill. I say spokespersons because the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) is the third official Opposition spokesman on energy with whom I have had to deal in relation to the Bill, and I welcome him to his new post.
No one is entirely happy with the Bill, but everyone can live with it at the moment. Even though I am sorely tempted by the proposal made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, I shall resist it because it would upset the balance. To be fair to the Government, they are taking action on the renewables obligation. They have exempted renewables from the climate change levy. They are putting £350 million into capital grants and research and development. They have changed the planning guidance on renewable energy, and they have set out a strategic framework for offshore wind generation and a programme under the Renewables UK unit.
Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)
The hon. Gentleman mentions a missed anniversary: I recommend Interflora—it works wonders.
The hon. Gentleman lists a catalogue of very positive things, but does he agree that the introduction of the very reasonable target in new clause 1 would only add to the achievements and ambitions that he has outlined?
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
When I originally proposed what was clause 1, there was a whole series of targets, not just one, such as those in the White Paper. There was a long discussion between the different interest groups and the Government about whether a generalised proposal would achieve those targets. The Government gave certain commitments in Committee that, within that generalised duty, they would report on the specific items in the White Paper. I accepted that commitment from the Minister, and I hope that he will reiterate it now and say that the generalised reporting duty will ensure that those targets are addressed.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
Rather than take up valuable time with the Minister reiterating what the hon. Gentleman says he has already said, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he sits down and no one else stands up, it is my intention to withdraw the motion, so that we can move on?
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
On that basis, I shall sit down.
Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has made a very helpful offer to the House. Of course, I would have opposed his proposal and taken a little time to explain why he was mistaken in some of the points he made about the Government's approach to such matters. He has made a generous offer, which the House will appreciate. In the light of that good will, I will not put to the House the points that I would have otherwise made.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 — Annual Reports on Progress Towards Sustainable Energy Aims
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'household' to end of line 3 and insert
'which needs to spend more than 10 per cent.of its income on fuel costs to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth.
( ) In this section an adequate standard of warmth means 21(c in the living room and 18(c in other occupied rooms.'.
The amendment would introduce a definition of fuel poverty that is already the standard definition, which, for some reason, is not included in the Bill. The Government say that they are committed to ending fuel poverty or reducing the numbers of people in fuel poverty, but they are prepared to accept a definition of fuel poverty in statute that is only in the most vague and general terms. Why do we not take the opportunity of incorporating into the Bill the same definition of fuel poverty as is contained in the Government's warm front policies—that anybody is in fuel poverty who must spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on heating their home to a reasonable standard of warmth? That is set out in the amendment. I hope that the promoter of the Bill and the Government will accept the proposal. If not, I will be extremely suspicious that for all the Government's talk about being keen on reducing fuel poverty, they are actually keen on having a target to reduce something that they are not prepared to define.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
My definition was based on that in the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess)—not Basildon, as I have written on my crib note. The point about incomes and the more detailed definition of fuel poverty is absolutely right, and it will be covered in reports. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)
This is a crucial amendment, and it goes to the heart of whether the Bill is a serious exercise to help the fuel poor or an exercise in trying to claim that we are achieving something that we will not achieve.
I have some knowledge of this matter, as we had a hearing in the Public Accounts Committee on the basis of the National Audit Office report, "Warm front: helping to combat fuel poverty". We found that even the warm front scheme, on which the amendment is supposed to be based, does not address the fuel poor. It is essential to include a benchmark in the Bill to ensure that those who live in most poverty benefit from its provisions. The NAO report found:
"The suitability of passport benefits as a proxy for fuel poverty has not been tested systematically, but some limited exercises suggest that there may be significant numbers of fuel poor (perhaps 35-40 per cent) in these vulnerable groups who are not eligible for Warm Front because they are not claiming benefit or are not entitled to the relevant benefits. Similarly, recent work commissioned by the Scheme managers combined with other data indicates that between 40 and 70 per cent of households eligible for Warm Front may not be fuel poor, because they have a reasonable level of income or live in a home which is already energy efficient."
That brief quote shows the difficulties that are already being encountered with the Government's warm front scheme, about which we had a long hearing. The very least that we need in the Bill is what is contained in the amendment. At the moment, the provision is so vague that it is virtually unenforceable.
Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) rightly pointed out, the definition reflects that in existing primary legislation, and is the appropriate one to use. I should point out that both the fuel poverty strategy and the Government's annual report on progress in implementing the strategy provide information on the basis of the two common definitions of fuel poverty. We are therefore ensuring that the information that everybody needs is placed in the public domain, where it can be accessed. By contrast with the previous Government, this Government have a very strong commitment to make real progress on this issue, as we are now doing.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I find this incredibly disappointing and frustrating. I am tempted to say, "Let's divide on this", and see whether we can add the provision to the Bill. At the same time, I am conscious that I want to see this Bill, however inadequate, on the statute book. I find it frustrating that the Government are so pig-headed, particularly on something that is of such fundamental importance to millions of our constituents. I know that some Members are minded to say, "Let's divide", so if I were to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, perhaps they may wish to resist that. However, if we divide on the amendment, we will not be able to discuss any other aspect of the Bill, but perhaps the Government are already intent on destroying it. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this section 'sustainable energy' is to be regarded as including nuclear power.'.
Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 8, line 5, leave out 'renewable' and insert 'sustainable'.
No. 3, in page 8, line 10, leave out 'renewable' and insert 'sustainable'.
No. 4, in page 8, line 11, leave out 'or nuclear fuel'.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
This group of amendments deals with the nuclear industry. There has been a fundamental failure by the Government to incorporate anything sensible about nuclear power in the White Paper. If we are to be serious about reducing carbon emissions, we must recognise that we cannot do away with the 20 per cent. of electricity that is generated by nuclear and replace it with the energy generated by windmills, because not enough windmills will be built quickly enough to replace the energy that would not be generated if our existing nuclear generating capacity were closed. If the Government are to be serious about global warming, they must be much more serious than they have been in recognising that there is and should be a role for nuclear in the future.
The Nuclear Industry Association's newsletter, "IndustryLink", of June-July 2003 contains an article headed "Grand vision-small promises". It says:
"The Government's long-awaited energy White Paper was published on 24 February. It expounds a grand vision, but promises to deliver very little.
The cornerstone of the White Paper is the ambitious objective of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2050".
It then says that that aim is not capable of achievement.
The same document refers to what has been happening in Switzerland, where 40 per cent. of electricity is generated by nuclear. Recently, there have been referendums in Switzerland and people have shown their support for nuclear energy when faced with the possible alternatives and their concern about carbon emissions. In Finland, there has been a great development of nuclear power, so why cannot we have a similar vision from the Government here if they are to be serious about energy issues? Some 20 per cent. of our electricity is currently generated by nuclear, but they are keen to phase it out and they have no proposals for an alternative. In the meantime, our nuclear generating industry is losing its best scientists and experts. They are forced to go overseas because they do not see a future for themselves in this country.
This is a serious issue, and the amendments would ensure that its seriousness is brought home to the Government regularly through the legislative procedure contained in the Bill.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need a nuclear debate in this country similar to the one that has just been held in Finland. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would be quite right to object if we tried to slip that debate in at 20 minutes past 2 on a Friday afternoon. We need such a debate. Both pro and anti-nuclear people support the Bill. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment but to join me in calling for a proper nuclear debate.
Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)
We set out clearly in the energy White Paper our policy on nuclear. It is currently an important source of carbon-free electricity, but its economics are not attractive at present and major issues about nuclear waste are still to be resolved. That is why we have not made any proposals to build new nuclear power stations, but we do not rule out the possibility that, at some point in the future, new nuclear build might be necessary. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there would need to be full public consultation before such a decision was made. Indeed, we have undertaken to publish a further White Paper setting out our proposals if we decide to go down that road. I hope that the House will not accept the amendments.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
Again, that was a totally unsatisfactory response from the Minister. Why do we need a further White Paper to discuss nuclear in the future when we already have all the information before us? What is missing is the Government commitment to endorse nuclear as a means of enabling us to reduce carbon emissions. I again express my grave dissatisfaction with the Government's approach.
A letter from one of my constituents says that replacing nuclear with renewables would result in an enormous bill to the taxpayer that would be far in excess of what would otherwise be necessary. It says that nuclear electricity accounts for about 25 per cent. of total electricity output, and that if British Energy had been supported to the same extent as renewables, its shares would be worth more than £10 each today rather than the 4p at which they currently stand. That shows that the Government have discriminated unfairly against the nuclear industry, including through the climate change levy. I again express my dissatisfaction, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 — Energy Efficieny of Residential Accommodation: Secretary of State
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 7, at end insert
'in respect of residential accommodation and at least one energy efficiency aim in respect of office accommodation.'.
Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 10, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'residential'.
No. 11, in line 20, leave out 'residential'.
No. 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, at end insert
'in respect of residential accommodation and at least one energy efficiency aim in respect of office accommodation.'.
No. 13, in page 2, line 41, leave out 'residential'.
No. 14, in page 3, line 8, leave out 'residential'.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
The amendments identify a lacuna in the Bill. The Government sit on an enormous office estate. Those of us who occasionally visit it know that it is overheated, badly designed and wasteful of fuel and energy. However, the Government are prepared to accept only obligations on people with individual houses, which is unsatisfactory. If the Government were to accept the amendments, it would demonstrate that they are serious about their desire to improve energy efficiency.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
I had to draw the line in the Bill somewhere. Many people wanted me to include provisions on many things, such as transport. I drew the line where I drew it and although I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)
I have several problems with the amendments, not least the lack of a clear definition of office accommodation in the Bill, which would cause considerable problems with the Bill's implementation if they were accepted. I hope that the House will resist the amendments.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I presume that the Minister is saying that he will amend the Bill accordingly when he has a definition of office accommodation. That may be done in the other place if the Bill receives its Third Reading today, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Brian White.]
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
I shall not object to the Bill receiving its Third Reading, but I hope that the Government are suitably ashamed of the way in which they have destroyed the will of the House by holding the Bill's promoter to ransom and destroying it in Committee so that it is now a pale shadow of its original form.
Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)
May I thank the Ministers, their civil servants and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespeople who have helped me greatly to put the Bill together? I thank the sustainable energy partnership and various members of the industry for their work. The Bill does not represent as large a step forward as I would have liked. It is not a panacea but it has useful aspects, and I commend it to the House.
Laurence Robertson (Conservative, Tewkesbury)
In view of the time, this must be the briefest debut as a Front-Bench spokesman that the House has ever known. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on promoting the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has raised extremely important points and I, too, regret the fact that the Bill is considerably weaker than it was when it began its passage through the House. Nevertheless, the official Opposition want the Bill to be passed, as do many people throughout the country.
Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)
I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) to his position and congratulate him on his brief first contribution to our debates. I especially congratulate and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on his skill and patience while piloting the Bill. I commend to the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.