Energy Bill [Lords]
Public Bill Committee, 29 June 2023.
Virendra Sharma (Labour, Ealing, Southall)
Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could email your speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch your electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The only refreshment permitted in the Committee is the water that is available in the room.
New Clause 86 - Investment protection agreements and climate change targets
Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. It is the first time, I think, that we have been in the room together for this Bill. New clause 86 requests that the UK Government commence withdrawal from the outdated investment provisions of the energy charter treaty, which risk undermining our Climate Change Act 2008 targets, internationally agreed emissions reductions and duties in this Bill in respect of the impact of energy production on habitats, species and the climate.
As many Committee members are aware, the energy charter treaty is an investment agreement between 50 countries for the energy sector. The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in the treaty allows foreign companies to sue Governments outside the national legal system in somewhat secretive tribunals. The amounts at stake can be in the billions, and the ECT has already generated at least 135 claims, making it the world’s most litigated ISDS agreement. In the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, UN climate scientists warned of the risk that ISDS agreements are
“able to be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets”.
The report even name-checked the energy charter treaty, yet the UK continues to be party to it.
The treat is not just a potential risk. There have already been several high-profile cases of fossil fuel companies suing Governments through the treaty. For example, German energy giant RWE is suing the Netherlands for €1.4 billion over its coal phase-out. The UK oil company Rockhopper won a case this summer against Italy over a ban on offshore oil drilling. It won more than £210 million—more than six times what it had spent on the project. UK fracking firm Ascent Resources launched legal action against Slovenia over requirements for an environmental impact assessment, which is quite a benign ask of any project. It has also launched legal action over Slovenia’s subsequent ban on fracking, introduced by its Parliament, and that case is still pending.
The energy charter treaty poses a huge threat to climate action. As states take the necessary steps to phase out or phase down fossil fuels, more and more fossil fuel giants will turn to such mechanisms to sue Governments. It has been estimated that if the UK Government follow the International Energy Agency’s recommended pathway and cancel oil and gas projects that are in the pipeline, they could face claims of up to £9.4 billion from the ECT alone.
Globally, there is a risk of up to $111.5 billion in claims, but that is clearly not the only risk. The most recent IPCC report warns that there is a risk of regulatory chill from investment agreements, and again it particularly highlights the ECT. The fear of being sued is causing Governments to delay or decide against taking the necessary action on climate. Last year, two countries acknowledged that that is already happening.
Countries across Europe are seeing the risks for what they are and are already taking action. Towards the end of 2022, there was a cascade of announcements from countries planning to exit the ECT. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Denmark all said that they are leaving, and Italy has already left. The European Parliament has voted for a co-ordinated withdrawal of all EU countries, and the European Commission is now recommending that as well, because reform of the treaty has not worked and will not work. Current proposals for modernising the treaty are weak and do not have the support of many countries. They will mean that existing fossil fuel projects will remain protected for at least 10 years, and that some gas projects will be protected until 2040. Projects that have just been given new or extended licences, such as the Cambo oilfield, will be protected and all existing projects can still continue.
Reform has ultimately been a failure, and exiting the treaty is now the only option. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Slovenia have all referred to the incompatibility of the ECT with the Paris climate agreement and climate goals, and the EU Council recently decided that it will not support reform. If countries exiting the ECT do so in co-ordination, as seems to be happening, they could agree between each other not to apply the 20-year sunset clause, as has been suggested by several countries that are leaving.
In June, the Energy Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), said:
“The UK cannot support an outdated treaty which holds back investment in clean energy and puts British taxpayers at increased risk from costly legal challenges.”
That was stated in a press release on 24 June 2022. Back then, the Government wanted to put their trust in the reform proposals to fix the problem, but we have since seen country after country doing its own assessment and concluding that reform is not possible or has failed.
If the UK does not step up and become part of the vanguard for exiting the ECT, it could be left behind in an obsolete and collapsing treaty, bearing all the risks while others move on. Put simply, while we are still members of the ECT we will not be able to achieve the aims of the Bill and meet our net zero obligations without facing huge costs from the agreement. A co-ordinated withdrawal is the most effective way to protect taxpayers’ money, the planet and our future from this damaging treaty, and I urge the Minister to have a rethink.
I will not push this probing new clause to a vote, but I hope that it will allow the Minister the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on this very important issue. It is right that it is considered in this debate, but I accept that I probably will not get the support of Government Members in a vote.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, on the last morning that we gather together in this room to debate the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for tabling her important new clause, which relates to an issue that I addressed in a Westminster Hall debate not that long ago.
The UK is committed to addressing the urgent need for climate action at home and abroad through our ambitious net zero targets and international commitments. The new clause would initiate procedures for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the energy charter treaty. His Majesty’s Government completely recognise that the treaty needs to be updated to reflect the current energy landscape, which is why we worked hard for two years at negotiating to modernise it; hence, the comments to which the hon. Lady referred—by the former Energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands)—were absolutely correct.
We wanted to bring the treaty into line with modern energy priorities, international treaty practice and international commitments on climate change. Unfortunately, the European Union and its member states were unable to endorse the adoption of modernisation at the energy charter conference. Yes, the European Parliament has voted to update the treaty, and the European Commission is advising that member states or the organisation withdraw, but the EU Council was unable to reach an agreement on modernisation, which is why we are where we are today.
Since the energy charter conference, we have engaged with stakeholders across business, civil society and Parliament, and we are carefully monitoring the positions of the other contracting parties—including the countries to which the hon. Lady referred—and the EU, in relation to the adoption of modernisation. In a context that continues to develop near weekly, we are carefully assessing how to take forward our priorities in relation to the treaty, but we cannot accept the new clause, which would require the UK to initiate procedures to withdraw. As I said, we will carefully consider where we stand.
The new clause would also require the Government to lay before Parliament a report detailing UK investment treaties covering the energy sector and the risks that they pose to the Secretary of State fulfilling their duties under the Climate Change Act. The UK has investment agreements with around 90 trading partners, and the agreements are the responsibility of the Department for Business and Trade. The Government’s right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards, is recognised in international law, and the Government are clear that when negotiating trade and investment agreements we will continue to protect our right to regulate.
I hope that that provides the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam with the reassurance she needs, and I humbly ask that she consider withdrawing her new clause.
Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)
I thank the Minister for his response. He will not be surprised that I am not satisfied with it, but I will not press the new clause to a vote. There are many risks in this area. Other countries have already taken the lead, and we are being left behind, which exposes us to a higher level of risk. I hope that the Minister will not only continue to consider the modernisation of the ECT but consider withdrawing from it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
New Clause 87 - Government support for community energy
Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I redeclare my interest: 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.
It might seem strange that I tabled new clause 87, given that the Lords passed Labour’s much stronger new clause on community energy. I am extremely disappointed that the Government voted to strike out any attempt to use the Bill to further support community energy schemes. Although the Minister made some comments about wanting to support community energy, the Bill is somewhat lacking in that regard. New clause 87 gives the Government an opportunity to support some elements of community energy schemes.
A Bill that talks about energy security but fails to help many community groups across the UK that are raring to provide clean, green energy seems to have failed from the outset. Many community groups are being offered funding, but they are unable to take up the opportunities because they are unsure and there is uncertainty in this space. I spoke last week about the huge and growing public support for community energy projects and the failure of Government policy to respond to it. I hope that my new clause, which I admit does not go nearly far enough, will focus minds on this important issue.
The new clause is quite straightforward: it gives the Minister three months to report on what support will be provided for community energy for the next five years. I chose that timescale because Ministers often assure us that the Government’s review of electricity market arrangements, or REMA, will improve community energy’s access to markets and thus improve its viability. I am therefore asking for reports on the stop-gap measures that are needed before those arrangements come in and for an extension to the period to deal with any delays.
I have to be honest: I am almost embarrassed by the new clause. With sky-high energy bills and the climate crisis, we should be acting, not reporting, but perhaps reports will stimulate a bit of growth in action on the Minister’s part. The new clause also does not propose new policies to support community energy. I stress that that is not because such policies are not needed. Were we to have a Labour Government, there would be something much more robust in the Bill on this policy area, like clauses 272 and 273, which the Opposition defended last week but the Government were successful in stripping from the Bill.
The new clause asks the Minister to report on how he will refinance and restart the urban and rural community energy funds, which closed when the initial money allocated was used up. In its former shape, his Department supported those schemes at the time, so there is no reason why, if the Minister wants to see more community energy, he could not relaunch them now, or look into doing so. The new clause leaves scope for other initiatives to be included in the report, whether new funds, new policies or a new approach to allowing community groups to buy into and benefit from larger commercial schemes in their area. It would require assessments of progress and updates to be done annually for five years after the report is published, to check that we are on track.
As I say, we should be doing so much more with the Bill in this space, but I would love to hear the Minister’s response to the new clause and to the idea that the Government should, at the very least, restart the support schemes that they have let lapse and report on progress until REMA is completed.
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I want to say a few words in support of new clause 87. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam outlined, it is not even that onerous, as it is about reporting going forward, although I always find that clauses that require reporting still have the Government running a mile, because they do not like to commit to it.
Government Members voted to remove from the Bill clauses 272 and 273, which were in favour of community energy schemes and putting in place arrangements to procure them. The argument from the Minister was:
“Introducing a fixed price would be a step backwards, as it requires all energy consumers to pay more than the market price for electricity to subsidise local communities that benefit from community energy projects.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 357.]
I do not think it is too onerous to ask all billpayers to help to subsidise a few community schemes. Will the Minister write to the Committee to outline what additional costs the Government think would go on to all billpayers’ bills if there was a fixed price guarantee for local energy schemes? It is really important that we understand what the Government think the extra costs would be for billpayers.
The Government happily tell us that the regulated asset base model in the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022 will add £10 to every single bill in the UK. If that is the case and it is okay for nuclear, why do they not look at what the costs and benefits overall for local community energy schemes would be? That is my main point.
Will the Minister also write to the Committee to outline the amount of community energy that has been deployed each year in the last decade? That will allow us to understand the trends and how easy it is for community energy schemes to access the grid and the system and whether there are any blockers.
Finally, perhaps the Minister does not need to write to us on this, but will he spell out what he thinks the flaws are now in the original Local Electricity Bill that he did not see at the time, when he signed up as a supporter and sponsor of the Bill? What are the defects, since he is now against such a concept?
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and especially the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for tabling new clause 87, which seeks to create a new community energy strategy, to be followed up with annual reports to Parliament on progress for the sector. The Committee discussed community energy in great detail last week—and a very enjoyable debate it was too. I reassure the Committee that the Government are, as we speak, looking closely at this matter. I urge all Members to watch this space.
Nevertheless, I remind Members that the Government’s general approach to community energy is already laid out in the net zero strategy and the net zero growth plan. As such, we do not see any added value in mandating a dedicated community energy strategy or annual report in the manner set out in the new clause. Instead, we believe it is more beneficial to the community energy sector for the Government to continue our approach to help local authorities and community energy groups to work together to develop funding for projects across the net zero agenda, with funding from existing sources such as UK growth funding schemes.
For example, the UK shared prosperity fund provides £2.6 billion in funding for investment in places, including for community infrastructure projects. Ofgem supports community energy projects and welcomes applications to the industry voluntary redress scheme. Through our local net zero hubs, we are supporting local authorities and community energy groups to work together, including by funding a pilot programme that supports local authorities to develop community-led energy groups and projects.
The Government have also reintroduced the community energy contact group to strengthen our engagement with the sector. I have already outlined our arguments as to why the new clause would not be fair, so I am afraid that I cannot commit to writing to the Committee, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asks me to. In relation to why my own personal position may be now what it is, I have always been, and remain, committed to supporting community-led energy groups across the country. That is why we are working to implement schemes to support those projects across the entire UK. We will continue to do so, and I will be their biggest champion.
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
It was positive to hear the Minister say, “Watch this space” because the Government are reviewing things. However, I reiterate my request that he writes to the Committee to outline what he thinks the costs will be. That must be a Government concern if they are considering how to provide further support to community energy schemes. That is a serious request—I am not trying to be awkward. Also, how much community energy is being deployed each year?
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
I would be delighted to engage in further discussion with the hon. Gentleman and other interested hon. Members. I will commit to ongoing engagement, but we do not believe that the new clause provides any added value.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
The Minister said, “Watch this space”. It would be very helpful if he were to give us an outline of what the content of the space might actually look like.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
Far be it from me to spoil the enjoyment for hon. Members! I said this when we debated it last week, and I say it again: we continue to work on this. We continue to look at what more the Government can do to support community energy projects across the United Kingdom, and I will commit to provide an update on the next steps ahead of Report. I hope that is suitable for hon. Members. I do not believe that this new clause would add any value, so I encourage—indeed, I humbly beg—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to withdraw her new clause.
Olivia Blake (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam)
Beg the Minister might, but I will be pushing this new clause to a vote. The comments made by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, show why we are not completely confident that information from the Minister will be forthcoming, but I welcome his comments and his statement that he is currently looking at this and that there will be something ahead of Report. However, I truly feel that this new clause is the bare minimum requirement in this space, so we will push it to a vote.
New Clause 88 - Extension of domestic gas and electricity tariff cap
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Sharma, and I hope we will complete this Committee stage under your chairmanship today. New clause 88 involves a little bit of Energy Bill archaeology. I will explain what I mean by holding up a copy of the Energy Bill as it first appeared. Archaeology is necessary because it first appeared on 6 July 2022—we have been working on the Bill for that long.
Among the 270-odd clauses in the original Bill, clause 161 sought to extend the domestic gas and electricity tariff cap. Under the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018, the tariff cap has a defined life, and the original Bill would have amended the arrangements. The Act also introduced a carefully calibrated procedure to determine how long a cap should last. Ofgem is required to produce an annual report on the tariff cap and, if during that time market conditions have become more straightforward, it can recommend its removal. The report goes to a Minister, who then decides what will happen. This approach started in 2020. If Ofgem reports that market conditions have not returned to normal, the same procedure is carried out again the following year.
That process was time-limited to 2023. Quite clearly, market conditions have not returned to normal, so it is important to extend the mechanism. Essentially, that was what clause 161 in the original Bill did: it extended the arrangements to 2024 and 2025. Again, that was time-limited, with a sunset of 2025. As I recall, that important provision assured the industry and various others that the cap was being actively looked at. That gave a little bit of certainty to the industry, and its reaction was informed by the understanding that a reasonably objective test would carried out for the continuation or otherwise of the price cap.
I will roll forward rapidly to the end of September 2022 and the propitious day on which the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) became the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He lost no time in seeking to vandalise this provision by opportunistically inserting a stand-alone schedule to the Energy Prices Act 2022—which it had become necessary to pass—which addressed the enormous rise in prices, what Government intervention might look like and how it could be regulated.
We have been regulating for that ever since in various Committees, which all stemmed from that Act—which, I emphasise, it was absolutely necessary to push through Parliament quickly, to do something about the enormous price rises and put that in some framework. It certainly was not necessary at that time to include this rather random schedule, which had an interesting effect on the previously agreed and stable arrangements for the tariff cap, which had worked quite well, in the way I have described.
Far from ensuring a considered and careful process for organising the tariff cap, the effect of the schedule was that matters took a rather bizarre turn. Whole sections relating to the mechanism and the procedures for operating it were simply erased and replaced by an interesting alternative, namely:
“The Secretary of State may at any time give a notice that tariff cap conditions are to cease to have effect in the case of…all supply licences…all supply licences for the supply of gas, or…all supply licences for the supply of electricity”,
and that:
“Where the Secretary of State gives a notice…tariff cap conditions cease to have effect, in the case of licences to which the notice relates, on the date specified in the notice.”
In other words, the Secretary of State can decide on a whim that the tariff conditions do not apply, or alternatively that they do apply and can apply forever. Or, indeed, they could not apply tomorrow; so if the Secretary of State decides tomorrow that tariff conditions do not apply, then that is it—the end of the tariff cap.
Alternatively, industry and various other people could be waiting years for the Secretary of State to decide, and the Secretary of State does not have to give any reasons for deciding that the tariff cap should remain or go. So we are entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State—in this instance a rather capricious one, whose time in office was mercifully brief. It is for Secretary of State to decide, as she or he might feel fit, what should happen to the tariff cap. Hon. Members will agree that that is light years away from the original intention in the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018.
What happened, then, to clause 161 in the original Bill? Hon. Members will remember that when the Bill went back to the Lords, it ran for one sitting in the Lords Committee and was then mysteriously and suddenly withdrawn. There was then stasis for a number of months, with the Bill not being anywhere in particular. When it returned, the Minister in the Lords, Lord Callanan, simply produced a small clause to knock clause 161 out of the Bill. The reason he gave was that clause 161 was not necessary anymore because it has been superseded by the Energy Prices Act 2022, which ironically received Royal Assent on the day that the Secretary of State for BEIS ceased to be the Secretary of State for BEIS—it was an interesting juxtaposition.
The net result was that everyone thought—there had been discussions and consultations—that a Bill containing an extension of the domestic gas and energy tariff cap would move to the Commons. A lot of new clauses had been added in the Lords, and a lot of other clauses would be added in this place, but perversely one clause had been knocked out.
The situation now is that, as we take the Bill out of this Committee, a key element that it originally contained is absent. This new clause—I am greatly indebted to our esteemed Clerks for making sure it really does work—would simply restore the conditions that were in the Bill originally. Hon. Members will see on the amendment paper, which is mercifully much briefer than previous ones, that there is a restoration of the tariff cap conditions for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025, and other relevant conditions pursuant to that extension. As I say, that was rather difficult to provide for, because there were some bombs in the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act that meant that it was rather difficult to get to the original position, but I am advised that the new clause works properly. If it is agreed, we can move the Bill out of Committee and into its next stages with the original clause safely restored.
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to bring some colour to his remarks, but does he agree that alluding to acts of physical violence in something so important is not a brilliant plan?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
I would agree if that were not my metaphorical way. Of course I do not believe that the former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is going to take the Minister into a cupboard and do him over; it is a metaphor that I hoped might convey some of the possible lingering influence of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset on our present considerations. I am sure that the Minister will want to put that lingering influence out of his mind when considering what to do today.
After all the work that has been done on getting this clause back into the Bill, I confidently expect the Minister to greet it with acclamation. He does not have to do any work on it now, because it is ready to go. He can proceed with a Bill he can be proud of through its remaining stages in this House.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
For the record, let me make it absolutely clear that I have only the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset and that he has never expressed any desire to take me into a cupboard and, metaphorically or not, do me over. We enjoy a very good relationship. Although we disagree on some points of principle, we are broadly in agreement on the general direction of travel that is needed for the betterment of this country. I put on record my thanks for his service in supporting the Government in the various offices in which he served.
I also thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling new clause 88. I note that it reflects the clauses that were in this Bill when it was first published in July last year, as he has pointed out. However, I am sure that it will not have escaped his notice that a great deal has happened to energy prices since then. Last September, the Government announced a massive package of support for consumers. As part of the work to deliver that package, the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 was modified by the Energy Prices Act 2022, which received Royal Assent on 25 October.
Those modifications were made so that the tariff cap could function both as a cap to ensure that prices are efficient and as the reference price for the subsidy payments to households under the energy price guarantee. Although energy prices have now fallen below the level at which energy price guarantee payments are being made, it will remain in force until the end of March 2024 to protect households from price spikes. To ensure that the support rates under the energy price guarantee could be set and delivered effectively and quickly, the Energy Prices Act removed the requirement on Ofgem to carry out a review and to produce a report and recommendation to inform annual decisions by the Secretary of State on whether to extend the cap. As a result, there is now no automatic end date for the cap and the Secretary of State will give notice of when the tariff cap will end, but that does not change the fact that the tariff cap was always intended to be a temporary measure. It remains so, for now; as stated in the Government’s energy security plan, we intend to consult later this summer on the future of the price cap. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will feel that he can withdraw the new clause.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
I thank the Minister for his remarks. Water has indeed flowed under the bridge since the original intentions of the Bill were set out, but I think he has rather missed the point that I was trying to make. We are not saying that there should not be a price cap or that there should be no protection against price spikes and so on, which is what the price cap does at the moment. Nor are we saying that the market has returned to normal. What we are saying is that there was a perfectly good procedure in place, which could work perfectly well under the present circumstances, to give confidence to industry and various others that the price cap would be considered fairly carefully during its progress. That has been replaced by an occult process whereby the Secretary of State just has an idea or does not have an idea.
The whole framework of proper discussion, proper argument, proper reporting and proper consideration has been knocked away. The Minister says that there will be consultation on the future of the price cap at some stage, but I think he will agree that that is not a proper substitute for the clear arrangements that were originally in place under the 2018 Act and that were supposed to be in place under the Bill.
That is the point that we are trying to make: not that under the present circumstances the price cap has somewhat changed its function in terms of being a back-up to other measures that are in place for pricing, but that the long-term issue of the price cap itself was previously under careful consideration and now is not. That is the fundamental difference between the legislation as it was and the legislation as it is now, on a half-baked, un-thought-out basis, in the medium term.
I am both encouraged and disappointed by what the Minister has had to say. We want it on the record that we would like the proper procedures for price cap management to be reinstated. We have produced a method that can and will work, which I think hon. Members will agree is probably superior to a half-promise that something might happen at some stage, with some consideration being given to consultation. On that basis, we would like to press new clause 88 to a vote, so that at the very least we can place it on the record that we think it important and that we are disappointed that the Government do not appear to have taken our argument on board.
New Clause 89 - Regional Independent System Operators
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Committee will be delighted to know that I do not intend to detain it for any length of time on the new clause, which follows on from our earlier debate about the setting up of the independent system operator.
We think something is missing from the otherwise pretty comprehensive and good arrangement for the setting up, organisation and running of the independent system operator, which we completely support; although we would like to see the independent system operator playing more of a system architect role than is presently envisaged, in general we are absolutely for setting up the ISOP in the way that has been described. What ought to follow is at least a consideration of whether the arrangements between the ISOP and the distributed network operators, on which we tabled some amendments at the time, are sufficiently robust to enable a system operator function to operate at all levels of grid delivery. As I said a little while ago, there are decreasing distinctions between the lower-level grid operated by the DNOs and the high-level grid, which is the function of the National Grid ESO at the moment.
The possibility arises that it will be possible—more than possible—to establish regional independent system operators to perform, in conjunction with the ISOP, the same sort of function that is presently envisaged for the ISOP itself. That would be a slightly different function, inasmuch as the regional system operators could be responsible for what is increasingly likely to happen with regional balancing, ancillary services and other such things that are part of the emerging structure of the grid as a whole, as we move from a centralised to a much more decentralised grid arrangement.
RISOs, as I call them, would be able to play a substantial role in that. All new clause 88 suggests is that the Secretary of State produce a report on the advisability of establishing regional independent system operators. I called them RISOs a moment ago, but RISOs are actually duplicating machines favoured by those with left-wing tendencies producing leaflets; these would be RISOPs, which could be established to provide that important link arrangement between the high-level grid and the low-level grid for the future.
That is all, really, as far as the new clause is concerned. It does not require anything earth-moving to take place in the immediate future—just consideration of this arrangement. It may well be that just by raising the matter I will have put the thought in the Secretary of State’s mind that maybe we should consider going in that direction; it is certainly a direction the Opposition would consider going in if our roles on these Benches were reversed. My purpose in tabling new clause 89 was to raise the issue and see what the Minister has to say about it; I certainly do not intend to press it to a vote.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
For the record, may I point out that it is not just leaflet publishers of left-wing tendencies who are au fait with risograph printers? I have spent many hours standing by a RISO producing leaflets for those of centre-right tendencies.
I may be wrong but, according to my notes, this is the last new clause or amendment the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will speak to, so I thank him and the shadow team for the very collegiate way in which they have proceeded through Committee stage. I look forward to engaging with the hon. Gentleman again on Report and Third Reading, and indeed in the interim, when I am sure we will be corresponding. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions thus far.
New clause 89 speaks to the creation of a new set of bodies to deliver regional system operation and planning, and in many ways repeats the intentions of amendment 97, which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test tabled. As with that amendment, the new clause creates powers relating to the operation of distribution systems.
Ofgem has recently consulted on the future of local energy institutions and governance, with a focus on the creation of regional system planners specifically. That consultation closed on 10 May, and I suggest that this new clause prejudges the outcome of that work.
Alongside Ofgem, the Government will carefully consider the proposals we are consulting on. If we then proposed legislative or licence changes that affected the relationship between the ISOP and distribution networks, any additional functions accruing to the ISOP would be covered by the wording in clause 119(2)(b) and clause 134(3)(a). That is because those clauses allow for other functions to be conferred on the ISOP under, or by virtue of, legislation other than part 4.
I hope that puts the mind of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test at ease and that he feels able to withdraw his new clause.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
I have no further comments to make, other than to thank the Minister for his comments. There are indeed consultations under way through Ofgem, and I look forward to seeing what those have to say. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
New Clause 90 - Objections by planning authorities to applications for consent under section 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Virendra Sharma (Labour, Ealing, Southall)
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 91—Variations of consents under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989—
“(1) The Electricity Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 37, insert—
‘37A Variation of consents under section 37
(1) The person for the time being entitled to the benefit of a section 37 consent may make an application to the Secretary of State for the consent to be varied.
(2) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may make provision about the variation of a section 37 consent, including in particular provision about—
(a) the making and withdrawal of applications;
(b) fees;
(c) publicity and consultation requirements;
(d) rights to make representations;
(e) public inquiries;
(f) consideration of applications.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may provide for any statutory provision applicable to the grant of a section 37 consent to apply with specified modifications to the variation of a section 37 consent.
(4) On an application for a section 37 consent to be varied, the appropriate authority may make such variations to the consent as appear to the authority to be appropriate, having regard (in particular) to—
(a) the applicant's reasons for seeking the variation;
(b) the variations proposed;
(c) any objections made to the proposed variations, the views of consultees and the outcome of any public inquiry.
(5) Regulations may make provision treating, for prescribed purposes, a section 37 consent varied under this section as granted in its varied form when the original consent was granted (rather than when the variation was made).
(7) In this section—
“section 37 consent” means a consent granted under section 37 (consent required for overhead lines), whenever granted;
“statutory provision” means a provision of or made under an Act, whenever passed or made; and for this purpose “Act” includes an Act of the Scottish Parliament and an Act of the Assembly.’”
This new clause would introduce into the Electricity Act 1989 provision for applications to vary consents under section 37 (consent required for overhead power lines), which currently, unlike consents under section 36 (construction, extension or operation of generating station), require a new application to be made for consent.
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
The Committee must have been delighted that I managed to table two new clauses right at the deadline. Hopefully I will not detain the Committee too long.
These two new clauses derive from liaison and discussions that I had with Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, which is responsible for the transmission system in the north of Scotland. Its work and infrastructure are clearly going to be integral to having a system that gets renewable energy from the north of Scotland to elsewhere in Great Britain and, in the case of surplus energy, to Ireland and Europe for export. The Minister is obviously well aware of that, given that it relates to his constituency, but hopefully he is also aware of the need to have a streamlined process that facilitates the deployment of critical grid infrastructure and has thought about the issues that the new clauses cover.
Taking offshore wind in the round, there is a target of 50 GW of deployment by 2030, although it has to be said that that was set largely on a whim by Boris Johnson, who raised the target from 30 GW, to 40 GW and then suddenly to 50 GW. Now, I am all for that ambition and that target, and if we achieve the deployment of 50 GW of offshore wind energy by 2030, that would be fantastic, but we need the policies and support in place to make that happen. Right now, even the Government’s own offshore wind champion, Tim Pick, says we are not going to hit that 50 GW target. So is the offshore wind champion still a champion who knows his stuff, or will the Minister explain why Tim Pick is wrong and why that 50 GW target will be achieved by 2030?
Tim Pick said that there is more likely to be 40 GW of deployment by 2030, which arguably would still be a significant achievement, but it would represent only 80% of the current target. The reality is that we have 14 GW of offshore wind deployed at the moment, so if we are to hit 50 GW by 2030, we need 5 GW of new offshore wind to come onstream every year until 2030.
For that to happen successfully, the grid capacity and infrastructure must be in place too, and that is what new clause 90 is all about. The new clause takes away the automatic triggering of a public local inquiry if a local authority objects to a planning application. Clearly, a public local inquiry has its place in the system to allow representations and various options to be considered and to allow local opinion heard. However, should one be automatically triggered if, say, a planning committee, by a margin of one vote, decides to object to the proposed infrastructure, going against the recommendations of its own planners? The objection would be valid and would represent the mixed views, presumably, of the local electorate via their elected members, but is a PLI the best use of public money in such a scenario? It would draw out the process and add a further two years to planning and consent considerations. I suggest that not having an automatic PLI is a better way of dealing with such scenarios. Critically, the new clause does not prevent a PLI from happening. In many ways, it aligns the system with what happens with the consideration of major onshore windfarms in Scotland at present.
When we look at the rates of deployment required from Scotland, there is 11 GW of offshore wind to be connected by 2030, with an additional 17 GW of wind to be connected through the holistic network design follow-up exercise. That alone illustrates how critical supporting infrastructure will be. It needs to be remembered that, although planning and consenting is devolved to the Scottish Government, the legislation underpinning the existing regime for overhead lines is UK legislation—the Electricity Act 1989. New clause 90 is all about changing the 1989 Act to remove the automatic triggering of PLIs and effectively putting that under the jurisdiction of Scottish Ministers.
I hope the Minister is aware of the anomalies that need to be resolved in the wider context of planning considerations. I have raised before the section 36 issues in the Electricity Act 1989, and if we are going to speed up the planning and consenting of generation infrastructure in Scotland, there need to be amendments to section 36 as well. I have not tabled any amendments on that, and I hope the Minister is still in discussion with the Scottish Government. Hopefully we can resolve the issue on Report.
We cannot forget that this is the week that the Climate Change Committee produced its progress report, which clearly says that the UK is not on course to meet its legally binding carbon budget and emission targets. So we have to do everything that we can to speed up the deployment of renewable energy.
Moving on to new clause 91, another issue highlighted by SSEN is that, under the current regulations, there is no provision to enable transmission owners to vary consents once planning consents have been determined. That means that if design changes are necessary, a full new consent application is required. That is clearly absurd. It could mean, for example, changes that will bring into effect efficiencies or improvements in design might not be implemented, because companies might decide that the delay is not worth it. It could mean that changes that suit the planning authorities still end up causing unnecessary delays, because of the consent process, or that even health and safety design improvements could subsequently cause delays.
Consent variation is a normal part of the planning process. Indeed, under section 36C of the Electricity Act 1989, generation projects can have their consents amended without having to apply for a new consent. New clause 91 brings parity between the grid infrastructure and the generation infrastructure in planning considerations.
It is absurd that what should be a simple planning process consideration for Scotland, where planning is supposed to be devolved, is still reliant on amendments to UK legislation in Westminster. The Energy Bill really does represent the best opportunity to make the necessary changes to the Electricity Act 1989 and speed up consent. But, ideally, these outstanding planning matters would be fully devolved to the Scottish Government, because if we are going to rely on stand-alone legislation, we might have to wait a long time.
One example was that the Government pledged for years to amend the definition of electricity storage, always saying they would do something, “When parliamentary time permits,” but it has taken until this Energy Bill for that to be implemented. I really do not want to have to wait for stand-alone legislation to come from this Minister. I hope that we can resolve this issue in the wider context on Report. I also want to hear what the Minister has to say about new clauses 90 and 91, before deciding whether to press them to a vote.
The Minister spoke about working collegiately with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, and I hope I have been collegiate. I appreciate the ongoing discussions with the Scottish Government, because in this case it is about working together to achieve the best end.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contributions on the new clauses. I have said in Committee, on the Floor of the House and elsewhere that this is the biggest challenge we face—connectivity and improving capacity in the grid—if we are to reach our targets, not just on our net zero commitments but in becoming more energy secure and delivering cheaper bills for the British people.
I recognise that the speed of electricity consenting in Scotland is critical to those aims and to the whole UK economy, as I have just suggested. It is important to enable rapid deployment of renewable energy generation and of the transmission lines needed to transport it to consumers across the country. With that goal in mind, we are aware that areas of the Scottish planning system need to be reviewed—specifically the ones that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun just mentioned—and we are committed to speeding up planning decisions across the UK wherever possible.
I am sure, however, that we are all in agreement—I know the hon. Gentleman is—that the issues are incredibly complex and multifaceted, and that any potential changes need to be carefully considered to ensure they are the right ones for consumers and the network. For example, as the Electricity Act 1989 applies to projects in England and Wales less than 132 kV and 2 km, and to all transmission projects in Scotland, we need to be certain that any amendments to the Bill would not have unintended consequences elsewhere. Moreover, we would not want to remove an automatic inquiry trigger without understanding what could replace that process.
The Government share the concerns of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and we want to find a solution. I have had constructive discussion with the Energy Minister in the Scottish Government and within my Department on how to resolve this issue moving forward, but I am interested to meet the hon. Gentleman and anyone else he might suggest so that we can work together on a solution to this complicated issue. I therefore do not feel that we can accept his new clauses, and I would be grateful if he did not press them to a vote.
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
I was shocked when the Minister said that he could not accept the new clauses—I did not see that coming! I am having to think on my feet, because I am completely thrown.
To make a serious point, I appreciate the Minister’s offer of a meeting, and I would like to take that up. I suggest that we have someone from the industry there as well. I am happy to work with the Minister to see how we can resolve the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
New Schedule 1 - Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA
“Part 1 - Appeals against decisions relating to information and samples
Part 2 - Appeals relating to enforcement of sanctionable requirements
Clause 274 - Power to make consequential provision
Virendra Sharma (Labour, Ealing, Southall)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 114, in clause 275, page 242, line 31, at end insert—
“(10A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this Act which would affect any matter within the competence of the Scottish Parliament unless the Secretary of State has first—
(a) consulted the Scottish Ministers on a draft of the regulations; and
(b) obtained the consent of the Scottish Parliament to the regulations.”
Clauses 275 to 277 stand part.
Government amendments 171, 172, 123, 133, 131 and 175.
Clause 278 stand part.
Government amendment 17.
Clause 279 stand part.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
I have just a 3,000-word speech—[Laughter.]
Government amendment 171 is consequential on the previously debated new clauses associated with providing powers to the Secretary of State to design and allocate a RAB as part of the hydrogen transport business model. It sets out that these new clauses come into force two months after Royal Assent.
Government amendment 172 is consequential on the previously debated Government new clause 72, associated with providing powers to the Secretary of State to modify the Gas Act 1986 in relation to hydrogen. It sets out that Government new clause 72 comes into force two months after Royal Assent.
Government amendments 123 and 133 are consequential and necessary to ensure that the previously debated Government new cause 52, on the Ofgem net zero duty, and new clauses 53 and 54, on energy-intensive industries, come into force two months after Royal Assent.
Government amendment 131, alongside Government new clause 55, which we have already discussed, will provide the Secretary of State with the power to make changes to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 regarding the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage and other relevant legislation, if required in the future. That would be by means of an order made through the affirmative procedure. This power will come into force two months after Royal Assent.
Government amendment 175 means that the new clauses relating to Great British Nuclear come into force two months after Royal Assent. Government amendment 17 removes the privilege amendment added to the Bill by the Lords. That is standard procedure.
Clauses 274 to 279 are general tidying-up provisions at the end of the Bill. Clause 274 provides the Secretary of State with a regulation-making power to make consequential amendments that arise from the Bill.
Clause 275 provides that regulations made under the Bill are to be made by statutory instrument. Clause 276 provides information on how terms that are used throughout the Bill should be interpreted in the Bill. Separate interpretation provisions are found in other parts of the Bill where those terms appear only in those parts.
Clause 277 sets out the territorial extent of provisions in the Bill. Clause 278 sets out when the provisions in the Bill come into force. Finally, clause 279 confirms the short title by which the Bill may be cited.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
I also have a 3,000-word speech, but I will not give it today. The Government amendments and clauses are wholly unexceptional, and are essential for the speed of the Bill. I have nothing further to add to what the Minister said.
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
I will be brief. Amendment 114 is about getting the consent of Scottish Ministers before the passing of regulations. I could have tabled it to any number of previous clauses, but this is the most appropriate clause for it to relate to, because it relates to the regulations made under the whole Bill.
There has been talk of collegiate working—the two Governments working together—and the Minister said that he wants to find a different process, but there remain concerns that unless there is a firmed-up process, there is a risk that, somewhere down the line, policies and regulations will be proposed against the consent of Scottish Ministers.
The Scottish Government support the Bill; we are working together in these policy areas. It is not about trying to give the Scottish Government some sort of veto but about working together and ensuring that processes are in place that allow for not just consultation but taking the advice and wishes of the Scottish Government on board.
I know that the word “consent” always makes the Westminster Government very nervous, because they think it gives too much power to the Scottish Parliament, but it is not about that. It is not about political fights; it is about working together and ensuring that the wishes of the Scottish Government in respect of energy matters and considerations are taken on board.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for amendment 114. I highlight the fact that the UK Government have worked closely and constructively with the devolved Governments during the preparation and passage of the Bill. As I have said already, I recently met the Scottish Minister for Energy and the Environment, Gillian Martin, to discuss the topic of this amendment. As I mentioned, the negotiations on the legislative consent motion are still ongoing, and I would not want to prejudge any of those discussions.
The Bill has been carefully designed to respect the devolution settlements. We have already included consultation requirements with the devolved Governments in areas where the Bill provides powers to make regulations in devolved areas, and we have offered to enhance them. Those requirements provide Scottish Ministers with appropriate opportunities to contribute to the development of regulations. Indeed, British Government officials regularly engage with their Scottish Government counterparts and share information on any upcoming UK Government secondary legislation that legislates on devolved matters in Scotland. We will, of course, continue to do so.
Amendment 114 would require consent from the Scottish Parliament for each regulation. I and the Government believe that imposing a blanket consent procedure and a lengthy process on future secondary legislation is unnecessary, creates additional administrative burdens and risks the making of future legislation. I hope that, with those comments, the hon. Gentleman will find it within himself to withdraw his amendment.
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
I do not think it would be an unnecessary legislative burden, to be honest. If it is some simple process, consent will be equally simple to achieve, so I do not think it would unduly delay things or overcomplicate them. I will not press amendment 114, but I reserve the right to table it on Report, because I really want to ensure that things are resolved to the satisfaction of each side.
Clause 275 - Regulations
Clause 277 - Extent
Clause 278 - Commencement
Clause 279 - Short title
Title
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
I beg to move amendment 11, in title, line 3, leave out “industrial”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 10.
Virendra Sharma (Labour, Ealing, Southall)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 173 and 134.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
The amendments simply make changes to the Bill’s long title to reflect amendments made in Committee. The amendments reflect the introduction of measures on greenhouse gas removals, hydrogen transport and storage, and energy-intensive industries, and ensure that they are reflected in the Bill’s long title.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
Thank you, Mr Sharma, for your excellent chairing of the Committee this morning, and thank you to Mr Gray, Dr Huq and Ms Nokes for their equally excellent chairmanship over the course of the Committee.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks concerning your excellent chairing, Mr Sharma, and that of your colleagues the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and my constituency neighbour the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I hope that you can convey to them the thanks of all Committee members for their excellent work in bringing the Committee to its conclusion.
I also thank, beyond the normal level of thanks, the Committee Clerks, who have been of tremendous assistance to me in bringing forward the sinews for debate by way of the amendments and new clauses, all in perfect order and debated accordingly. In my relatively long experience of taking Bills through the House, their work has been way beyond the call of duty, for which I am very grateful to them.
I believe the Minister is the record holder of fastest House of Commons runner in the London marathon ever.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
No—just in one year, I am afraid.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
I think it was ever, but perhaps we should have a rerun. It is rather appropriate that we have got through this marathon Bill in good order and in good time. The Minister is very substantially responsible, not least with his speed-reading skills, for managing us through that lengthy process, and I thank him for that. I also thank him for his good humour, collegiality and careful consideration of the points that we have put forward.
We of course do not agree with everything that has come out of the Committee, and we will pursue some of those things during the Bill’s later stages, but I hope that I can say on behalf of the whole Committee that, overall, we have between us delivered a Bill that fundamentally we pretty much agree on through to its next stages in relatively good order. That is not always the case in this place, and it is something we can all be quite proud of. That is the end of my thanks. I hope that everyone will be happy with having the afternoon off, now that we can move forward to Report stage.
Virendra Sharma (Labour, Ealing, Southall)
Not yet—in a few minutes. I call Alan Brown.
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
Thank you, Mr Sharma. I echo the thanks to you as Chair, and to the other three Chairs. Special thanks go to the Clerks, particularly those in the Public Bill Office. It is amazing how what I think is a simple, two-line email request becomes a full page of amendments. I thank them particularly for helping me to get new clauses 90 and 91 sorted on Monday. That diligence is appreciated, although apparently not by all Government Members.
I thank the Doorkeepers. It is a remarkable skill to have the patience to sit here in these Committees and listen to the often dry debate. I find that listening to politicians is quite tedious at times—[Hon. Members: “No!”] Okay, but it is a special skill, so thanks to the Doorkeepers.
The Bill has been welcomed on a cross-party basis. As the shadow Minister said, from our perspective there are still some outstanding issues, which hopefully we can iron out on Report. Let us get going.