Webb and Horwood on the Energy Bill

11.08.43am GMT Wed 19th Nov 2008

' . . we should get on with it . .'

• [Nov 18]: STEVE Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Energy and Climate Change; Northavon, Liberal Democrat): It would be remiss of me not to add my congratulations to Alan Simpson on all his achievements. We have all been harangued by him in the nicest possible way, and mysteriously come round to his way of thinking. I pay tribute to him, and to those who have briefed and lobbied us, including Friends of the Earth, which has been mentioned.

We welcome their Lordships' addition of a feed-in tariff, but the Liberal Democrats have added our names to amendments that support more definition of deadlines and the financial subsidy mechanism. Perhaps we are still not quite there on urgency. The Minister will be familiar with the 100 months campaign, which was launched at the start of August. It talks about 100 months before reaching a tipping point for climate change. We are already three and a half months through that time. We need a new way of thinking about such matters, which does not involve a consultation, a discussion paper, a Green Paper, a review or a period of further reflection. We are past all that.

Like Charles Hendry, my worry about the Minister in another place, who said that he hoped that we could achieve the aim in 18 months, but perhaps we cannot, is that not acting quickly is not an option. It is far better to get something roughly right by, as Mr. Gummer said, locking people in a room for a weekend, and then perhaps refining it, than to try to wait until it is perfect-it probably would not be perfect anyway.

I am worried by the mentality that assumes that we have to work according to financial years. I do not know whether I am right, but I sense a presumption about 6 April. I hope that that is not the case. I do not know where 6 April comes from-perhaps pagan festivals and the spring equinox-but it should not govern when we have to act. Things are far more urgent. We should get on with it the very day, week or month that we determine how to act.

I therefore support amendment (a), which would set a deadline of within 12 months of Royal Assent. We could fill any time available-we could spend six years thinking about this-but we urgently need to get on with it. I therefore urge the Minister to accept amendment (a). Even if he were not forced to do so, I am sure that he would want to pull out every stop to ensure that action was taken in 12 months.

I welcome amendment (f), and if the Minister does not feel able to accept it, I hope that we can test the House's opinion on it. It deals with combined heat and power. One could be a purist and say that, because that is not a renewable, it should not be included. That would be an argument, albeit one that I do not accept. However, if we intend to include combined heat and power and recognise its contribution, the low threshold is odd. I know that the Minister will try to justify it shortly, but the contribution of combined heat and power, at least in the transitional phase when we try to move to very low carbon, if not zero carbon, is demonstrable. To constrain it so much, up-front, in primary legislation is odd. Tariffs can differ according to technology and at varying thresholds, so the potential to treat small micro-CHP differently from larger CHP already exists. Removing the constraint simply gives the Government more power and flexibility. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept amendment (f).

A potential downside of the feed-in tariff has not been mentioned. We support and welcome the feed-in tariff, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on that possible downside. Who pays for it? If we are not careful, we know which small-scale community groups, hospitals and schools and householders will do small-scale generation. We know who will have a solar panel and-dare I say it?-a small-scale wind turbine on the roof. We know the social groups and the income bands that will do that and to whom the feed-in tariffs will be paid, if we are not careful. Everybody else will pay for it in their bills, and that will be bad news for fuel poverty.

We have a combined Ministry dealing with climate change and energy. Part of the energy remit is obviously affordable energy. Clearly, there is a tension. However, given that we want feed-in tariffs, and that we want them to be generous enough to make things happen, does not that place a great onus on the Government to get serious about social tariffs and tackling fuel poverty by other means? If all we do is introduce a generous feed-in tariff that results in an increase in fuel bills across the board, we will worsen fuel poverty. None of us wants to do that. What will go hand in hand with feed-in tariffs to ensure that we do not make fuel poverty worse? I hope that part of the answer is insulation and so on, but that is happening anyway. We hope that other energy efficiency measures will be taken, and that companies will introduce social tariffs, but there is precious little evidence of that so far.

David Drew (Stroud, Labour): I thank the hon. Gentleman-my neighbour-for giving way. Does he agree that that point is a weakness, and that one way of responding to it would be to collectivise the operation of the feed-in tariffs? One weakness of the renewables industry is that we rely far too much on pepper-potting activity, depending on the willingness of individuals to participate. We need communities, neighbourhoods and streets to take up initiatives together, so that they can benefit from the efficiencies that arise from economies of scale.

Steve Webb: I agree that one possibility for the 5 MW threshold is schemes of that kind. However, even if a school undertakes such a scheme, the money goes to the school. That is great for the school, but who is paying? Everybody else is paying, through their energy bills. My worry is that we will do something that is entirely laudable and right, but which has unintended consequences for those whom we are all so concerned about.

Alan Simpson (Nottingham South, Labour): Is the hon. Gentleman aware of one way in which other EU partners have begun to address this issue? The certainty of the tariff system has allowed local authorities to cushion the installation costs in social housing, so that rather than being a barrier to addressing fuel poverty, the system turns out to be an additional resource. However, that is possible only by doing what the Secretary of State has done, which is to set a threshold high enough to encourage municipalities to undertake schemes on that scale.

Steve Webb: We can certainly learn from what has happened elsewhere, and the examples that the hon. Gentleman cites are good ones. For example, if a local authority takes forward a scheme, the revenue from that scheme can cushion council tax bills, or whatever. My worry is that whereas local authorities in Germany, for example, are substantially devolved, with revenue-raising power and other freedoms, we are grafting the feed-in tariff on to a British system that is staggeringly centralised. Local government has little power to do those things, although some find ways. There is great potential for what the hon. Gentleman describes, but a lot of other things would have to happen to facilitate it. In a sense, that is what I am flagging up. We need to ensure that mitigation measures are in place so that we get the good of the feed-in tariff without the damage of fuel poverty.

I want briefly to raise two other issues. The first is the issue of grandfathering, which is to say that we want to avoid any hiatus. Again, that argues in favour of the 12-month limit proposed in amendment (a). We want people to invest now; we do not want them to hold off. One reason for holding off on a smaller-scale development-either a renewables obligation development or a feed-in tariff development-might be to wait and see what happens to the feed-in tariff. If the Minister could confirm that somebody investing in a certain regime would be guaranteed that regime for the life of the project, that would remove some of the investment uncertainty. If somebody was considering investing in a 4.4 MW two-wind-turbine project, that project would be below the threshold, and therefore potentially either feed-in tariff-able or ROC-able. We would want them to invest now and to get on with it, so can the Minister clarify whether, if it turned out that the feed-in tariff would be more beneficial, such a person would be able to opt into the feed-in tariff, perhaps once and for all, for the lifetime of the project?

If I were deciding today to go for a two-turbine 4.4 MW project, which could relate to either a ROC or a feed-in tariff, could I switch on to the feed-in tariff-once we know what it is, that is-or would I be committing myself to the ROC for ever, in which case I might delay until I knew what the feed-in tariff was? Can the Minister confirm whether there might be a one-off opportunity to switch? I am still slightly hazy as to whether, once everything is up and running and both schemes are potentially available to small-scale generation, people will choose one or the other, or whether they would be able to switch between the two and change their minds. Can the Minister clarify how the two will interrelate?

We warmly welcome the feed-in tariff, and the Government's amendment (g), which increases its scope. We need action to check that fuel poverty will not be worsened by the measure, but above all we need a sense of urgency, not endless further consideration to try to perfect the provisions. We must not make the best the enemy of the good. We must not simply strive for perfection when that means delay, because we will never have perfection. We need to get on with it-in which spirit, I support amendment (a), and I believe that amendment (f), on combined heat and power, also needs to be supported.Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat): It is the first time that I have spoken in today's debate, so, first, I congratulate the Department on moving some way with the amendments that it has tabled. We all acknowledge that the Bill is much better than the measure we started debating.

I am grateful to the Department for providing a briefing on some of the amendments that we are discussing today, partly because some are complex. I was encouraged by the heading, "Nuclear energy-false and misleading", but, sadly, it was only an introduction to amendment No. 49. For one moment, I thought that the revolution in the Department of Energy and Climate Change had begun-sadly, it has not.

I am surprised by amendment No. 49. I accept the Minister's comments that Members in the other place felt that clause 57 was onerous, but it is strange to punish knowingly false and misleading information, yet excuse it if it is slightly false and misleading, even if it is "knowingly or recklessly" provided. If even a small amount of false information is provided knowingly and recklessly, a small fine might be appropriate, but there should still be a penalty. Although we will not make a huge issue of that, there is a good case for retaining clause 57 unamended.

By contrast, we unreservedly welcome amendments Nos. 46 and 47 to clause 51. More frequent use of "must" in legislation that applies to Ministers is a good thing. Some of the duties that the amendments would explicitly create helpfully strengthen clause 51. The Minister understandably gave the amendments a slightly understated welcome, but he should be congratulated on accepting them. If they mean that the Department has to take into account the advice of, for example, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, and that it must publish the way in which it has taken that advice, it will be less tempted to balance health and environmental considerations with those dictated by short-term political convenience-or, as is more likely, political embarrassment.

Let me deal with amendments Nos. 48 to 53-the most interesting set of amendments, which the Minister portrayed as somewhat technical-which cover the slightly controversial subject of the nuclear decommissioning programme. Charles Hendry is right that there was considerable debate, which I shall not revisit, about them in Committee. However, it was good to hear the hon. Gentleman making it crystal clear that the Conservative party is now enthusiastically pro-nuclear and has abandoned the ambivalence that seemed to be present in Committee about whether it could be simultaneously pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear. He clearly said that he wanted to encourage nuclear new-build, and I welcome his clarification of his party's position. It is obviously not our position.

We are especially concerned for the amendments on arrangements for securities to do what the Minister suggested and better protect the taxpayer. What would happen if the funded nuclear decommissioning programmes turned out not to be so well funded? That is a critical question. The amendments sensibly help define the term "securities" in a legal context. However, as we know, not all securities are as secure as others. As businesses and local authorities that are trying to recover funds from Iceland have found, some bonds and investments turn out not be as secure as they had believed.

That underlines the long-term issue with funded decommissioning programmes for nuclear power, which is whether, in the event of future economic downturns, financial crises or simply bank failures, the public purse will yet again have to subsidise nuclear power. Perhaps this is a moment for the Minister to clarify how likely he thinks it is that those provisions will be used to allow public funds yet again to bail out the nuclear industry, which seems to us to be a bail-out that we need not risk at all.

Many of the remaining amendments in the group are technical, tidying amendments, which is welcome. The most interesting are those from amendment No. 63 onwards, which relate to smart meters. I entirely endorse the comments that other hon. Members have made about these important provisions. It is welcome that we are setting the framework for smart meters to be introduced. Smart meters will empower householders, so that they can not only play their part in tackling climate change and helping to save the planet, but use their household appliances much more efficiently and reduce their energy bills, thereby tackling fuel poverty. That has to be a good thing and, as the hon. Member for Wealden pointed out, may contribute towards a more intelligent use of energy on the grid more broadly.

It is a shame that the time scales envisaged in the amendments are of the rather more relaxed kind that were typical of the old Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, rather than the imaginative new Department for Energy and Climate Change. It is pretty disappointing that the process will be complete only by 2020. We all know-the financial crisis has underlined this-that the House and the Government can certainly move fast when they want to. It would therefore be nice to see a greater sense of urgency in the planning of the introduction of smart metering.

The Minister is right, however, that there are complicated details to be sorted out. I understand that, and the devil will be in the detail. I am sure that I am not alone in having already been lobbied quite extensively by advocates of different systems and technologies. We can all anticipate a heated debate on the regulations and orders made under the Bill. It will be important that we get them right and that we correctly balance commercial competitiveness, affordability for energy customers and the environmental priority of having the best possible technology to allow people to reduce their energy use.

Overall, however, progress is progress. I end by congratulating the Government on the bulk of the amendments and on the green shoots of environmental change that they are beginning to cultivate in their policies.

. .

Martin Horwood

Martin Horwood (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat) Link to this | Hansard source | Video match this

It is the first time that I have spoken in today's debate, so, first, I congratulate the Department on moving some way with the amendments that it has tabled. We all acknowledge that the Bill is much better than the measure we started debating.

I am grateful to the Department for providing a briefing on some of the amendments that we are discussing today, partly because some are complex. I was encouraged by the heading, "Nuclear energy-false and misleading", but, sadly, it was only an introduction to amendment No. 49. For one moment, I thought that the revolution in the Department of Energy and Climate Change had begun-sadly, it has not.

I am surprised by amendment No. 49. I accept the Minister's comments that Members in the other place felt that clause 57 was onerous, but it is strange to punish knowingly false and misleading information, yet excuse it if it is slightly false and misleading, even if it is "knowingly or recklessly" provided. If even a small amount of false information is provided knowingly and recklessly, a small fine might be appropriate, but there should still be a penalty. Although we will not make a huge issue of that, there is a good case for retaining clause 57 unamended.

By contrast, we unreservedly welcome amendments Nos. 46 and 47 to clause 51. More frequent use of "must" in legislation that applies to Ministers is a good thing. Some of the duties that the amendments would explicitly create helpfully strengthen clause 51. The Minister understandably gave the amendments a slightly understated welcome, but he should be congratulated on accepting them. If they mean that the Department has to take into account the advice of, for example, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, and that it must publish the way in which it has taken that advice, it will be less tempted to balance health and environmental considerations with those dictated by short-term political convenience-or, as is more likely, political embarrassment.

Let me deal with amendments Nos. 48 to 53-the most interesting set of amendments, which the Minister portrayed as somewhat technical-which cover the slightly controversial subject of the nuclear decommissioning programme. Charles Hendry is right that there was considerable debate, which I shall not revisit, about them in Committee. However, it was good to hear the hon. Gentleman making it crystal clear that the Conservative party is now enthusiastically pro-nuclear and has abandoned the ambivalence that seemed to be present in Committee about whether it could be simultaneously pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear. He clearly said that he wanted to encourage nuclear new-build, and I welcome his clarification of his party's position. It is obviously not our position.

We are especially concerned for the amendments on arrangements for securities to do what the Minister suggested and better protect the taxpayer. What would happen if the funded nuclear decommissioning programmes turned out not to be so well funded? That is a critical question. The amendments sensibly help define the term "securities" in a legal context. However, as we know, not all securities are as secure as others. As businesses and local authorities that are trying to recover funds from Iceland have found, some bonds and investments turn out not be as secure as they had believed.

That underlines the long-term issue with funded decommissioning programmes for nuclear power, which is whether, in the event of future economic downturns, financial crises or simply bank failures, the public purse will yet again have to subsidise nuclear power. Perhaps this is a moment for the Minister to clarify how likely he thinks it is that those provisions will be used to allow public funds yet again to bail out the nuclear industry, which seems to us to be a bail-out that we need not risk at all.

Many of the remaining amendments in the group are technical, tidying amendments, which is welcome. The most interesting are those from amendment No. 63 onwards, which relate to smart meters. I entirely endorse the comments that other hon. Members have made about these important provisions. It is welcome that we are setting the framework for smart meters to be introduced. Smart meters will empower householders, so that they can not only play their part in tackling climate change and helping to save the planet, but use their household appliances much more efficiently and reduce their energy bills, thereby tackling fuel poverty. That has to be a good thing and, as the hon. Member for Wealden pointed out, may contribute towards a more intelligent use of energy on the grid more broadly.

It is a shame that the time scales envisaged in the amendments are of the rather more relaxed kind that were typical of the old Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, rather than the imaginative new Department for Energy and Climate Change. It is pretty disappointing that the process will be complete only by 2020. We all know-the financial crisis has underlined this-that the House and the Government can certainly move fast when they want to. It would therefore be nice to see a greater sense of urgency in the planning of the introduction of smart metering.

The Minister is right, however, that there are complicated details to be sorted out. I understand that, and the devil will be in the detail. I am sure that I am not alone in having already been lobbied quite extensively by advocates of different systems and technologies. We can all anticipate a heated debate on the regulations and orders made under the Bill. It will be important that we get them right and that we correctly balance commercial competitiveness, affordability for energy customers and the environmental priority of having the best possible technology to allow people to reduce their energy use.

Overall, however, progress is progress. I end by congratulating the Government on the bulk of the amendments and on the green shoots of environmental change that they are beginning to cultivate in their policies.

. . Steve Webb: I welcome the inclusion in the Bill of the renewable heat incentive and support amendment (a), which, again, tries to set a timetable. I will not repeat all the points that were made on the timetabling of the feed-in tariff, but they apply in precisely the same way.

The Minister may well say that this is a much more embryonic thing and that it has been subject to less thought, less discussion and so on. I understand that point, but an explanation would be helpful to those in the outside world who watch these debates-I imagine that someone does-and who might like to know the direction of the Government's thinking. I certainly realise that I am very hazy about what the renewable heat incentive might look like. I was trying to probe that a bit in the debate on the ways and means resolution. If I install some sort of renewable heat project, I can expect some sort of financial return. I am slightly hazy about what and how much it might be and so on.

My understanding of the Government's thinking from the ways and means resolution is that the scheme will probably be funded by a levy on the energy companies and fossil fuel generators. Essentially, Ofgem would introduce a levy and take money from the generators. That money would presumably go to the Treasury and become a Government grant to renewable heat producers. If the Department already knows that that is roughly the model that it is considering, it would help those in the world outside who might be thinking of going into such things to understand what sort of support they might get, just in very broad terms. I understand that the Minister does not yet know the detail.

Again, on timing, as Charles Hendry says, we are talking about something that is a huge part of our overall energy mix and that could be a big part of our renewable energy targets by 2020. According to figures from the National Grid Company which I am sure the Minister has seen, in what might be described as a "stretch scenario", an amount approaching 10 per cent. of our 15 per cent. target for 2020 could come from renewable heat, gas on the grid and the like. The scope for that seems enormous.

Given that, as the Minister said, 2020 is only a little over 11 years away, it is worrying that Lord Hunt was so vague about how long all this would take. It would be very worrying if there were any unnecessary delay. I hope that the measure can be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity, but failing that, I hope that the Minister will paint even the most broad-brush picture showing what a scheme of this kind would look like.