| Energy Bill [Lords]
|
|
Norman Baker: The two things are not quite the same. There is a statutory duty to protect the interests of consumers and there is a duty to have regard to the environment. That is a secondary matter; it is not on the same level as the duty to protect consumers. It is, to use the Minister's word, an afterthought. Mr. Timms: The duty certainly is not an afterthought. It is built into the corporate plan for the organisation over the coming three-year period. It is important that Ofgem is clear that that duty is among its statutory responsibilities, as the Committee would wish. On a number of occasions, we have been able to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East that led to the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. He made the point that that requires Ofgem to undertake regulatory impact assessments, which I agree has been a welcome and important step. In particular, Ofgem must assess the impact of proposals on the environment. Clause 174 of this Bill places a statutory duty on Ofgem to follow the principles of ''best regulatory practice'' when carrying out its functions. It is clear that Ofgem is seized of the importance of dealing with the concerns expressed in the Committee about the environment and sustainable development in a way that is consistent with Government policy. That is the way to take these issues forward.
Column Number: 272 My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown suggested that Ofgem was not doing much to help renewables. That is not the problem at the moment. The real problem with hitting our targets, which I believe we will hit, is investor confidence, which the amendment would severely damage. However, I can point to many things that Ofgem is doing to assist. I have mentioned that it is administering the renewables obligation and doing so well. In the coming year, it will publish a scheme to incentivise the connection of renewables. It will also publish the distributed generation co-ordinating group's annual report and is working with us to incentivise efficient connection of offshore energy sources to the onshore network. All that is essential to achieving the aims that we all share.I want to propose deleting clause 84. Our commitment to sustainable development is, as I have been setting out, built into existing legislation. Brian White: Is my hon. Friend aware that deleting the clause gives rise to the perception that the Government are not serious about the environment? That plays into the hands of our political enemies, who will use it against us. Mr. Timms: I do not think that it does that. The initiative came from Liberal Democrat Members of the other place, and was criticised by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, although I think that his noble. Friends supported it. We have taken a consistent approach; we have clear commitments and objectives with regard to sustainable development and reducing CO2 emissions, using the existing regulatory foundation for energy policy. I do not agree that we would appear to deviate from our cause if we were to go back to the arrangements that we put in place at the outset. Sustainable development integrates economic, environmental and social policy. The roles of the Secretary of State and Ofgem in relation to social and economic policy are well understood and derive from their primary objective to protect the long-term interests of consumers. That was set out clearly in the debate on the utilities Green Paper. Let me remind the Committee how the environmental and social domains are embedded in existing legislation, and the extent to which the regulator has acted on them. Both the Secretary of State and the regulatory authority must have regard to environmental matters when carrying out their functions under part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989, a responsibility that extends to both current and future consumers. There was an exchange about the problems that might attach to a particular regulator. That is why we now have a regulatory authority; it has been an important step forward. The duties of the regulatory authority include producing regulatory impact assessments to assess the impact on the environment of the proposals, a duty to promote energy efficiency, and a duty to secure viable and diverse long-term energy supplies. We have been able, over a substantial period, to set in place an easily understood and effective framework within which we can achieve the objectives for Column Number: 273 sustainable development and for renewable energy that everybody on the Committee has supported in the debate. The last thing that we should contemplate doing is ripping out the cornerstone of the arrangements and saying that we want to do something completely different. Rather, in the months ahead, we should ensure that, if we need to make alterations, we could do so in the confidence that the foundations that we have put in place are effective.Dr. Turner: I am deeply disappointed by my hon. Friend's response. We have common objectives; our disagreement is about whether we have the right legislative framework to achieve them. Let me make it clear that this is not an anti-Ofgem amendment. I would not dare introduce such a thing—the chairman of Ofgem is my near neighbour and I have to live with him. However, I remind the Committee that Ofgem is still somewhat myopic about having security of supply as its primary objective. I do not seek to remove any of the duties of Ofgem. The amendment simply says that Ofgem should carry out its duties in such a way as to facilitate renewable energy. As to the separation between statute and policy and allowing the regulator to make policy, I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. He completely misunderstands the situation; the amendment would change the statute from which the authority draws its remit. It is as basic as that. My hon. Friend the Minister is quite reasonably concerned with stability when it comes to people actively wanting to invest in renewable energy. I totally agree, but I reinforce what I have said about the present lack of investor confidence. The Minister told us about the investment of several hundred million pounds in offshore wind power, but that is happening only because he is helping it along with the leverage of £117 million of capital grants. It means that the renewables obligation is only just effective enough to make an onshore wind farm commercially viable; it is not enough on its own to make offshore wind commercially viable. It is certainly nowhere near enough to bring any of the new technologies into initial deployment. We shall need those technologies if we are to achieve the overall policy objectives, on which there is complete agreement in the House, and certainly within this Room. I am extremely disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to delete clause 84. The DTI's regulatory impact assessment on the clause states:
As to the future security of the market, the Minister is worried about moving the goalposts. My assertion is that the goalposts are not in the ideal position. I want them to be placed in the optimum position and kept there. In my submission, the amendment will not weaken existing confidence; it will give confidence where there is none. It will be a powerful signal to the Column Number: 274 whole industry that the Government mean business on renewable energy. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), but given the Minister's response, I am unable to withdraw the amendment. It is too fundamental a point. With great regret, I shall press it to a Division.Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.
Division No. 13]
AYES
NOES
11 amQuestion put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:— The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 6.
Division No. 14]
AYES
NOES
Clause 84, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 8 June 2004 |
