Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill |
Gregory Barker: I promise that this will be my last intervention. How would that prejudice the Budget process? Malcolm Wicks: I do not think that it helps if Parliament puts on the statute book a range of specific requirements on the Chancellor and the Treasury which relate to a host of public policy objectives. It is the job of the Chancellor and the Treasury to review holistically economic performance and budgetary measures. We should focus on the substance of the challenge of climate change and the specific measures that we need to put in place. That is the purpose of the Bill. Dancing on the heads of political pins about the role of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is good debating society territory, but, with all due respect, I do not judge it to be serious politics. New clause 1 would require the Chancellor to publish his considerations on fiscal and economic measures to assist microgeneration. This new clause is similar to the existing clause 3, which we propose to remove. Again, there is a risk of prejudicing the normal budgetary process by treating microgeneration and energy efficiency differently from all other policy areas. New clause 12 would require the Chancellor to report on the impact on CO I support amendment No. 16, which, in light of the amendment just discussed, removes the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the list of relevant bodies to which
Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 Annual report on greenhouse gas emissions Amendments made: No. 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out Prime Minister and insert Secretary of State. No. 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, after each insert calendar. No. 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, leave out
and insert taken by government departments. No. 4, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, after taken insert
No. 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, leave out
No. 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, after Kingdom insert
No. 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out
and insert that year. No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out subsections (2) and (3). No. 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, at end insert and.[Malcolm Wicks.] Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 disagreed to. Clause 4 National targets for microgeneration Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: clause 6 stand part. Amendment No. 29, in clause 11, page 6, leave out lines 15 to 17. New clause 5National targets for microgeneration
Column Number: 22
And the following amendment thereto: (a), at end insert
New clause 6National microgeneration targets: modification of section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003
Column Number: 23
New clause 7Reports under section 1 of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003: microgeneration
Mark Lazarowicz: The new clauses are an alternative to clause 4, and amendment No. 29 is a consequential amendment, dependent on the replacement of clause 4. The clause requires the Secretary of State to establish national targets for the take-up of microgeneration through CO I invite the Committee to remove clause 4 and replace it with new clauses 5 and 6 and amendment No. 29. The Government and Department of Trade and Industry officials have put it to me that one problem with the clause is that at this stage it is difficult to say what the targets should be, because the potential for technology is still being assessed and improved. I accept their argument, as it is valid. If a specific requirement to set a target with a specific figure were put in place, the question, What should that figure be?, could very well be put. It would be difficult to provide a specific answer, and we might end up setting unrealistic targets. They might be too low or too high, and we might not achieve the objective of providing a clear policy direction, which is the whole purpose of national targets. What led me to propose national targets was the persuasive argument that moving towards targets is important, because it provides the market with the necessary certainty to persuade investors to invest the hundreds of millions of pounds that is needed to enable the mass production of microgeneration devices. One should expect that to lead to a price reduction for consumers of such devices, and, in due course, a virtuous circle in which price reductions lead to increased demand, leading to further investment, further price reductions and the further installation of microgeneration devices. The advice that I have received is that in the case of many microgeneration devices, once the stage of mass production is reached, the length of time that a consumer has to wait before they start to see a pay-back from their investment can reduce from five, 10 or even 20 years, as it is at the moment, to three, five or seven years, which obviously changes the whole
I acknowledge the assistance of the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as of industry, various outside organisations and NGOs involved in discussions about these targets, in drafting the new clauses. Under new clause 5, the Government would be given a requirement to designate national microgeneration targets between 1 November 2008 and 31 March 2009. Under that requirement, the Secretary of State would also be allowed to take into account whether it would be appropriate to designate targets at that point. The factors that he would have to take into account in deciding whether to set targets are set out in new clause 5. Mrs. Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con): Is there any scope under the new clause for taking into account the different types of microgeneration technology within the target-setting process? There have been obvious problems with the renewables obligation, in that it has tended to focus on the cheaper more advanced technologies, and has not worked as well in the more expensive less advanced technologies. Is any gradation built into the new clause and, indeed, the Bill to ensure the development of all the different types of microgeneration technology? Mark Lazarowicz: As I am sure the hon. Lady would expect, there has been considerable discussion about the specific factors that the Secretary of State will have to take into account when setting a target. My understanding is that although there would be no specific requirement to consider the pros and cons of different types of technologyI shall rephrase that; there is no specific target in the Billmatters to which the Secretary of State would have to refer would include the microgeneration strategy, which is to be published under the requirements of the Energy Act 2004, and the results of any research carried out into the effect of designating a target. In my view, there is an implication that such a consideration would have to be taken, but the Minister may want to explain how the Government believe the provision will operate. In any event, my Bill sets out a provision for targets to be set, but lists several triggers that would mean that targets would not have to be set in certain circumstances. It is a positive encouragement, or endorsement, in the direction of setting targets. Several specific factors are to be taken into account, including the number of installations by the target-setting date, the sort of microgeneration that I have indicated, and research into the effects of designating a target. Joan Ruddock: Perhaps my hon. Friend can take inspiration from the London plan, which proposes that there should be 40,000 renewable energy schemes in London by 2010 and that all major developments should generate 10 per cent. of their energy needs from renewable sources. He will see from that that a
Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. I am sure she will understand that I do not usually follow local government matters in London in great detail, but as it happens I was at a meeting of the London Assembly yesterday, and was made very much aware of the potential for microgeneration in London and of examples that could be taken up elsewhere in England, Wales and Scotland. 3.45 pmThe requirement that the Secretary of State should have regard to research into the effects of designating a target is important because he would have to take account of the future effects of setting such a target. He would have to consider how many microgeneration systems had been installed in the past and take into account the strategy risks; in my viewalthough the Minister may gloss the wording differentlythat would require the Secretary of State to consider the future effect of designating any target. Mr. Hurd: Can the hon. Gentleman help me to understand better how the new clause moves us on from the current status quo? As I understand it, it will require the Secretary of State of the day to designate a target, unless he or she considers that inappropriate. I am concerned that that is not a very strong signal. Mark Lazarowicz: Obviously, the Secretary of State or his representative today will have to explain how the Government envisage the provision working, but in my view it represents a considerable advance. I have discussed with the Government what would be an appropriate final form for the Bill, and I am convinced by what they have said about the provision representing a considerable step forward. Hon. Members should bear in mind that before Second Reading the Government were, bluntly, against targets of any sort. My hon. Friend the Minister has shown a willingness to consider the matter in the course of discussions. We are now in a position in which the Secretary of State would be specifically required to designate one or more national microgeneration targets. Yes, there are circumstances in which the Secretary of State would not be required to designate them, if he did not consider it appropriate to do so, but he is given a specific list of matters to which he would have to have regard in determining whether targets were appropriate. Of course he is under an obligation under clause 1 to take into account the overall intentions of the Bill when making decisions under its provisions. In my view, and that of the Bills supporters outside the House, the new clauses represent a considerable step forward, and I am happy to support them. Briefly, new clause 6 would effectively remove the reporting requirements set out in the existing clause 6 and replace them with reporting requirements under the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, which would be more consistent with the overall reporting requirements in relation to energy matters. I see no problem with that
Gregory Barker: Clause 4 requires the Secretary of State to establish national targets for the take-up of microgeneration, in terms either of CO I would point out that we are not talking about something that is far away. Indeed, some would argue forcefully that the technology is here, now; it is just not being implemented and taken up. I refer to the technology quarterly of The Economist, which says that
That is the view of some experts on the present potential of microgeneration technology, so in considering the amendment, we must not think that we are a long way from being able to implement those aims. I am a little concerned that we are kicking the matter into the long grass by default. If we accept that we cannot require a target in the Bill because we cannot state what that target might be, then we might be put in the impossible position of having no answer to that question while at the same time demanding targets. Targets are crucial, as they will provide the market certainty needed to persuade investors to invest the initial tens of millions of poundsI have seen one estimate of £30 million to £50 millionneeded to kick-start mass production, which would then virtually halve the price and cut the payback period from between five and 10 years to between three and five years. That is what is needed to change microgeneration from a niche market product to a mass market product, which all consumers can consider and embrace. The long-term signals that the target sends out to the private sector are essential. I am worried that those long-term signals might compromised by the hesitation implied in accepting the clause. The private sector will provide the lions share of investment and of research and development funding for all such products. That is as it should be, but that private sector funding relies on the Government setting a sufficiently stable framework and a sufficiently long-term horizon within which that long-term funding and bank lending can be made. Column Number: 27 Although I am not entirely comfortable with the proposition that targets cannot be laid now, I am willing to accept it. However, I have therefore tabled a small amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to state his or her reasons if indeed a target is not set. That might sound a little pernickety, but that the thinking of the Secretary of State, and of the Department and its officials, is fully explored is important, as is the Secretary of State being held fully accountable for that decision on the Floor of the House of Commons. As I said in my opening remarks, the technology is already arriving and we cannot afford any further delay. With that, I hope that the Committee will see fit to support my small amendment. Andrew Stunell: One always looks with some scepticism at amendments such as these, particularly when they appear to weaken the Bill. I understand the logic of the case made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith. However, there is a significant safeguard in new clause 7, which sets out more clearly that the target setter has to explain why they have not set a targetthey are under more than an obligation simply to think about that. If target setting is simply left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, the Chancellor or another member of the Government, they may be moved in future by quite different considerations from those that are in our minds today. They might be concerned about the possible impact on the profits of companies operating in the private sector if they were forced to introduce a new technology, which might provide less opportunity to make money compared with the selling of a standard product. If one considers central heating boilers and microgeneration plants, there may well be a good deal of resistance from manufacturing associations to going down that route. The decision could be affected by issues relating to the extra cost that might be imposed on consumers should they have to purchase extra equipment, or by the thought that to overcome those barriers the Government might have to commit public funds in order to secure success. There could be grants for those who install such equipment, which would impose a burden on central Government that they were unwilling to pay, or some kind of support for the industrys research programme, which again, the Government might be unwilling to pay for. If I may reflect on my experience with the ODPM in relation to building regulations it is clear that when the House passes legislation that clearly sets out an intention, a Department is perfectly capable of saying, Thats all right but we think there are some other factors that are more important. The present Minister, as he was quick to say after his appointment, may not be long for his post; Energy Ministers seldom are. To refer back to my text for the day, he said that the pace of efficiency improvements has been slower than needed. He is minded to move ahead quicklywe will give him the benefit of the doubtbut will future target setters set targets
We have to be careful about saying that no targets are required. If we accept the provisions that say no targets are required, we must adopt new clause 7 to ensure that there is some requirement on the target setter to explain publicly why that is the case. If new clause 7 is adopted, I can be more confident, or at least more willing to accept the removal of the wording from the Bill as drafted. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith and the Minister have a duty to reassure the Committee that they will not use the changes to escape the implementation of the Bill as intended, which is necessary if the Government are to come anywhere near achieving their efficiency and conservation targets. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 27 January 2006 |