 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Energy |
Energy Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee WitnessesPaul
Noon, General Secretary of Prospect, Trades Union
Congress Philip Pearson,
Senior Policy Officer, Trades Union
Congress Stephen Radley,
Chief Economist,
EEF Roger Salomone,
Energy Adviser, EEF Guy
Johnson, Director of Regulation,
npower Sara Vaughan,
Director Regulation and Energy Policy,
E.ON Denis Linford,
Director of Regulation, EDF
Energy Barry Neville,
Director of Public Affairs and European Policy,
Centrica Dr. Keith
MacLean, Head of Sustainable Development, Scottish Power and Southern
Energy Rupert Steele,
Director of Regulation, Scottish Power Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 5 February 2008(Morning) [Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]Energy Bill10.30
am
The
Chairman: Before we begin, I have a few preliminary
announcements. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during
Committee meetings. They must turn off, or switch to silent mode, all
pagers and mobile phones. There is both a money resolution and a Ways
and Means resolution in connection with this Bill. Copies are available
in the room. I should like to remind members that adequate notice
should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I do not intend to
call starred amendments.
Furthermore, this Bill is one
of three this Session that has been selected for a further experiment
with explanatory statements on amendments. All members of the Committee
have been sent a leaflet giving details of the experiment. Copies of
the leaflet are available in the Committee room and in the Public Bill
Office. Members may also wish to seek advice from the Clerk of the
Committee. As we are
still in the early days of taking oral evidence in Public Bill
Committees, it might help if I briefly explain what is proposed, so
that we can all be clear. The Committee will first be asked to consider
the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate is
limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report
written evidence, and then a motion—which I hope we can take
formally— to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in
advance of the oral evidence sessions.
Assuming that the second of
these motions is agreed to, the Committee will then move into a brief
private session. Once the Committee has deliberated, the witnesses and
members of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral
evidence session will commence. If the Committee agrees to the
programme motion, it will hear oral evidence today and on the morning
of Tuesday 19 February, before reverting on Thursday
21 February to the more familiar proceedings of clause-by-clause
scrutiny.
Ordered, That—
(1) the Committee shall (in
addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 5th February)
meet— (a) at
4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 5th February;
(b) at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday
19th February; (c) at
9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 21st February;
(d) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.
on Tuesday 26th February;
(e) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.
on Thursday 28th February;
(f) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.
on Tuesday 4th March;
(g) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.
on Thursday 6th March;
(h) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.
on Tuesday 11th March;
(2) the Committee shall hear
oral evidence in accordance with the following
Table:
TABLE (3)
the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 35;
Schedule 1; Clauses 36 to 40; Schedule 2; Clauses 41 to 72; Schedule 3;
Clauses 73 to 91; Schedule 4; Clause 92; Schedule 5; Clauses 93 to 97;
new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the
Bill; (4) the
proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a
conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 11th March.—[Malcolm
Wicks.] Ordered, That,
subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence
received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for
publication.—[Malcolm
Wicks.] The
Chairman: Copies of any submission that the Committee
receives will be made available in the Committee room.
Ordered, That,
at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be
heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are
admitted.—[Malcolm
Wicks.] 10.33
am The
Committee deliberated in
private. 10.54
am On
resuming:—
The
Chairman: We will now hear oral evidence from the TUC and
the EEF. I welcome the witnesses. Would you like to introduce
yourselves to the
Committee? Philip
Pearson: I am Philip Pearson, the TUC’s senior
policy officer dealing with energy and environment
issues.
Paul
Noon: My name is Paul Noon. I am the TUC general
council lead on energy and the environment and in my day job also
general secretary of Prospect, which represents engineers and
scientists in the electricity supply industry and
beyond. Stephen
Radley: I am Stephen Radley, chief economist of the
EEF. Roger
Salomone: I am Roger Salomone, energy adviser at
EEF.
The
Chairman: Before calling the first member to ask a
question I would like to remind all members that questions should be
limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that, in view of
the time constraints, both questions and answers should be
brief.
Q
1Charles
Hendry (Wealden) (Con): I thank the witnesses very much
coming here, and give special thanks to the EEF for being here as the
voice of business in the absence of the
CBI. In the
TUC’s submissions, you said that you are keen to see a carbon
price that is set high enough to create a credible and effective
emissions trading scheme. Can you give us more detail about what that
means? Are you specifically seeking to have a floor price on carbon, so
that it should not drop below a certain price per tonne? If so, I would
also be interested in knowing the views of the EEF about the views of
business with regard to a floor price on
carbon. Paul
Noon: Our primary concern is that there should be a
mechanism in place that gives certainty that a price will be fixed in
the future, rather than agreeing a fixed price at this point.
There should be some mechanism at European level that will give the
market certainty that there will be a price fixed in the future. I find
it difficult to see that you could easily fix a price now that would
last for several
years. Philip
Pearson: On top of that, the idea of a floor price
has some attractions if you look at the history of the price of carbon
in phase 1, which soared up to €30 a tonne and then
almost disappeared through the floor. The forward price of carbon is
becoming interesting, but the Committee might want to ask itself the
question we have been asking, “What is the minimum price of
carbon likely to drive sufficient technological change to secure
climate change
objectives?”.
Q
2Charles
Hendry: But is it your wish that that should be on a
European rather than a domestic
level? Philip
Pearson: I think that the mechanism would need to be
Europe-wide.
Q
3Martin
Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): Do you worry that the shadow
cost of carbon that has been used by the Government to date is too low,
certainly compared to what was envisaged in the Stern review? Do you
see anything in the mechanisms recommended in the Bill to do with the
renewables obligation that might improve that
situation? Philip
Pearson: The banding idea—doubling the
renewable obligations certifications for offshore wind and so
on—is obviously a key step forward, recognising that one needs
to attract investment to the new emerging technologies. The shadow
price of carbon is of course not addressed in the Bill, and there are
concerns that the shadow price itself is still pitched too low genuinely
to drive change. I would not claim to be an expert on how the formula
is developed but it looks as if it is based on a predicted successful
outcome of total global emissions divided by the cost of
interventions to secure such a reduction in CO2; and the
answer is £19 a tonne. But it raises the question, “Will
policies be successful at £19 a tonne?”. I do not think
that they would
be.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 6 February 2008 |