Dr.
Whitehead: I want to shed a slightly different light on
our debate by discussing the provisions before us rather than what is
not before us. To state that the Minister and his Department are tired
and resigned is a tired and stock response, which reflects an
inattention to what is happening in the Department and on a wider
canvas. Indeed, I attended a European renewable and sustainable energy
conference last week, and a number of attendees, both parliamentarians
and others, specifically raised the exciting developments taking place
in the new Department of Energy and Climate Change. They were
encouraged by what is happening, so the idea that there is nothing
happening and no ambition or grasp of the wider issues is
misplaced.
It is also
right that we prioritise what we are responding to as far as Europe is
concerned, so that we maximise our best endeavours, the use of our
resources and, not to put too fine a point on it, the things that we
are good at—the contributions that we can make—to ensure
that, overall, we play the best role possible in developing European
energy policy, particularly renewable and sustainable energy policy.
Indeed, in terms of ambition and freshness of view and vision for the
future, I refer Members to the DECC’s recent heat and
energy-saving strategy consultation, which presents an extremely
refreshing and ambitious vision of how the energy-efficient use of heat
can make an enormous contribution to the UK’s energy
requirements and the efficient use of our energy resources.
I wish to
comment on two aspects in which that consultation and the
Commission’s documents are related. The first point relates to
the Commission document’s statements on the development of
combined heat and power, which the Commission strongly supports, and
the measures that the Commission is taking to develop CHP throughout
Europe. However, there appears to be a potential contradiction in that
support for CHP development—the issue is identified in the heat
and energy-saving strategy—between having competition in
supplies and supporting what may well be a combination of a private
wire and heat network in CHP development; it is about the extent to
which CHP development can be reconciled with the requirement for energy
supply competition.
Clearly, the
development of district CHP, particularly in the context of a private
wire scheme, which is very attractive in developing CHP, shuts out
people who might otherwise compete for that supply, either suppliers of
heat through the heat network, for example, or of electricity through
electricity production. The extent to which that can be reconciled with
EU ambitions on CHP is still a question mark in the air. I would value
the Minister’s thoughts on that. Is it his intention to look
further at how those two issues may be reconciled so that we can make a
particularly strong contribution to the development of CHP in
Europe? The
second issue relates to the energy performance of buildings directive,
which I mentioned earlier in a question to my hon. and learned Friend,
and in particular the ambitions of the recasting of the directive to
reduce to below 1,000 sq m the application of minimum energy
requirements. It is interesting, referring back to the heat and energy
saving strategy consultation, that there are some particularly
innovative and refreshing—not tired—suggestions in the
document concerning how the financing of energy efficiency,
particularly in domestic properties and small commercial properties,
might be enhanced by the use of the distribution network
operator’s charges to their customers. Should the revision of
the directive come through in the way that I think it will, it seems to
me that that presents a substantial opportunity to align what
incentives there are to make the enormous gains that are available in
energy efficiency, particularly in smaller buildings in the commercial
and industrial sectors, with the new provisions of the energy
performance directive. That might add to the arrangements in relation
to distribution network operators and the arsenal of measures that can
be taken as far as smaller commercial and industrial buildings are
concerned.
In
that context it may be that further innovative ideas could overcome the
issue of the difference in ownership and occupation in those smaller
buildings to be covered by the energy performance of buildings
directive as recast. By that I mean that in most of those buildings the
tenants, the operators, and the industrial and commercial companies,
are not the owners. Therefore there is no incentive for the owner to
introduce energy-efficient measures, nor is there any incentive for the
tenant. There is a dissonance between the two. To reconcile that
difference and use that as a springboard for making sure that we are
far ahead with the energy performance of buildings directive is a
challenge that is ahead of us. That might be overcome, either by the
extension, as the consultation document suggests, of distribution
network operators, or leasing arrangements that can be built into the
bills that are being paid by the tenants, so giving the tenants and the
owners of the building a joint incentive for introducing energy
efficiency. Will
my hon. and learned Friend might reflect on whether, in terms of the
discussions that are under way on the energy performance of buildings
directive, those thoughts are in his mind and whether, with the
implementation, I hope, of the heat and energy saving strategy, some of
those elements may be built into it, particularly in terms of how they
relate to those developing European
directives? Bill
Etherington (Sunderland, North) (Lab): I have listened
patiently for some time and it is obvious that both Opposition
spokesmen have been fairly scared of my hon. and learned Friend the
Minister and the Labour party position on this issue. The only problem
is that they were long on criticism, but short on constructive
criticism. There was little in the way of alternative suggestions.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wealden may
say that it is not his duty, but it is a more respectable position, if
one is critical, to have some decent
alternatives.
Bill
Etherington: I am not quite finished. I have a great deal
of sympathy with the Liberal Democrat spokesman’s position on
nuclear power. The only problem is that he did not mention how we might
find some alternative way around the problem so that we do not need to
build nuclear power stations or increase nuclear capacity. He is right
to say that there is a problem with waste
disposal. We
have heard a great deal today about the market, incentives for people
to invest and so on. I say to both Opposition party spokesmen and to my
hon. and learned Friend the Minister, because this applies to my party
as well, that perhaps the only way in which we will be able to have any
significant success in cutting the amount of carbon dioxide emitted is
by deciding that we need to use—perish the thought—the
old system of public expenditure. That is probably a bigger spectre for
the two Opposition spokesmen than it is for my hon. and learned Friend
the
Minister.
Charles
Hendry: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in
the Room when the Chairman intervened to correct me for setting out a
bit of Conservative party policy. She said that that was not
appropriate on this occasion. I would be happy to send him our policy
document. It is shorter than this one but more productive. I will
ensure that he receives it.
Bill
Etherington: Whether it is more productive is doubtful,
but I am sure that it will be
shorter. I
have had my say. Everyone is concerned about what appears to be the
slow pace of progress on bringing in more renewable energy, cutting
down on carbon emissions and becoming more efficient in the use of
fuel.
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful for the constructive tone with
which the hon. Gentleman offers criticism of my party’s
position. I am happy to share with him the Liberal Democrat policy
document, “Zero Carbon Britain”, and also our policy
document that explains how we would fill the energy gap without
nuclear.
The
Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for
Sunderland, North is not tempted by that
intervention.
Bill
Etherington: No, I am not. I will say only one more thing:
I hope that the documents that I am about to receive are less weighty
than the one that we have had to deal with
today. 6.18
pm
Mr.
O'Brien: As I understood the terms of the debate, they
offered ample opportunity for both Opposition spokesmen to set out how
they viewed the documents, to respond to the points raised and to set
out their party’s view. Providing they were in order, there was
ample opportunity to do that, but what we got from both of them was
political flannel. Let us look at what we really need in terms of
energy
policy. The
Government have set out how we want to ensure that we undertake an
energy revolution in this country. We set up the Department of Energy
and Climate Change to develop one coherent policy on two policy
areas—energy and climate change—that had been running in
parallel. The Departments talked to each other, but they have now been
brought together to ensure that we deliver a clear and coherent
message, and that we undertake what will be an energy
revolution. We
set out in legislation a target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent. by
2050. We set out a strategy to make renewable heat and energy part of
our long-term vision. We introduced a policy framework to create
feed-in tariffs for small-scale generation, and set out for the first
time our ambition over 12 years to introduce smart meters. We also set
out our view on achieving the 2020 European target. Let us be clear
about the extent of that ambition: it will involve an eightfold
increase in renewables in 12 years. That in itself is a massive
ambition. 6.19
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House. 6.36
pm On
resuming—
Mr.
O'Brien: As I was saying, we are looking at an eightfold
increase in the amount of renewables over the next 12 years. That will
involve a massive investment of about £100 billion. It will
involve the creation of an office of renewable energy development
within Government. It stands to create up to 160,000 jobs in the
renewables
industry and a whole new supply chain. It is a massive undertaking;
indeed, a revolutionary one, and beyond
that. I
note that the hon. Member for Wealden praised us for setting up the
Office for Nuclear Development, but that, again, is a major undertaking
by a Government prepared to make a key, controversial, difficult and
important strategic decision to deal with issues involving
CO2 and the need to tackle climate change. I found his
comments in relation to gas storage extraordinary, a week after
Centrica announced plans for the UK’s second largest gas storage
facility in a depleted gas field at Baird under the North sea. If it
goes ahead, it will add further capacity equal to more than 50 per
cent. of the Rough field from about 2013. It is a massive new
development.
We have a
whole vision in relation to the development of offshore wind
technology. Not only has the UK under this Government taken the lead in
offshore wind; it is powering ahead on that vision. It is true that an
investor withdrew from the London Array. It is also true that we
brought in further investors. I certainly remember being party to some
of the discussions that ensured that we brought that investment into
the London Array by showing that there was Government support for such
projects. We
are undertaking a massive change. I therefore say to the hon. Member
for Wealden, who speaks for the Conservatives, that the party political
knockabout concerning lack of vision is complete nonsense. The vision
of an energy revolution created by this Government is a massive
undertaking. What we have seen in response to that and to what is going
on in Europe from the Conservative party is a complete vacuum. There
was nothing, really; no indication of what the Conservatives would do
in relation to the documents or to the issues that they raised. There
were no proposals, no initiatives and no new ideas—nothing but a
lot of knockabout.
There was one
issue in relation to the National Grid which I will come back to. What
we had during the course of this debate was a lot of opportunist
rhetoric without constructive engagement, doing absolutely nothing to
set out a clear view of what a Conservative Government, should one be
elected, might do in relation to any of these documents or the broader
strategy issues.
Let me deal
with some of the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of particular
aspects of concern. I have already mentioned gas storage. He indicates
that we need more. We do, we have been saying that consistently for a
considerable time and we have been delivering. There are 17 projects in
the pipeline at the moment and Centrica has just announced the
additional Baird project. We see the importance of developing gas
storage but why is it not here now? Because we have had North sea gas
available as our reserve for decades. It peaked in 2004 and, as we see
a reduction in the level of gas from the North sea, which will take a
number of decades, we will increase our imports and therefore have to
create more gas storage. There is a relationship between the amount of
imports and the amount of gas storage that a country needs. The amount
of gas storage in Germany, for example, compared to imports it is
around 20 per cent. In the UK, the amount of gas storage compared to
imports is around 20 per cent. As we increase the amount of imports we
will need to increase the amount of gas storage and we are in the
process of doing that.
The hon.
Gentleman criticised the planning issues. I thought that showed a brass
neck of extraordinary strength. He suggested that planning difficulties
had frustrated some of the gas storage projects. Indeed that is true,
they have. The very legislation that we put in place to deal with that,
the Planning and Energy Act 2008, was criticised by the
Conservatives because they took the view that they wanted to retain
local control of these issues. All very good, except that we need a
national infrastructure strategy—that is what the Government
have put in place through the planning legislation and that is what the
Conservatives have consistently failed to come forward with a clear and
coherent alternative view
on.
Charles
Hendry: That is a complete misrepresentation. We oppose
the infrastructure planning commission but we said the decision should
be taken by the Secretary of State because that provides some
democratic accountability, though we recognise that would be acting in
a quasi-judicial capacity. We recognise the current system has to
change but we think that the Government were going too far by removing
all political accountability, therefore that is the change that we
would make. It would not go back to a local
decision.
Mr.
O'Brien: What we have had from the hon. Gentleman are
criticisms of planning decisions and a failure to support the
Government’s clear strategy of enabling these decisions to be
made in the national interest, with an independent element that can
look at this in a proper way and ensure there is appropriate
consideration of the issues. The Conservatives have
failed—
The
Chairman: Order. I would remind the Minister that we
should confine the debate to the European motion before
us.
Mr.
O'Brien: I take your strictures on
board, Ms Walley, but gas storage is a key issue in relation
to the documents—the way in which we deal with it, ensuring that
we bring more on board. We want to do that and we also want to ensure
that we have appropriate connections with energy generation in Europe.
I noted again the Conservatives’ concern about the
interconnector and the way it is operating. When I asked whether there
would be a willingness to intervene as a Government, if the
Conservatives were elected, there was something from the hon. Gentleman
about engaged government, whatever that vaguely means. His response was
imprecise, waffly and vague. He had no clear view what he would do
about
it. I
ask the hon. Gentleman: what would he do about the interconnector? Is
he suggesting that a Conservative Government would intervene in the
market and tell those who own the interconnector that they cannot sell
electricity, gas or other energy products abroad? Is that what a
Conservative Government would do? Have they lost all faith in
markets?
| 
