Previous Section Index Home Page

28 Jan 2010 : Column 354WH—continued

There has been a failure of international responsibility, not just in China and Europe but in Latin America and other places. People have lost their lives as a result of industry practices. The International Energy Agency and other international authorities, such as the World
28 Jan 2010 : Column 355WH
Health Organisation and other UN institutions in Geneva, must take a much more proactive view of such issues. It is not acceptable that other countries should be able to increase their competitiveness and reduce prices by cutting corners and bypassing basic safety requirements.

I hope that our Government and the European Union are as strong as we can be on such issues. We need to ensure production at a fair price. There may be competition, and we may not always be able to produce the cheapest coal, but we have a duty internationally to ensure that people do not lose their lives and livelihoods as a result of exploitation by coal industries elsewhere, whether state run or privately run.

Dr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman add to his remarks on the necessary international regulation of good practice in coal mining his thoughts on coal fires in many parts of the world? Coal fires are closely related to bad practice in coal mining, add substantially to CO2 emissions in their own right and often continue uncontrolled for many years underground while coal mining is taking place alongside them.

Simon Hughes: I do not know whether you have ever been down a mine, Mr. Key-this is not meant as a challenge-but if you have, as I have done on more than one occasion, you will have seen the circumstances in which people do underground mining: the proximity, discomfort and danger, and the bravery and skill required. Practices such as the hon. Gentleman describes are completely unacceptable, and we need to add that to the agenda.

The hon. Gentleman's comments always take our debates to a new tier. Those of us who are laypeople in debates such as this go around the circuit, and then when he speaks, we must all raise our game and our attentiveness, because he rightfully puts things in a more scientific context. We are grateful for that. I am sure that the Minister, for whom I will have questions in a moment, is focused on exactly what storage capacity we as a country will have, where it will be and what storage will be safe and appropriate. The comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test were extremely wise in that context.

I do not want to make either a long speech or a greatly partisan one. All of us-the Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and the other hon. Members in this debate-have been around the circuit before, recently and often, so I hope that our positions are clear. I will make a couple of general propositions, and then I have a set of questions for the Minister, arising from what he has said and from this debate. I will not repeat questions that I have asked him in Committee, with one exception.

Somebody said to me today-I do not mean this to be unnecessarily fawning-"I have never understood why the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) wasn't promoted to ministerial office much earlier. He's clearly capable of it and has done very well." We are grateful for his engagement with his brief. We are sorry that his hair is going grey as a result of his dealing with business managers, but we do not mind so much as long as he delivers the goods and we get the secrets.

We were encouraged by the mysterious statement this morning by the Leader of the House, which announced the business for next week and the provisional business for Monday the following week, but was noticeably
28 Jan 2010 : Column 356WH
silent about the two remaining days. We hope that that means that there is still an opportunity for the documents that we in the Opposition-and, I think, the Minister's Back Benchers-would like to see before the Report stage of the Energy Bill. I ask not least so that we can formulate intelligent new clauses and amendments and make maximum progress on the Bill.

I want to address a few points in sequence, as that will be easiest. It will not take long. On page 3 of the Government response, published last August, the Government reply to the first recommendation, concerning competition. The reply states:

When the Minister winds up, will he put on record what has been done in relation to that programme and whether any further developments in that programme are planned?

I have prompted the Minister about the CCS strategy document. I am encouraged to hear that it is imminent. To pick up on part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, what storage capacity do we think is in the UK and around the British isles? The Committee's fourth recommendation says:

The Government's response was:

From what I understand, the saline aquifer element of the storage capacity is very important. Obviously, it is important that we do not lose it: that when the site is finished with it is blocked and made safe. It would be helpful to hear the Minister's estimate of our current capacity and what work is being done. What is the process? Is there an annual assessment of what the score is and what is coming on line? What are the consultations and considerations about whether we might ever need to use, for example, storage that the Dutch or our other neighbours, such as the Irish, might have, to be part of a grid working with them?

I want to say in passing that I was amused to see the response to recommendation 9 about the need for a "dramatic technological development":

That seems to be a theme picked up by all parties, and Amen say all of us.


28 Jan 2010 : Column 357WH

Lastly, recommendation 14 states:

We have talked about the competition; we have talked about an emissions performance standard in other contexts. The Committee on Climate Change is clear that the carbon markets-the EU emissions trading system-may not be sufficient as a mechanism for dealing with that. Will the Minister tell us the Government's present thinking about the role of feed-in tariffs? Will they consult further on them? I am not aware of having heard the Government speak about that since they gave their response. Might there be other ways to use financial mechanisms? I do not mean for the competition; I am talking about what happens post-competition for the development of carbon capture and storage.

Those are the issues that come directly from the Government's response. My party is clear: the country will need oil and gas for as long as we have them. We shall need to use our coal, but there should be CCS. We have debated how hard-line the requirements should be in advance. We should like them to be as tough as possible. I accept the points that were made in Committee by the hon. Member for Wealden that there are technical limits to how near to 100 per cent. it is possible to get. One cannot be naive about that. We started from an absolutist position, but there must be compromise, and I remember the hon. Gentleman's perfectly valid points about the fact that when a plant is powered up it may not be possible to prevent the escape of some emissions. Also, occasionally-I buy that qualification, too-there will be a need to allow coal-powered stations to be used, even if they do not fully comply, if the nation needs them. Those were three good and reasonable qualifications. Some collaborative work is being done on trying to agree some common wording on Report that will be acceptable to many in the three major parties-and, I anticipate, the Scottish National party-which we hope the Government will accept. That will be an important part of the debate.

The Liberal Democrats think that renewables are a fantastic possibility for this country, and not just as onshore and offshore wind power. In urban areas such as that of the hon. Member for Blaydon in the north-east, there are fantastic sites along the coast in the old ports. Those are good sites that do not give offence to people and are obvious places for the industry, and for job creation. Liverpool is another good place for that. We must consider our old industrial cities and towns, on the east coast in particular, in Scotland and England along the major rivers, to make sure that we take that capacity. In addition, we have a fantastic opportunity for tidal power. Hon. Members have heard me say before that we do not believe nuclear should play a part; we are opposed to the development of the nuclear industry, which is expensive, always late, dangerous, and environmentally far less susceptible of control or influence by the public. We can meet our energy needs, provided that we are energy-efficient, with the other mix. Although in faith terms I am a Trinitarian, I am not a Trinitarian with the same trinity that the Minister promotes in terms of the
28 Jan 2010 : Column 358WH
fuel mix for the future. Nuclear should not be part of that trinity-indeed, it makes it an unholy trinity of energy, not a holy one.

A fantastic piece of work has helpfully been done by the Committee on Climate Change, which we all value greatly. Would the Minister be kind enough-we went into this subject a bit-to touch on the closeness of the Government position, because I am still slightly confused about the proposal in chapter 4 of their October report on the framework for investment in conventional coal generation. On page 134 of that report, they make four recommendations. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees with each of those four recommendations. His answers on that have not been as clear as I would would like.

I shall make my last two points. In relation to "A Framework for the Development of Clean Coal", which is obviously the latest Government document we have, I have some questions principally about timetable. However, in passing, I note-the hon. Member for South Suffolk who opened the debate referred to this-that the figures the International Energy Agency produce are outstanding. He was clear about how important they are. We need to pause for a second to reflect on how significant they are. In 2008, the IEA predicted that the amount of electricity generated from coal could increase by around 23 per cent. in the US, around 172 per cent. in China and around 258 per cent. in India between 2006 and 2030. That is phenomenal.

Given the context that the hon. Member for Blaydon reminded us about, it is vital that we deal with the way of production, as well as with the volume of production and the technology for dealing with the carbon capture. The Government reminded us that the IEA estimates we will need 100 CCS projects globally by 2020, although I accept that that includes gas. My other questions are as follows. In paragraph 1.14 of "A Framework for the Development of Clean Coal"-I am conscious that there is also the energy policy, which includes coal-the Government state:

My question is predictable: will the Minister please tell us whether that is still on target and if it will be published before the general election?

Importantly, on a matter of great concern to all of us, in paragraph 1.19, the Government make the point that one of the objectives of the transition to clean coal is to

I agree, but what is the number of jobs that the Minister believes, looking forward, is likely to come from this sector? I think all of us have a regional and a national interest in the answer to that, because it is important technology. Just to clarify-there are lots of people with an interest in this-paragraph 1.25 states:

to which the Minister has already referred. It goes on to state:

Will the Minister say when that will be? In paragraph 1.28-


28 Jan 2010 : Column 359WH

Robert Key (in the Chair): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me where he is referring to in the document we are debating this afternoon?

Simon Hughes: The document I am drawing from, Mr. Key, is the Government's document, to which the Minister alluded, called "A Framework for the Development of Clean Coal". The document is their response to the Committee and to its recommendation.

Robert Key (in the Chair): With the greatest respect, it is not. I have the Government response to the Committee's report in front of me. The hon. Gentleman is referring to something completely different that we are not debating this afternoon. Will he kindly return to order?

Simon Hughes: Mr. Key, I was not aware I was not in order. I had dealt with the Government's response to the Committee report and was seeking to deal with the other report that the Minister mentioned earlier. I will ensure that I generalise rather than deal specifically with the other matters. Some other dates were mentioned. Let me summarise. The Minister mentioned a Government report for the implementation of carbon capture and storage. It would be helpful if he said when he thinks those announcements will be made.

Finally, I should like to mention the future of CCS and its compatibility with the European Union, which we touched on when we last debated this matter. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said in her reply last week that there was further correspondence between her Department and the EU. A request was made that that correspondence should be made public so that we could see the latest position. It would help if the Minister said whether that is now possible, whether that confirms or changes the Government's position on how acceptable the various CCS options are as technologies and whether they will still regard the emissions performance standard as a key component part of their policy for dealing with a new generation of coal-fired power stations.

This debate is of interest both strategically and technically. It is good that we have an Environmental Audit Committee to bring these matters to us. This debate, though much delayed because of the reasons given by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, will allow people to see the commitment to the project. Everybody, including this Government before the election or whoever is in government after it, will now want things to move forward as quickly as possible.

4.21 pm

Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con): May I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who spoke of his sadness at the fact that you, Mr. Key, will be leaving the House at the election? You bring tremendous knowledge and expertise to debates and Parliament will be poorer for not having your wisdom after the election.

I commend my hon. Friend for the way in which he introduced an excellent, robust report that has given us tremendous food for thought. I commend his Committee for producing that detailed report.

We have had to wait rather a long time for a debate on this subject. The report was about 13 pages long, but
28 Jan 2010 : Column 360WH
we have waited 13 months for a response from the Minister. The Government clearly work at the rate of a page a month, but perhaps they could work faster in future.

Although we have not been overwhelmed by the number of colleagues during this debate, we have had a significant amount of quality. The contribution of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) showed the expertise that he brings to the subject, which he has brought to so many energy issues, and the contribution of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) showed the passion that he brings to such debates. I should, however, like to correct him in respect of our exchange in the Chamber in a previous debate. I said, in response to an intervention from him:

That was a reference to the move towards cheap domestic gas. I was not in any way suggesting that I wish to have cheap prices based on miners dying because they are working in unsafe mines elsewhere around the world. I hope that he will accept that there will always be a need for imports, sometimes because of the qualities of different types of coal needed for certain operations. British coal mining enjoys some of the highest standards in the world, which we want to see in force in countries from which we import coal.

Mr. David Anderson: The hon. Gentleman's answer may have related to gas, but the question was specifically about coal.

Charles Hendry: The question was not specifically about coal. The hon. Gentleman talked about the Conservative party devastating the coal industry and privatising the utilities and, more generally, about energy policy. Perhaps we were talking about different issues, in which case I hope this exchange has been useful in clarifying that.

I hope that one of the issues that come through clearly is that coal is now uniting political parties and politicians. It has been one of the most divisive energy issues over recent decades, but now there is an overwhelming desire among politicians of all parties to see a revived coal industry in Britain, based on a bright future for coal in the energy mix with carbon capture and storage. The report we are debating is an important contribution towards that.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk rightly mentioned the urgency with which the issues must be addressed. In the recent coal period, coal generated more than 40 per cent. of the electricity used in this country, so it is still a significant player. However, we can already see that by 2016, as a result of the large combustion plant directive, a third of our coal plant will be out of commission. If the industrial emissions directive goes through, most of the rest of our coal plant will be closing by the early 2020s, so there is a significant need for new investment in plant, and from our perspective that must be genuinely clean coal with CCS.


Next Section Index Home Page