Simon
Hughes: I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member
for Angus, which is supported by the Conservatives. It is consistent,
and accepting it is one of the bold things that we want the Minister to
do with the Bill, but not the only one. It would do an obvious thing:
as well as changing the breadth and the width of the technological
future of CCS in the Bill, it would also increase diversity, which is
what Ministers talk about all the time. When we talk about energy
security, the phrase that normally follows is, “We therefore
need diversity of supply.” It seems that by going down only the
road of coal CCS technology, which, yes, is the obvious one to start
with, we are putting all our eggs in one basket.
Although that
is the obvious place to start, all the evidence that we have all
received makes it clear that we will have significant gas contributions
to our energy mix. That produces emissions, too, and can use this sort
of technology. Why not get the scientists and the technologists to work
on solutions to everything? As the figures make clear, if we can
capture and store, which the UK has the capacity to do, emissions from
not just coal-fired power stations but from other energy sources, we
could deal with 90 per cent. of emissions from energy generation.
Therefore, I support the amendment, and I hope that the Minister can be
positive and see the merit of modestly amending the Bill—the
amendment will not affect its structure—sending out a different
signal and opening up a lot of positive response from the industry,
science, technology, our engineers and the international
community.
Mr.
Ellwood: I, too, support this crucial amendment—one
of the most important ones that we are discussing today. At this
juncture, we can ask ourselves whether the Bill is an opportunity to
simply catch up with the rest of the world in respect of CCS or to
leapfrog ahead. So I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus on
introducing the prospect of including gas as a possibility for
CCS.
The feeling
among the Opposition is clear, and I think that if we put Labour
Members against the wall, they would agree, too. I would be saddened if
they were forced by their Whip to deny this opportunity to include such
a major improvement to what is considered an adequate and important
Bill, but is nevertheless not as strong as the nation expects us to
deliver, considering the pressure that we are under to meet some
ambitious targets. The Government have talked an awful lot about
meeting targets for 2020 and 2050. The idea is to take the action
required to ensure that those targets are met. The amendment is a
critical step
forward. If
we paused for a second and looked at coal, I would be pleased but
amazed if any of the processes were up and running by 2014. As the
evidence suggests, 2017 seems a more likely date. With that time scale
in mind, it
seems strange that we are not looking over our shoulder to the other
giant contributor to our energy—gas—and realising our
desire to ensure that technology is developed and the expertise grows,
so that we can harness that technology to capture carbon in the same
way as we plan to do for
coal. Anne
Main: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point.
Does he share my concern that it seems somewhat iniquitous that other
producers will be expected to pay the levy and yet will have no
opportunity to be part of the investment and the drive forward in such
technologies?
Mr.
Ellwood: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I refer to
the intervention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West, who said
that coal should be a priority. I do not think that anybody would argue
with that—coal has to be a priority. It is the dirtiest of all
the natural resources that we use. However, when does the hon.
Gentleman think a Bill might be introduced that will allow us to shift
our attention not away from coal, but to include gas as well? I will
give way to him, even though he is deliberately avoiding eye
contact.
John
Robertson: No, I am not—I am making it now. I had
not sought to catch Mr. Bayley’s eye, but I will
after the hon. Gentleman has
finished.
Mr.
Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman obviously wants time to think
about the answer. This is, however, a question for the Minister. If the
Government are successful in May or whenever the election might be,
when will a Bill be introduced that treats gas along the same lines as
we are discussing in respect of coal? We on the Opposition Benches are
saying that there is an opportunity to allow that mechanism—the
legislation that I believe the nation is calling out for—to be
introduced as we speak. If we do not do it now, we will have to wait
for a change of Government. It will be a priority for us, but this will
also be seen as a missed opportunity, because we will move from playing
catch-up on coal to being behind the curve again on
gas. My
hon. Friend the Member for Wealden also said that this matter will have
an impact on the other dynamics covered by the Bill, such as the size
of the pipes required for the clusters that are likely to develop in
key parts of the UK. Including gas in the Bill would have an impact on
the issue of the size of those pipes—we will address that later,
in another amendment—and would almost oblige us to ensure that
those pipes were of a sensible size to include the expected increase in
carbon that we would have to
transport. I
therefore urge the Minister to consider the amendment carefully. This
matter is bigger than the individual agendas and partisan approaches
that we sometimes pursue and adopt. It is about meeting our energy
requirements in a safe and secure manner and reducing carbon emissions
as part of the Government targets. I do not believe that we will meet
those targets unless we can give the industry the green light that it
needs to include at least one or two demonstration projects on gas as
well as coal. I therefore ask her to accept the
amendment.
John
Robertson: The hon. Gentleman’s contribution was
very narrow. He seems to be content to think just of the small picture
rather than the big one, and the big
picture is what is happening worldwide. What happens with gas in this
country is important for one reason—security of supply. Do we
want to be going down the road of using foreign gas for our needs in
years to come? The Government are correct in their assumption that they
have to prioritise coal. The question then has to be about how we spend
the money on the projects that will take place in the months and years
ahead. Do
we spread ourselves thinly by having gas as well as coal, or do we
concentrate on coal, which is a priority cost-wise? We have 300-plus
years’ worth of coal in this country; we do not have to go
abroad for it. If we can clean the dirtiest coal that is dug out of the
ground sufficiently for use, we will suddenly become self-sufficient
and have security before we go down any other energy
road.
Mr.
Weir: I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman is
saying, but the point being made about gas is that we have the gas
stations and will continue to have them for at least the next 20 or 30
years. If we are to meet our target, we have to clean them up. We need
to deal with that while we wait to get the new CCS coal stations online
or we will never meet our carbon
targets. 5.15
pm
John
Robertson: Well, of course there are other ways to meet
those targets. The hon. Gentleman and I have had discussions about
energy in a few Parliaments, and he knows my opinion that nuclear has
to be part of the energy mix and will help to solve the
problem.
John
Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman lets me answer that
question first, I will let him in. I believe that at this time we have
other priorities than to put money into gas. That is not to stop any
companies that want to go down the road of investing in a project that
they are paying for. We are talking about how much money will come from
Government to assist the four projects. I can understand where the hon.
Member for Angus is coming from and I believe that we will go down the
gas road in the future, but I just do not believe that at this time we
should be doing
that. I
shall give way to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East if he still
wants to
intervene.
John
Robertson: Well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman’s
colleague.
Mr.
Binley: The hon. Gentleman is being very kind.
I do not understand the argument, because it seems to me
that all we are doing in proposing the amendment is opening up the
option. We are not spending any money. We are not committing the
Government to any action. We are simply opening up the option should it
be opportune at some
point. Why
does the hon. Gentleman think that the whole concept of fuel pricing
and exploration has suddenly stopped? We know that there are real
possibilities in the south Atlantic, specifically around the Falklands,
which
might be of great benefit to us. I was there only about a year ago. The
possibility is exciting. The world is an ever fluid, moving, ongoing
place, which is why we should keep our options open, not close them
down. I wonder why that would be the
case— The
Chairman: Order. Interventions need to be
short.
John
Robertson: I thank the hon. Member for Northampton, South
for his very short contribution. I understand what he is
saying, but I happen to think that the option is open and has not been
closed down. It is not in the Bill, but that does not mean that gas
exploration cannot be done. I think that the option is there. It is
just that the Government at this time want to put coal first and
foremost in the Bill. I think that they are right to do
so.
Mr.
Ellwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving
way; he has been very generous. I do not understand why the measure
cannot be included in the Bill. Is it because the Government are being
churlish? Is it simply because it was not their idea? I am asking him
to stand back from that. The question that I pose to him is whether he
recognises that by 2020 all the coal-fired power stations will be
either pre-combustion with carbon capture and storage attached to them
or obsolete, which means that the massive contribution to our energy
needs will be made by gas. With that in mind, when does he see his
attention turning to gas? When will he start considering the carbon
capture and storage requirements for that part of the energy
spectrum?
John
Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I happen
to think that with the rules that will, in the years to come, curtail
our use of coal as it is at present, and therefore run down our
coal-fired power stations, we will be left in a particularly difficult
position in which we will have to use gas in large quantities, but it
will not be British gas. It will be gas from Russia, the far east or
even Africa. I have a problem with
that. Therefore,
I want to ensure that although gas will be an important part of the
mix, it will not have any kind of sequestration on it; it will be gas
as we know it today. We have other ways of going down the road. I
believe that coal has to be given priority. I would not have a problem
with gas being in the Bill, but then again, I would not argue that it
is a necessity for it to be there, either. I do not believe that gas is
not
there. Hon.
Members want gas to be looked at and they want this to be done, but I
disagree with what is being said because as soon as that is written
into the Bill, that is what the interpretation will
be.
Mr.
Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
John
Robertson: I have given way to the hon. Members for Angus
and for Bournemouth, East, so there is only one Member I have not given
way to and I give way to him now.
Charles
Hendry: I am very grateful. I have always found that the
hon. Gentleman and I broadly agree on many of these energy issues, and
I have a great deal of time for him, but I have just listened to him
for five minutes explaining why the measure should not be in the Bill,
then he said that he would have no problem with it being in the Bill.
No one is suggesting that we add the words “gas-fired” to
the Bill. The suggestion is that we simply remove the words
“coal-fired”. As
the Bill stands, it would be against the law for £1 of the levy
to be spent on developing gas CCS; it could go only on coal-fired
generation. Therefore, the proposal, which seems eminently sensible, is
not to require this to be done on gas, which is what the hon. Gentleman
appears to be suggesting, but simply to make that possible so that it
could be done without the law being
broken.
John
Robertson: Another short intervention. I understand what
the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he also agreed with me earlier, when
I intervened on him, that coal was a priority. Therefore, if coal is
the priority, the Government are introducing what I think is a fairly
sensible Bill and ensuring that that issue is identified and looked at.
That will not stop this being done again in years to come, but I just
do not think that gas needs to be written into the Bill just for the
sake of doing it. That has nothing to do with whose idea it was,
because most of our ideas come from outside industry anyway. I do not
see why that has to be a
problem. I
will leave it to the Minister to explain why the Bill has been drawn up
in such a way. I am sure that it will be clear to everybody and that
the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his
amendment.
Joan
Ruddock: Obviously, this is quite a passionate debate,
with people raising many reasons why gas should be included and, as the
hon. Member for Angus says, quoting Professor Gibbins at some
length. I
have some difficulty here, because it seems to me that there is nothing
in the evidence with which any of us would disagree. We urgently need
to consider and plan for the decarbonisation of our whole electricity
supply. We also need to acknowledge a large part of the supply as
gas-fired. However, Professor Gibbins said clearly that we are talking
about into the 2020s and looking to 2030, when gas plants will still be
in use. Nobody is suggesting that we will not expect to want to have
CCS on gas at some point in the future; this is all about where the
priority
lies. There
is no question but that we would wish to understand CCS on gas. It is
clear to me that the potential is there to learn from other projects,
notwithstanding that all circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman said,
quoting Gibbins, are not identical. However, we expect to be able to
learn and that some aspects of CCS and coal in this country would in
themselves be applicable to gas, so there is no difference between us
in that
respect. The
hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was a contradiction in the
national planning strategy on energy. He quoted the provisions on
carbon capture readiness, but surely that only reinforces the fact that
the Government accept that there will be a need for CCS on gas in the
future. That is the sole reason why we have said that carbon capture
readiness is a necessary part of consenting to new
plant.
| 
