| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall check Hansard carefully, but I am happy to take on trust that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was correct in what he said in the introduction to his first supplementary question. I seem to be in the position of explaining that the fact that we are not necessarily in the majority on issues this week does not necessarily mean that we are wrong as a society.
The issue is essentially whether our citizens are suffering significant disadvantage as a consequence of not having a right of access to the United Nations human rights court. That is the real issue, and that is the issue on which the Government will have to come to a conclusion as a result of our review. I think that noble Lords have had a taste of the relatively narrow scope of the issue.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is not just a question of the extent to which these rights exceed those in the European convention, but whether Great Britain is setting a useful and effective example to the rest of the world in complying with our obligations under the ICCPR?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is correct that one of our aims is to set human rights standards for the rest of the world. Although I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the review, I am not necessarily convinced that signing the optional protocol would make the most significant difference. What really counts is the reality of what happens domestically and the ability of our courts and of Parliament itself to uphold the rights of our citizens. Those are the fundamentals of the issue.
Energy Bill [HL]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Whitty.)
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1362
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
1 Clause 1, Leave out Clause 1
2 Clause 2, Leave out Clause 2
3 Clause 3, Leave out Clause 3
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3. I shall refer also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 8A, which logically go with them. I shall start by addressing Amendment No. 1, which deletes what was Clause 1 in the Lords Bill, and Amendment No. 31, which the Commons have proposed to replace it. There has been considerable debate in both Houses during the passage of this Bill about security of supply—and rightly so.
It is fair that I should pay tribute to the efforts of some who participated in the debates, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Jenkin, whom I see here today, for making contributions on that topic, and who were behind the original amendment on security of supply, which would have placed a requirement on the Secretary of State to,
The Government recognised that that amendment, which was carried against our advice, was well intentioned, but it would have had unintended harmful consequences, creating uncertainty in the market and would have undermined firms' incentives to invest in a timely manner. It would also have had an effect on the independence of the regulator and so on. That was not only our view; it was also the consensus in the industry. We could not therefore accept the noble Lords' amendment.
However, we listened carefully to the concerns expressed in both Houses. In Commons Committee, the opposition parties came forward with an alternative amendment, which we considered a good way to address the concerns expressed and to reflect in legislation the Secretary of State's ultimate responsibility for security of supply and her accountability to Parliament for its delivery, without causing unintended consequences in the existing regulatory framework. So, we tabled an amendment on similar lines, which was accepted on Report in the Commons and appears as Amendment No. 31 today.
Amendment No. 31 requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the availability of electricity and gas for meeting consumer demand in Great Britain and to lay that report before Parliament. As we signalled in the Commons, it is our firm intention that there should be a debate on the report in Parliament each year.
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1363
The report would have to cover energy security in both the short and the long term. By "the short term", we mean the next year or so, and by "the long term" we would talk generally about a span of the next 10 years or so, although different aspects of the report may lend themselves to different timescales. For example, the NGC currently forecasts plant margins seven years ahead in its seven-year statement, whereas there are government plans for the renewables obligation, which extend well beyond 10 years.
The amendment specifies that the report must cover three areas in particular: generating capacity—the plant margin—the availability of gas infrastructure, which we have defined as including pipelines and terminals; and the availability of electricity and gas networks to get the supplies to consumers. That list is not exhaustive. It is subject to the more general requirement that the report must deal with the availability of gas and electricity. This will necessarily mean that we have to consider some wider issues.
The amendment also specifies that the report is to be prepared jointly by the Secretary of State and Ofgem. This reflects the complementary roles that the Secretary of State and Ofgem have in relation to security of supply. There are some areas—for example, the enforcement of licence conditions—which are properly delegated to the independent regulator, and the necessary expertise therefore lies with Ofgem.
Amendment No. 31, which replaces the previous amendment, is a proportionate and appropriate way of emphasising the Secretary of State's ultimate responsibility for security of supply. It would enable Parliament, industry and the public to scrutinise that assessment and to call the Secretary of State to account. It has the support of industry and had the support of all parties in the Commons. So, we have come a long way since the original discussions to something like a consensual position on that.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 8 would impose various reporting duties on the Secretary of State. Your Lordships will remember that during our first debate on Clauses 2 and 3 I pointed out that it was not necessary to impose reporting requirements in legislation. I seem to make that point in most legislation that I deal with in this House. The Government are in fact already required to publish a yearly report on progress made towards meeting the energy White Paper's objectives.
We said clearly in the White Paper that the Government would not achieve the targets without a wide degree of support and participation by a range of stakeholders. So we have a vested interest in ensuring that this is all open to public scrutiny. Therefore, we welcome the general duty in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. I believe that we now have a more informed debate on energy. We shall not necessarily agree on everything, which I suspect will become apparent in the course of today, but we have had a more informed debate since the publication of the White Paper. The report will provide a further basis for that discussion, as will subsequent reports. As a result of concerns
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1364
expressed here and in the Commons, we proposed a new clause that would encapsulate the essence of Clauses 2 and 3. The main difference is that our new clause amends the general reporting requirement in the Sustainable Energy Act, so that the relationship between new and existing duties is completely transparent. It will require information to be provided on precisely the same list of low-carbon energy sources as is set out in existing Clause 2, with the addition of coal-mine methane, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and others have been concerned with. The new clause goes further, with item (k) broadening the remit to include any other source of energy that may help to reduce carbon emissions.
The new clause departs from the previous Clause 2 in other ways, but only to ensure that the provision is workable. As it stands, Clause 2 would impose unreasonable demands on information requirements, but as reconstituted it is a more realistic basis for that report.
As regards Clause 3, the original amendment regarding energy efficiency has been incorporated into the new clause. The text has been adjusted to make the strongest possible link with the Sustainable Energy Act, again for transparency and consistency. The report will set out steps to meet the energy efficiency aims for residential accommodation in England and Wales that have been published as a result of the requirements of the Sustainable Energy Act.
I am sure that some noble Lords will point out that the statutory energy efficiency aim is 3.5 million tonnes of carbon to be saved from household energy efficiency in England. In practice, we will of course report back on measures taken throughout the UK. So we shall be looking at the overall UK aim, which we have set at 4.2 million tonnes of carbon. That is different from the 5 million tonnes of carbon stipulated in the original clause, the justification for which was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others, on the basis that that was the figure in the White Paper. In fact, the White Paper suggested around 5 million tonnes of carbon, based on the carbon savings that we expected to be delivered by measures already in place. More detailed assessment has changed that view. In terms of the amount deliverable under existing measures, we think the figure of 4.2 million tonnes of carbon is more realistic.
I say in passing that the total amount that we now believe is deliverable in energy efficiency subsuming that 4.2 million tonnes of carbon, is actually 12 million tonnes of carbon, rather than the 10 million tonnes that was in the White Paper. Therefore, adjustments have been made more than compensating in other parts of energy efficiency, for example, as a result of the energy efficiency commitment being extended through to 2011.
The new clause proposed by the Government covers the key issues that were in the pre-existing Clauses 2 and 3, and it will provide a more comprehensive and understandable reporting framework. I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to accept these amendments.
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1365
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3—(Lord Whitty.)
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |