| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ezra rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19, at end insert "but do propose the following Amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill—
19A* After Clause 119, Insert the following new Clause—
"Annual assessment on Combined Heat and Power
In section 47 (general functions) of the 1989 Act, after subsection (1)(b), insert—
(c) to publish an annual assessment which shall outline what has been the particular impact of the Authority's activities in relation to Combined Heat and Power.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has told us about CHP. I was particularly pleased that the Government are now seriously considering additional measures. It is becoming obvious that the target of 10 megawatts by 2010 cannot be achieved. The latest figure given is 8,500. We know that there are 2,000 megawatts of potential CHP on hold at the moment and further doubt has spread throughout the sector.
It is satisfactory that talks are taking place in an active way to find out other measures that may not require legislative backing, which would, of course, impose further delay. I was particularly interested in what is suggested in relation to what is known as the spark spread. That is the difference in the price paid for the gas and the price obtained for the electricity. I wish those discussions well.
However, I believe that it would be a great pity if the Bill were to go forward without any reference whatever to CHP. Therefore, I have proposed a very simple, unobtrusive amendment that at least mentions CHP and mentions it in relation to Ofgem. The fear has been that as a result of the way in which Ofgem has operated, particularly in the new electricity trading arrangements, CHP has come out of it badly.
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1394
It may well be that Ofgem is really taking CHP very seriously these days, in which case, it would be helped by the amendment that I have proposed; which is that, under the Electricity Act 1989, it should publish an annual assessment which will outline what has been the particular impact of the authority's activities in relation to combined heat and power. That will bring home the importance of CHP to the authority and will bring CHP into the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 19A in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill".—(Lord Ezra.)
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, what a deal of kicking, pushing and shoving is necessary to persuade Ministers to move in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, indicated a few moments ago. Again and again, this matter has been raised. The association that represents the industry has been assiduous in promoting its cause to both officials and Ministers. I share the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that something may at last come of it.
I have two points. The first relates to the speech—I heard most of it—that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, addressed to the CHP Association at its lunch in the Cholmondeley Room on 10 June. It sounded extremely friendly to the industry. However, it came at a time when the Government had moved to leave out Clause 120, which this House had put in. I am told that David Green has asked the Minister's private office if he might have a copy of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on that occasion, but he has so far been refused. That was, in a sense, a public occasion. There must have been more than 100 people present, most of them from the industry, but with a number of Members of this House and the other place who support the Combined Heat and Power Association. I find it astonishing that a Minister's office should decline to provide the association with a copy of what the Minister said. I hope that the Minister can now give us an undertaking that it will indeed be forthcoming. The incident suggests that Ministers, when appearing in front of a particular audience, were very happy to say how much they applauded and approved of everything that it did, while actually taking legislation through the House which was denying it any further help.
My second point reinforces what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra: the amendment is proposing yet another aspect of power generation on which Ofgem will be obliged to report. It is not asking for any specific relief. I understand the arguments that were made in relation to the amendment about the ROCs. We received a good deal of representation from the rest of the industry about that. However, I hope very much that the Government really can now accept that Ofgem should report in line with what the Minister said about the consideration that the Government are giving to the scheme that was put forward by his honourable friend Alan Whitehead in another place.
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1395
That would be a useful step forward, but Parliament needs to be told what is taking place on that front. Many of us have received representations from what is an extremely active trade association that represents an important part of the energy industry. We really are owed a regular update of what is happening in this field. I hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, can be accepted.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister will obviously appreciate that we have all been very disappointed that Amendment No. 19 would leave out Clause 120, because we thought that we had had such a great success in introducing CHP to the Bill in one way or another. We are very disappointed to see the removal of the clause.
However, like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I welcome the comments made by the Minister in responding to the amendment. Indeed, I am intrigued by what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said about what the Minister was able to say at that CHP reception. Regrettably, I met the Minister coming out as I was going in because I had been delayed elsewhere. There was not a written report of the meeting so I did not know what the Minister had said.
If the Minister really means what my noble friend Lord Jenkin reported that he had said, and, indeed, what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra believed to be the case after listening to the presentation of this amendment today, he should welcome and support it. That would at least give us a way of coming to the issue. Since it is not only noble Lords but also the CHP that is requesting something, perhaps I may read a brief note that David Green sent to me. Before I came into the Chamber, I looked at the amendments that we had moved on Report on this matter and I was quite certain that the Minister would not be able to bear it if we repeated them. They went on from page to page and column to column. I did not know that I knew quite so much about the subject until I read Hansard again this morning. David Green's note states:
I think everybody would agree with that. It continues:
"It has contributed to the sorry story of inaction on CHP that is the Government's approach to CHP. Indeed I very much regret that the Government saw fit to remove this Place's changes to the Energy Bill in relation to CHP".
David Green points out that the Government have not managed to come forward with any genuine proposals, other than those few which relate to micro-CHP. They have come forward with nothing more substantial than that.
I urge the Minister to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. If he is unable to do that, will he tell the House what the Government plan to do to get the CHP policy back on track? It would remedy the serious problem if he were simply to say that it is an easy amendment for him to accept, which we believe that it is.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not want entirely to destroy the consensual atmosphere, although I suspect
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1396
that by the time we have finished on this amendment, I will have. Before I address the amendment, I must respond to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Without beating about the bush, he effectively accused me of saying one thing in one place and another thing in another. He also accused my private office of being unco-operative. I refute both of those charges.
On the speech that I made at the CHP reception, I am informed that my private office never received a request for a copy of it, but it may be that David Green has mentioned it to me personally and that I have said to him, as I say to noble Lords now, that I do not always stick very closely to any prepared speech. I do not stick to them even in this House, as noble Lords will have noticed from time to time, and in the case of receptions, I very often speak off the cuff. There is therefore no text of my speech. What that speech covered was what I said in Committee in relation to the renewables obligation; namely, that we would give the matter serious consideration, but that the time to do so was not in this legislation, but in the review of the renewables obligation next year and that, as I said a few minutes ago, we need to do more to enable the CHP industry to reach its target of 10 gigawatts. That is a very serious problem which is facing government as a whole and my department as the prime department with responsibility for CHP in particular. I agree that more needs to be done in that respect.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |