 House of Commons |
Session 2009 - 10 Publications on the internet Energy Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Gosia McBride, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 21 January 2010(Afternoon)[Hugh Bayley in the Chair]Energy BillNew Clause 1Carbon
emissions performance
standard ‘(1) The Secretary
of State shall make provision by regulations for a carbon emissions
performance standard to set the maximum level of carbon dioxide that
may be emitted for each unit of output by any new coal fired
electricity generating
station. (2) The emissions
performance standard shall come into effect immediately on passage of
this Act and will be progressively lowered so that new coal fired power
stations will produce no carbon emissions from
2020.’.—(Simon
Hughes.) Brought
up, read the First time, and Question proposed (this day),
That the clause be read a Second
time. 1
pm Question
again
proposed.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following : New clause 2—Emissions performance
standard— ‘(1)
The Secretary of State may by regulation introduce an Emissions
Performance Standard to apply to all electricity generation
plants. (2) In this section
“Emission Performance Standard” means a restriction on
the amount of carbon dioxide that electricity generation plants are
permitted to
emit.’. New
clause 5—Carbon emissions performance
standard— ‘(1)
The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations or otherwise
for a carbon emissions performance standard to set the maximum level or
levels of carbon dioxide that may be emitted per unit of output by all
individual generating
stations. (2) The Secretary of
State shall review the emissions performance standard established under
section (1) no less frequently than every three
years. (3) In establishing the
level or levels of the carbon dioxide emissions performance standard in
section (1), and in carrying out the review required in section (2),
the Secretary of State
must— (a) take into
account the most up-to-date scientific knowledge about climate
change; (b) obtain and take
into account the advice of the Committee on Climate Change,
particularly in relation to carbon budgets, medium and long-term
emission reduction targets, and future emissions from the electricity
generating sector. (4) The
Secretary of State must introduce the standard under section (1) no
later than 12 months from the date on which this Act is
passed.’. Simon
Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): I presume
that it is still acceptable for us to be jacketless, if we choose to be
so, Mr. Bayley.
Simon
Hughes: Thank you. I had just finished by accepting that
we understood some of the points that the hon. Member for Wealden had
made about the difficulties of an over-precise clause. He made the
perfectly acceptable general point that there is a
consensus—certainly on the Opposition Benches. His party, my
party and the Scottish National party agree that there should be a
provision for emissions performance standards in the Bill.
Our proposal
expresses what we think should be the starting point for that debate. I
absolutely understand the points that the hon. Gentleman made; we need
to allow for the flexibility and definition that he suggested, although
I would not go as far as he would in having a completely open and
general clause. That would not be my preference.
The hon.
Gentleman made one other point, which was that there probably needs to
be a more precise definition of a new coal-fired power station. I
understand that the intention of the drafting was that it would be
defined as a power station that had not started operating before 2020
and was to start operating from then on. I think we can
accommodate that difficulty and that question of definition.
The hon.
Member for Angus, who was very sympathetic to the idea that we should
have emissions performance standards in the Bill, expressed a
preference—not a lack of support for new clause 1, but a
preference—for new clause 5. He said that we absolutely need
certainty, not least so that there can be the drive towards the
technological solutions that we all need down the road for carbon
capture and storage.
The response
from the Minister of State was partly helpful, but not as robust as I
would have liked it to have been. Perfectly reasonably, she set out the
Government’s general commitment and her specific commitment to
the cause of dealing with carbon emissions. It is a point that clearly
differentiates us from some people in other parts of the Committee and
the House. I noted her phrase—accurately, I hope. In respect of
emissions reductions, she wanted as much and as quickly as was
feasible. Of course, there is always the question of what is
feasible. My starting
point in the general debate, on advice, is that the ETS in the current
EU system will not be sufficient. The market of buying and selling,
although progressive and innovative, does not in the end—as it
were—capture the whole problem. As I understand it, that is the
Government’s position. That is certainly my interpretation of
the Committee on Climate Change’s position in its last report at
the end of last year. We need to find ways in which the cost of carbon
is better integrated into business decisions. The Minister very
specifically said that the Government had come to the conclusion that
the ETS does not entirely do that; it is a way of doing that, a
proposed step on the road. There will be a bigger debate about that
issue as more people become aware of the implications.
The Minister
was right to say that the ETS was not the only option. Although I
prompted her, I did not hear her say where the Government had a
preference; I am not suggesting that we open up the issue again, but I
would be grateful to be told, in writing if not now,
about the other options. She has listed two other options: a cap on
emissions of individual power stations and a rising hours limit. I do
not think that I heard her come back to that. If she wants to
intervene, I will be very happy to let her do so for the
record.
The
Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Joan
Ruddock): I was hoping that we might finish this morning;
that is why I suddenly speeded up and tried not to, perhaps, remember
as many questions as I might have. It is not our place at this stage to
look for preferences at all. The burden of my case is that we have the
rolling review and we look at the options as we progress in learning
about CCS. We will then look at what else might be necessary. That will
be the time to look at specific
choices.
Simon
Hughes: That is consistent with what the Minister has
said. I do not accept that a rolling review by 2018 will be sufficient;
it has all sorts of weaknesses in relation to determining the
market’s decisions. I understand the argument, but we could be
much more certain and thereby get much better
outcomes. The
last group of issues that the Minister raised related to the road map
and its budgets and consequences. She undertook to look at the question
of whether she would put into the public domain the rest of the
correspondence between our Government and the European Commission. It
would obviously be very helpful if she did so. I have shared the parts
of the correspondence that are, perfectly properly, now in the public
domain. The Minister says that there has been a further response, but
we have not seen the reply from the Commission. We would all benefit
from seeing that. I hope that there will not be a row about that, and
that the Minister can facilitate it at the earliest possible
opportunity after Committee
stage. I
note the intervention of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, who, as
always, asked pertinent questions. The debate is about how we best end
up with a system that minimises emissions and maximises certainty while
making sure that we incentivise people to find the solution that allows
and does not prevent coal to continue to be used. I think there is
consensus on that. We need a harder view to enable us to drive towards
that conclusion. Industry generally shows itself to be responsive,
given a long enough lead time. There is a competition issue, but, as
most of the consortiums are unlikely to be wholly British or only
British, and as lots of other international companies are
participating, there is an international, not just a national, interest
in our moving as far and as fast as
possible. We
had a substantial debate this morning, as befits a really important
issue. I accept that the new clause that I and my colleagues have
tabled will have to be modified. Instinctively, I would not want to go
as far as new clauses 2 and 5 unless I was driven to it. However, I am
absolutely clear that it would be much better for the Bill to include a
provision for emissions limits.
If we come up
with a different formulation of words, I hope we will be able to
persuade the Minister that a clause on a carbon emissions performance
standard would be acceptable and of benefit. As in other areas, I am
happy to talk to colleagues from other parties and the Government to
see whether we can make some progress between now and Report.
I understand
from the Leader of the House’s business statement that we are
likely to have a couple of weeks before the Bill returns. It was not in
the business announced for next week or the following week, so it
sounds as though we have a clear fortnight before it comes back. That
should give us time to get a substantial amount of work done. I hope
that we will be able to make progress and that the issue under
discussion will be included in the
Bill. Charles
Hendry (Wealden) (Con): We have had a useful debate about
the emissions performance standard. It is important for us to establish
a principle that we are in favour of the ability to introduce an EPS. I
agree with the hon. Gentleman in that respect. The benefit of the
approach that we have taken in new clause 2 is that that can be done
through secondary legislation, rather than through a new Energy Bill or
Act. The
Minister said earlier that she did not think that the EPS would be good
in relation to encouraging investment. That depends, however, on where
the EPS is set. An EPS set at a level with which industry is
comfortable and that it believes achievable would actually be helpful
to it in its investment discussions. It would know exactly what was
required by 2020, 2025 and 2030. The issue, therefore, is not whether
the EPS encourages investment, but the level at which it would be
set. We
think that new clause 5 has significant attractions. It also has
significant cross-party support, and there is a basis for developing it
further on Report. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey does not plan to press his new clause to a vote, I seek your
permission, Mr. Bayley, to press new clause 2. It is
important that we have the chance to say that in principle we support
the idea of an EPS and that Ministers and the Secretary of State should
have the power to put it in place in due
course.
Clause,
by leave,
withdrawn.
New Clause 2Emissions
performance standard ‘(1) The
Secretary of State may by regulation introduce an Emissions Performance
Standard to apply to all electricity generation
plants. (2) In this section
“Emission Performance Standard” means a restriction on
the amount of carbon dioxide that electricity generation plants are
permitted to emit.’.—(Charles
Hendry.) Brought
up, and read the First
time. Question
put, That the clause be read a Second
time. The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
9.
Division
No.
3] AYESNOESQuestion
accordingly negatived.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 22 January 2010 |