National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk
Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Whitehead(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Many things are being done alongside the changing nature of the system to make sure that it retains its resilience and ability to supply power on a no-failure basis. These include continuing to build out the grid, and bringing forward ancillary services, new forms of artificial inertia, long-duration storage and many other new instruments that the system will have to make sure that it continues on a stable and reliable basis. On the whistleblowers, yes, the investigation team will be led by a law firm, but it will report to a review panel consisting of the chair of the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, the shareholder non-executive director and the Ofgem director-general. That is entirely in line with making sure that whistleblowers’ interests within the energy delivery system are properly protected.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister please accept that it is very important to ensure that the whistleblowing arrangements work effectively? Otherwise, people will use this opportunity to attack the Government’s excellent policy on moving as rapidly as we can to renewable energy, which is much cheaper and crucial for our security. Will he stand up toughly for the whistleblowers, given that some people, for some reason or other, want to attack the previous Government’s sensible policies, which this Government have continued? Will he make sure that we move to a position in which we are sovereign in our energy?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I could not agree with the noble Lord more. Whistleblowing is and should be an essential part of all these processes. Whistleblowers have to feel safe in what they say so that it can be properly looked at and lessons can be learned if it turns out that they pointed out something that should be done. It is essential that we have an environment in which whistleblowing is protected and where whistleblowers are taken seriously. That is what the Government have done on this occasion, supporting exactly what the noble Lord said about the direction that the system is taking and why it is essential that we do not fall foul of completely unfounded attacks on that system as a result.
COP 30
Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Whitehead(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deben (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the way to increase energy bills is to go on with fossil fuels, which are the most expensive, and that the idea that we get cheaper energy by extracting more fossil fuels from the North Sea when we would be paying the international price for them is not sensible? Does he also agree that if Britain does not keep to this excellent policy, produced by Conservative Governments again and again, and supported by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, we cannot ask anybody else to do it? Would it not be the very worst thing for the British people to make global warming worse so that we have a climate in which we cannot live properly? Is it not the shortest of views not to recognise that we have to move as rapidly as possible to protect our children and grandchildren? Is it not about time we grew up and learnt the realities of life?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As on so many other occasions, I cannot find myself disagreeing with a single word the noble Lord, Lord Deben, says on this subject. I have been, frankly, in awe of his commitment and clarity on this issue over many years as chair of the Climate Change Committee. Indeed, we have spoken on a number of joint platforms with precisely this view in mind. The only thing I would add is to remind noble Lords that the recent fuel price crisis was a fossil fuel crisis of the volatility of global gas prices and it exposed the extent we are in hock to fossil fuels in a way that we would not be if we had a much lower portion of fossil fuels in our economy—preferably none at all. We would have a much more stable energy economy and a great deal of new investment and jobs to go with it.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
They are usually for 15 years, which means that a renewable development that is subject to that underwriting has, at the end of 15 years, a fully amortised and free energy solution for the future. Therefore, it is tremendously good long-term value, as far as that energy supply is concerned, to have that initial undertaking, which reduces and goes down to zero after that 15-year period.
Lord Deben (Con)
Would the Minister remind my noble friend that this was precisely the reason why the Conservatives invented this system at the time? It was done because we have a present system of very large companies, with a great deal of money, pushing fossil fuels all the time. If you are going to replace that, you have to provide an alternative. That is what was done, it is what the Conservative Governments continued to do, and what the present Government absolutely properly have continued.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Indeed, and the noble Lord will recall that the previous system of renewable obligations was a continued underwriting, whereas the CfDs we now have are an investment reducing over time, leading to the implementation of secure long-term supplies of renewable energy. I am happy to pay tribute to the then Conservative Government for effectively inventing CfDs, which were a tremendous step forward from the previous arrangements. Among other things, they have certainly secured the enormous increase in wind and other forms of renewables that have come forward as a result. If only the Conservative Government had not banned onshore wind last time, we would be even further forward.