Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Deben

Report stage
Monday 17th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for emphasising the mitigation hierarchy in her amendment and for her speech. It is something that is really important to take notice of offshore. I was pleased to add my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Sheehan, and I have great sympathy with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. However, I will speak primarily to Amendment 131.

I guess that if this Bill had come before this House three years ago, I would not have even contemplated putting an amendment down about no more coal, because it would have been totally and absolutely obvious that it would be a really stupid thing for any nation—let alone the United Kingdom—to do. However, we are in the situation where we have the Government saying that a coalmine in Cumbria should actually go ahead. I put this amendment down because I now wonder, if we have one, what else could happen. It is not specifically about Cumbria, but Cumbria is important.

Let us look at Cumbria for a moment. First, the issue does not revolve just around the production of coking coal for steel. That is estimated to be only 15% of production. The other 85% is expected to be exported. Of course, once that coal leaves our shores, we have absolutely no control over it; it is a commercial decision. We have no control over what that coal is used for, and almost certainly it is going to be used for energy and power generation. Even if we take that 15%, which is supposedly for coking coal, we have a situation where the UK steel industry is actually moving away from carbon-intensive methods into green steel. At the moment, we are some way behind our friends and colleagues in the European Union, in that they have some 38 green steel plants under plan and 10 operating at the moment, all mainly green hydrogen produced by electrolysis. The one proposed in the UK is blue hydrogen with carbon capture and storage, but that is the future. The future is not steel produced by coking coal.

So, in a way, the Cumbria mine project should be unacceptable to us, yet Michael Gove, who I had huge respect for when he was Defra Secretary of State and who introduced a huge number of important environmental improvements and plans that are still echoing beyond his tenure in that role, in December last year—only five months ago—approved the plan for that coal mine. Rather cynically, he approved it up to 2049, one year before we have to have net zero in the United Kingdom.

One of the main reasons I have tabled this amendment, apart from the fact that I would not have thought it even possible that the United Kingdom would contemplate opening a new coal mine, is our international reputation. Of course, as Members will remember, we were the president of COP 26. We had a very successful conference in Glasgow and most of us—all of us, probably—congratulated Alok Sharma on the work he did as president of COP 26. During that conference, the UK Government put out a press release about their own success. This was in November 2021, only some 18 months ago, and it heralds:

“The end of coal—the single biggest contributor to climate change—is in sight thanks to the UK securing a 190-strong coalition of countries and organisations at COP26, with countries such as Indonesia, South Korea, Poland, Vietnam, and Chile announcing clear commitments to phase out coal power”.


The end of coal; that is the message.

The BEIS Minister at the time, someone called Kwasi Kwarteng—noble Lords may have heard of him—said:

“Today marks a milestone moment in our global effort to tackle climate change as nations from all corners of the world unite in Glasgow to declare that coal has no part to play in our future power generation. Spearheaded by the UK’s COP26 Presidency, today’s ambitious commitments made by our international partners demonstrate that the end of coal is in sight. The world is moving in the right direction, standing ready to seal coal’s fate and embrace the environmental and economic benefits of building a future that is powered by clean energy”.


I applaud that statement. It is strong, determined and absolutely to the point. Yet we are about to have a coal mine that will produce coal not just for an outdated steel technology but to be used for power generation.

I am very proud of Britain’s reputation on climate change. On my Benches and others we have criticised many aspects, but we have shown, over coalition Governments, Labour Governments and even the present Conservative Government, that we have moved forward—further, in many ways, than our fellow G7 countries. That is why it is absolutely wrong that we should trash that reputation by one decision to open a new UK coal mine. Who knows? If that happens once, it can happen again. That is why this amendment is so important.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, first, I have to say to the last speaker that I did not like that word “even”; this Government have introduced the highest targets of any country in the world. They have led the world in the most remarkable way and we should thank them for it—but that makes the argument against coal mines even stronger.

The Climate Change Committee is very careful not to overstep its mark. Its job is to advise on alternative methods and on the aims that we need to set the targets. Very rarely does it say that a particular measure is unacceptable. Indeed, in dealing with the question of new oil and gas, we have been very clear that the Government have to take into account the geopolitical position: you cannot just talk about the whole issue of the environment, because we are at war in Ukraine. We have a country determined to squeeze freedom out of Europe. We are concerned in all sorts of areas and we have to make very difficult decisions, so I hope my noble friend will remember how careful the Climate Change Committee has been in looking at these issues.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Deben

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I support the amendment. A question has come from a number of Benches and the Minister about the problem of trying to recreate London devolution in the north and elsewhere in the country. I understand that and I concede that there might be differences in the way it is implemented which are more relevant to those areas. However, I suspect it is dangerous to talk about the north because those cities to the left of the Pennines might not see it in the same way as those on the eastern side. The fundamental thing is not necessarily to make it the same—as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, this is a probing amendment—but why should metropolitan areas outside London have a second-division method of governance in comparison to what has been trialled and used in London, to a degree successfully, although not completely?

The areas of particular importance in this are sustainable development—which ties up completely with the outline planning rules introduced by the previous Government—and transport. When we discussed the Infrastructure Act last year we asked for a transport strategy—particularly around cycling and pedestrians— which I hope the Government and the Secretary of State are developing. It is important that this becomes part of the work of combined authorities.

This may not be the perfect amendment but it is necessary to include this kind of framework in the Bill for northern cities and combined authorities. Even though a direct comparison with and a copying of London legislation and regulations may not be completely appropriate, it is important to find something that fits the situation of combined authorities in the north and elsewhere that enables them to be successful. In that sense, I hope the Government will come forward with a different formula that meets those objectives.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I know that opposition to motherhood and apple pie is always disliked in this House, but the impression put forward by these amendments is very worrying. Do we have any indication that the governance of London has been affected by this, because any sensible mayor of any denomination would do the useful things that are listed here? However, some of them mean very little. For example, what can we take from subsection (2) of proposed new Section 117B, which states that any body or person a combined authority considers consulting must include any council within its area and,

“bodies of each of the descriptions specified in subsection (3)”?

Those bodies in subsection (3) include:

“(a) voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of its area;

(b) bodies which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or religious groups in its area;

(c) bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying on business in its area”.

Are there any bodies of any kind whatever not covered by that? It makes no sense. It is a list of things. Will a decision by the mayor be illegal which did not follow a discussion with a particular body providing for the interests of a small number of people in a particular ethnic group for whom it was not appropriate? This is a list of things which are good, valuable and helpful but totally not useful in the activities which we envisage the mayor carrying through.

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that the mayor should have serious concern about sustainable development; that he should have appropriate consultation; that it would be a good idea to ensure that transport strategies were,

“consistent with national policies and with such international obligations as the Secretary of State may notify to the mayor for the purposes of this section”.

However, I have my doubts about whether it would make any difference. If there are things to be said, they should be said when they are necessary. There should not be merely a list of things about which we can all feel warm because we have voted in favour of reminding people that it is a good idea to consult.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Deben

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

I am sorry to put this point but it is a worry and it comes from my own period as Minister of Agriculture. I remember a case in which the rules about poisoning squirrels in Scotland were different from those in England. One has to make the delicate point that neither beavers nor squirrels know when they cross the border. I therefore hope that we have adequate methods of dealing with this issue, simply because it makes a nonsense of this if we do not have a common view where we have a common land border. I know in many people’s minds this is a trivial comment, but it is an issue for all these devolved concerns. I wonder whether we are totally satisfied with the careful relationships between the nations and the English Government—otherwise, people will find themselves technically liable for having broken the law, simply because of the fact that animals move where they wish to and do not obey anybody’s law.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, perhaps I can also tackle beavers? The bigger problem, diplomatically, would be if they crossed the Tamar, rather than the Bristol Channel to Wales. I will leave that aside for the moment.

Whether these are Eurasian or American beavers has been a question for some time. I find it strange that it is so difficult to determine this. It is presumably a question of DNA, rather than their accents. Can we hear from the Minister when this might be resolved? Presumably if they are not Eurasian, a much darker alternative has to be faced.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Deben

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for missing the first minute of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I support the amendment. It has always seemed to me that there is a need to find a way in which to make energy efficiency more attractive to politicians, and I think that the noble Lord may have discovered that mechanism. The trouble with politicians is that they like boys’ toys, and it is always better to build something big that you can point to, so that in your dotage—which of course none of us is anywhere near—you can say to your great-grandchildren, “I built that great monstrosity there; it was one of the reasons why I felt that I had done something”. I fear that that is quite deep in the psyche of politicians. It is always easier to build or make something and then to have something to point to. Very often, those are important activities, but it always means that energy efficiency is at the bottom of the pile.

When I was the Minister responsible in the Department of the Environment, there was a tendency to ensure that those who dealt with energy efficiency were perhaps not the most exciting of people—not perhaps as thrusting or pressing as those who dealt with the big projects. I am sure that that is no longer true and that now we have people of immense thrust, but it is important to give them some help and support. This amendment does that.

We have had today the welcome decision by the Government that the Committee on Climate Change was indeed right to say that there is no basis for changing the fourth carbon budget. So we know what we have to meet. In that circumstance, energy efficiency is a crucial part. Members of the Committee should refer to the document that the climate change committee presented to Parliament only last week—I declare an interest as its chairman. It is interesting that when we produced our review of climate change action over the past five years—it also looks forward—no one from the global warming body that opposes these things was present. Nobody was there to find out the facts. Nobody bothered to turn up. It is worth saying as often as possible that those who deny climate change or dismiss its importance rarely appear to listen to the facts. In that document we make it clear that in fact the Government have so far, with their partners, met their targets. That of course has been helped, if that is the right word, by the recession. Again, we should congratulate the Government on saying that they are not going to take advantage of that additional success by reducing the requirement in successive carbon budgets.

It is a good idea to say when Governments get things right, particularly if one is going to say something about getting it wrong. The bit they have got wrong is that we have not got the energy efficiency operation anywhere near where it has to be if we are to meet our budget. As my noble friend Lady Maddock rightly said, the Minister will find it difficult to accept this amendment here and now. However, perhaps I may end by saying why I hope she will make sure that it is accepted before the Bill is passed. By making the amendment part of our infrastructure programme, we give to it precisely that attraction—the big picture—which it lacks if we are talking about a whole series of small things, which is the point that my noble friend Lord Jenkin made and which the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, himself made in his recent intervention.

I very much hope, therefore, that my noble friend will accept that this issue is crucial to meeting our carbon budgets. Those budgets have been reaffirmed today. Would it not be a good thing to celebrate that reaffirmation by accepting in principle, if not in practice at this moment, that the amendment should be part of the Bill?

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Deben will be delighted to know that last week I quoted his report several times in this Grand Committee in relation to zero-carbon homes. There were some useful data there. Also in this Grand Committee last week I welcomed the report by DECC on energy investment. The DCLG Minister at that time, though helpful, was not so interested in it. However, I congratulate DECC on its work on this issue, together with the £45 billion in investment. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, there is a whole section about energy efficiency in the report. It is the final section, and it would be nice if it moved up to the top, but it is indicative that recognition of the importance of this area is increasing.

The report, whose language I really like, states:

“There are £45-£60 billion worth of … investment opportunities”

still to be had. That looks good and we think, “Great, we can do more”, but what it means is that there is still some £65 billion-worth of work yet to be done on energy efficiency in the UK.

I can see that the Government are going in the right direction on this, but it is important to hardwire these issues into the decision-making process. This amendment provides one of the ways of starting to do that.

Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Deben

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I do not disagree at all with everything that my noble friend Lord Howell has just said, but it is worth noting that heating in most households in this country is by gas or, for people like me who are off the mains, by oil. None of the green taxes applies to either gas or oil.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I think that, when we are making these decisions, we ought to be particularly careful about the figures that we use. We must also understand why we are decarbonising at this rate. We are doing so because the economic advice from the best economists that we have is that it is the cheapest way to decarbonise. If we were to put it off, the cost would be considerably greater, so we should do it at this pace. We can disagree with this, but to do so would be to disagree with the best advice that we have been able to get. I must say, on behalf of the climate change committee, that, if I thought that there was a cheaper, more cost-effective way of doing it, I would do that. I am proposing this and have been pressing it because it is, by all the evidence, the best thing to do.

I think that we also ought to get the figures right. The average cost of decarbonisation for payers of the dual tariff—about 80% of users—is £60 per year at the moment. I am not suggesting that £60 is an unimportant matter, but when the average payment for fuel bills is £1,300, I think that we have to be careful about overemphasising the influence of the one thing upon the other. By 2020, the amount will be £100—and the figure will rise accordingly between now and then. I do not know what the average fuel bill will be in 2020, but the idea that £100 will be the major reason why the fuel bills will be high is not true.

We must take these figures seriously. This is one of the problems that we are facing. People are using figures that are clutched from the air. I have been watching Twitter and I find that people—sometimes, I am afraid, from my own party—are busy putting out tweets saying that if we had had a decarbonisation target after 2020 it would have increased our bills by £125 per year. This is totally untrue. The figure is £20, and the climate change committee has spent a great deal of time trying to get the best and most accurate figure possible. If the TaxPayers’ Alliance or others want to pick a figure out of the air, it is not for us to quote it. We are faced with a real issue here.

If, despite evidence mounting all the time—today we have been told of the highest increase in surface temperatures that we know of for a very long time—you still do not believe that climate change is immediate and dangerous and say that it is something that can be put, if I may use the phrase, on the back burner, then of course you can always say that this is not the moment to do this. However, I must say to my noble friend that in that case it will never be the moment to do it, because that is always true at any given moment. However, if you see that climate change is the most serious material threat to our society, as happily this Government do—and it is a common view across the House—the £60 being charged for the insurance against it seems a reasonable amount.

There is an argument, although it is not for the climate change committee to make it, that we might change where the money comes from. However, I do not think that there is an argument to say that we should not be spending the money. Therefore I think that we ought to be very careful when we are having these discussions that we do not talk in a way that distorts the argument, either by the size of the price that we claim or by forgetting that most people’s heating does not come from electricity—it comes from gas and other sources—and therefore they are not paying this. Neither ought we to forget that other countries are doing more than we are. Germany is doing more than we are and much of Europe is doing at least as much, as we can see by looking at the Danes. The rest of the world is moving in this direction in a very serious manner; whether it is today’s announcement from Mexico or the changes in China, we can see that this is happening all around the world. It is not that Britain is doing better than others or is out of step, but that we are doing what the world is doing, because the world recognises the threat. That means that we have to be very considerate about the condition and situation of vulnerable people.

I am not sure that these are the right amendments, but I have listened very carefully to what has been said about introducing this measure into the Bill in a more pronounced way. I think that the Government have probably got it about right, but I have listened with some care. However, it does not help the argument to use the poor as an argument against fighting climate change, because the people who will suffer most from climate change are the poor throughout the world—not just here but in Bangladesh, the Pacific, India and elsewhere. I find this argument about the poor really very upsetting.

Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Deben

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for missing the first couple of sentences of the introducer’s speech. I rise only to say that if the Minister were to suggest that there might be some contradiction between the work of the Committee on Climate Change—I declare my interest as its chair—and the work of this group, I would disagree. What is suggested here is an important part of the programme. One of the difficulties is that the Committee on Climate Change is asked to think forward to 2050, to ensure that Britain is able to reduce its emissions by 80%, and yet the necessary mechanisms for delivering that target often operate on a much shorter timescale. Indeed, the two most important proposals that are, or are likely to be, before this Committee, are both about that long-term timescale.

It is quite impossible to imagine a sensible parameter within which people can invest in the necessary improvements in our energy supply that does not go beyond 2020, which is why we propose a carbon intensity target for 2030. It is not possible, either, to continue with a situation in which we spend so little time thinking far enough ahead. My noble friend the Minister will not have had encouragement in this area, particularly from those concerned to ensure that there are no restrictions on what the Treasury may decide. The real problem is that that means the Treasury does not have a say in the long term, because in the long term these decisions are either made or they are not made at all.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin, who again contributed so much of value to this Committee, asked why—this may seem an unfair point, but I make it because it is burnt into me—in that terrible first energy White Paper of the previous Government, every single date was removed except 2050. In other words, every date to which any civil servant, or any Minister, could possibly have been held accountable, was removed—and we know that they were all in to start with. I remember that the White Paper answered none of our problems, because, for example, it would not even face up to the issue of nuclear generation.

If my noble friend looks for a reason, it is the whole of that White Paper and, above all, the attitudes that surrounded it. I do not blame the party opposite for that, although it might have put it right. I blame the whole atmosphere, which was that you must not nail your colours to any mast lest that ship did not sail in the hoped-for direction; you must never be tough about the decisions to be made because you might not turn out to be 100% right. This is the real issue my noble friend raised when he asked about the nature of the governmental process in Britain. Rolls-Royces work only when you have not only covered all the details and very small issues but forecast what the market will be like in five, 10 and 15 years’ time. It does not happen if you work on the basis of a day-to-day operation. I am afraid that we have become the kind of nation that finds it very hard to make long-term decisions. There is an awful phrase about selection, suggesting that we should not back particular solutions. If you do not back anything, you do not get anything in this long-term process. The reason that most people in government do not want to back things is because they are afraid that someone will hold them in some sense liable for it.

I therefore finish by expressing my deep concern that the British have become believers that if you do not do something, that is not a real decision—that real decisions mean doing things. It seems that we all have to learn again that not doing something can be just as serious a decision, with just as much of a long-term effect, as doing something. Yet we have built a system whereby the phrase, “Better not, Minister”, is heard more often than any other. I hope that when I was a Minister I made it clear that it was the one phrase that would never result in the response that was hoped for. My father taught me that there was no point in saying to him, “I want so-and-so because everyone else has it”. That meant I would never get it. I always wanted a cap-bomb, I remember, but I was never allowed it on the basis that I once said that everyone else at school had one. That meant I never had it. “Better not, Minister” is one of those phrases to which all Ministers ought to say, “That means we have to find a different answer from the one you are proposing”. I hope that my noble friend will take seriously the concerns that we all have about the fact that our system does not meet the demands of an energy programme that takes 20 years before anything comes to real fruition.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for also having arrived a minute after he started. I admit that I am a sceptic about the amendment, but I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell about consultants. For a very short period I was a consultant. Some of my best assignments were when we went into an organisation, they told us who to talk to—probably somewhere near the factory floor—we did so, they told us what we needed to do and then we told senior management what to do. They agreed, and it was a fantastic solution. All they really needed to do was talk to their own staff. They even knew that, but they did not have the credibility as management to do it. There are many lessons there.

There is another British disease, beyond what my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, have described: when there is a problem, you add another layer to the organisation without solving the fundamental problem. I have seen it in business and I have seen it in government. You do not have the guts, knowledge, determination and maybe the time to fix the real problem, so what do you do? You invent something else. When I used to deal with one of the world’s disasters, the common fisheries policy, they started off with quotas when they had a problem. They then started decommissioning, because that was not good enough. When decommissioning did not work, they introduced days at sea. When that did not work, they gave up for 10 years and finally decided to try another tack, which may give us the answer.

In Europe, when something is not quite right, they invent another body, such as the Committee of the Regions. That is an advisory committee, and I always get even more concerned when these organisations are advisory. If they have executive power, that means that you are putting your money where your mouth is: you are putting your belief behind an organisation and saying, “Yes, get on with it. We weren’t good enough. You go and do it”. At that point, you show commitment and it tends to prove that there is a real problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I, too, have great concern about the very late date here. It seems that this, perhaps ironically, is the one area where I would hope to put a maximum, which might be 450, in primary legislation but give the Secretary of State discretion to tighten that standard through secondary legislation as years go by. I would expect to do that in most other areas of life, perhaps through European legislation for car emissions, white goods and all those things where we expect to tighten emission and efficiency limits over time. If a number is put in the Bill for the next 31 years, obviously it could be changed by primary legislation but that would take time and would be difficult. Rather than mess around with an EPS, we might as well just say, “We want to stop any coal generating after 2020 and we will let the rest of it do what we want”. That is the effect of writing the Bill as it stands.

[Lord Deben]

Does my noble friend find it rather curious that we are prepared to put a date 31 years from now on this issue when we find it so difficult to give any long-term assurance that we need on any issue relating to reducing our emissions? In other words, it seems that we will do this for something that manifestly undermines our aims but we will not do it, even to the point of 2030, on things that might support our aims.

[Lord Teverson]

Indeed, although we have the situation, as I understand it—my noble friend will be closer to this—whereby the Government have to agree carbon budgets as they go along, this is contradictory to that same thing. I agree with him completely on that. I hope we can find a way to follow this amendment or to take out this very late date for a fixed emissions limit as high as that. In any other area of machinery or equipment, we would not accept this level of longevity for an emissions target.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I move into an area that on the whole is pretty contentious. I do so almost reluctantly because I am a great supporter of biomass. The question is: what should the characteristic of that biomass be? What is the truth behind the sustainability of that biomass? What does it mean in terms of major changes in the way in which we produce electricity, particularly from existing fossil fuel plants in the UK, in the context of the Bill?

We have already seen some of the effects of burning biomass. The major effect of course is in deforestation in developing countries. It was previously estimated that some 20% of global emission were produced by deforestation—by burning trees while they were standing in forests. That figure has been reduced to something like 10% to 12%, but it remains a major amount, and that is clearly adding to the stock of carbon in the atmosphere. More than half of it is accounted for by Brazil and Indonesia.

The low-carbon route map for our generation suggests that by about 2017 we will have some 6 gigawatts of biomass generation within the UK. Most of that will be around the use of coal plants as they are at the moment, co-firing or moving on to dedicated biomass generators instead. This is a major change to make while we are still trying to understand the whole-carbon cycle effect of that change. The amount of biomass required to feed that capacity of some 6 gigawatts is of course much larger than our own harvest of wood within the UK.

I do not necessarily oppose importing by ship from abroad. That is a very efficient and low-carbon way of bringing fuel into the UK, depending on where it comes from and on its road routes at either end. What concerns me is to understand the thinking of the Government on looking at the whole life cycle of biomass, in terms of it being used on that scale, within the United Kingdom. As I understand it, there is a rule before the ROCs can apply—and future financial benefits for renewable energy—stating that the biomass must be at least 60 % of emissions, as previously.

How are the Government looking at this now? Can the Minister describe the situation with European legislation, as I understand there are moves in this area to restrict or reduce the amount of fuel or biomass that can be used towards renewable targets? I want to understand how this Bill will fit within that potential scenario. Unfortunately, in many ways I am now convinced that it is not quite as straightforward as it was and that burning biomass is not a zero-carbon sum. If you reduce the stock of wood in the world, it will take some time to replace it. If that is within the current forestry limits or within the current limits in cutting down and using that wood, then that is sustainable. However, if we are going to increase it beyond that amount, then that sustainability becomes questionable. We need to pay rather more attention to these factors than we have done in the past, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of how the Government are looking at this and how we can ensure that this harvest is sustainable over its whole life rather than necessarily looking at it as a carbon-free, completely renewable resource for electricity generation. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben]

I should say to my noble friend Lord Teverson that having not perhaps been easy in my comments up to now, on this I say to him that this is a real and very difficult issue that I am sure the Government are thinking about very hard. This is because levels of sustainability differ in different circumstances. The Committee on Climate Change discusses this on a regular basis because it is extremely hard to keep up with the developing circumstances. What we do not want is to think that we have changed to a low-carbon alternative and discover that actually it is nothing of the sort. That is the worry that people have.

There is a second worry, which is that we are facing ever greater shortages of food. The one thing we do not want is to have a situation in which our battle against climate change—climate change itself causes some of the shortages of food—is then seen as a kind of competition with the provision of food. That is of course why biomass in those circumstances is so complex a matter. However, I say to my noble friend that no one has a simple answer to this and I am sure he is not going to give us one today; we would not expect one.

No one has a simple answer because we all started off on the wrong basis. For example, the green movement was very much in favour of biomass. It was therefore almost unquestionably a good thing until they began to recognise the potential downside. That meant there was a huge swing to the opposite direction. If we are not careful, we will find ourselves in extremes rather than finding some sensible place for the pendulum to stop.

It is also true that there are many vested interests in this area. The farming industry saw it as a wonderful way in which it could increase its opportunities of reaching markets because this was a new area that farmers could exploit. Of course, as food prices go up and their returns from food production become greater, it is a real issue for them too. While in the United States, I have to declare that I had a visit from the representatives of the so-called—“so-called” because I cannot prove this, as I will explain shortly—sustainable forestry industry. They came to explain to me, as chair of the Committee on Climate Change, that they were unhappy about what we had said about these issues. I said, “Do you have forests that are independently certified?”. “No,” they said, “but we know it’s all right”. I cannot accept that as a reasonable response. In the world out there, we must be careful about how we change our energy supplies and do not undermine the truth of what we are saying.

So I say to my noble friend: this is a difficult area. None of us expects him to have an easy answer, because no one else has. However, I hope he understands that we will have to look at this during the Bill and to come back to it on Report, simply because things are moving so fast that we need to be sure that we have done everything we can to protect the Government from later assertions that they have encouraged the substitution of one form of emission creation with another form of emission creation. That is what we have to guard against.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Teverson and Lord Deben

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I commend this point to the Minister on behalf of people who live in rural areas. I hope that he will be able to say to us that it is perfectly all right, but the fact is that many people in my former constituency and constituencies like it rely on liquid petroleum gas. It would be a great pity if they could not improve their circumstances. It is an important part of our programme and it would be a pity if, by some oversight, it was left out.

[Lord Teverson]

I, too, speak as a rural resident. There is a point to be made about LPG. Some of us find LPG difficult and have to survive on gas oil instead; that comes into the same category of fuels. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.