Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill
Debate between Peter Bone and Matt Hancock
Matthew Hancock
Wind turbines require a low wind speed in order to operate and the offshore wind turbines have a very high rate of operation. Moreover, what matters for energy policy is the overall output from any given technology, and while the wind may not be blowing in Devon it may be blowing in Suffolk, so we need to look at intermittency and the impact of the policy throughout the country.
I now want to turn to the impact of intermittency on the stability of the national grid. Research by the Royal Academy of Engineering shows that the grid can accommodate up to 26 GW of wind energy by 2020 without significant grid reinforcement being required, and that is split evenly between onshore and offshore wind—about 13 GW each—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough set out. We should not be complacent, however. Grid improvements are going to be needed to deal with intermittent renewables of all types and the increasing new nuclear programme. We cannot wait; we need to take action on that now—and, indeed, we are doing so. We will need to be innovative in terms of technology and operational and market incentives to meet this challenge.
I also want to address the point my hon. Friend made about constraint payments. Constraint payments occur when there is insufficient transmission network capacity between where the electricity is generated and where it is used. They are a long-standing part of the system, and to ensure the secure operation of the electricity system the grid is required to balance the supply and demand of electricity at all moments in real time. A cost-efficient transmission network will always have a degree of constraint by design. This system predates wind farms and most constraint payments continue to relate to fossil fuel generators, not wind farms.
National Grid has estimated that about 2% of total metered wind farm output was curtailed in 2013-14. In October 2012 we put a condition in generators’ licences to ensure they cannot profit unfairly from constraints. Constraint costs for wind farms have more than halved since, and we estimate that the total constraint costs of £340 million in 2013-14 represent about 0.7% or £4.20 of the average electricity bill. Of this, £47 million, or about 0.1% or 60p of the average household bill, relates to wind farms. In the medium and longer term, delivery of planned transmission investment will reduce these constraint payments, and there is upgrading work at the moment to ensure that happens.
Another issue that is often raised is whether wind farms actually deliver carbon savings. Wind power has one of the lowest carbon footprints compared with other forms of electricity generation. Work by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology published in 2011 looked at the carbon footprint of different forms of electricity generation. This carbon footprint assessment was calculated according to the “life cycle assessment” which aims to account for the total quantity of greenhouse gas emitted over the whole life cycle of a product or process—the making, transporting and erecting of wind farms, as well as their operation. The study found that there was a footprint of 488 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh for a combined cycle gas turbine and 5.2 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh for installations off the coast of Denmark. Further studies demonstrate that, even taking into account the whole life time impact on carbon emissions, wind farms have an incredibly low impact.
I want to address a point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central about the pipeline and industry. Our offshore wind pipeline is very strong. The UK has the most fully installed operational offshore wind capacity in the world—more than 4 GW as of March 2015—and we are committed to a further expansion, with the UK on track to generate around 10 GW by the end of the decade.
As the Prime Minister has said, onshore wind has an important role to play, and much has already been built and we are set for having 10% of electricity from onshore wind. Let me make it clear that we are committed, once we have reached this 10% which is in the pipeline already, to removing the subsidy and putting onshore wind into the planning system, and also to changing the planning system so that local councils have the decisive say. As the Prime Minister has said—and my hon. Friend read out—if they can make their case, they can, but I suspect they won’t.
Mr Bone
The Minister is addressing this point at more length than I thought he would, as I thought it was uncontroversial. He has just referred to the Prime Minister’s comment that when we have this 10%, we are going to get rid of wind farm subsidies. I am just trying to help the Prime Minister bring that forward. I am not entirely sure whether the Minister is supporting or opposing the Prime Minister, and I think the Prime Minister would like to know.
Matthew Hancock
I am sure the Prime Minister would, and I anticipate that come Monday morning he will be reading Hansard closely to follow the debate. I support the Prime Minister—he will be glad to know—but I do not think this Bill is the right way to enact that policy, and I was going on to explain precisely why. I have a lot of sympathy with this, not least because we are reducing the subsidies for onshore wind. The costs of onshore wind are falling, but the question is how we approach this subject, which is why I was talking about the industry. We want to make sure that, especially with the increasing offshore pipeline that is being built up, we can act in a reasonable way that ultimately removes the subsidies for onshore wind. I also want to go further and bear down on the subsidies for all renewables, and we are putting in place policies to do that as well. So we will remove the subsidies for onshore wind, but we need to do it carefully.
I have read my hon. Friend’s Bill and think it has an unintended consequence: removing the support in the way set out in this Bill would have the unintended consequence of our not honouring commitments signed up to in good faith by the British Government, and the UK Government unambiguously honour their debts.
Mr Bone
I want to make it clear that the Bill absolutely does not do what has been suggested. Existing agreements are to continue for the very reason the Minister explains. Only for future onshore wind farms will there be no subsidy. It will continue for the ones that are in place—and this is only Second Reading so any such details will be sorted out in Committee and we will be able to make progress very quickly.
Matthew Hancock
I take that as my hon. Friend’s stated intention, but that is not what the Bill would do. There are wind farms under construction that expect to come under the existing subsidy regime and they are being built in anticipation of fitting in with legislation passed by this House in the last year or so on what can fit within the renewables obligation. This Bill would remove the subsidy from them because of the way it is phrased. Clause 1(2) states that only those
“onshore wind farms already operational prior to this Act coming into force”
would be placed outwith the Bill, whereas we have said that the renewables obligation will end next year or, in some circumstances, in 2017. There are people who have committed, in anticipation of legislative support.
Matthew Hancock
My hon. Friend is an incredibly persuasive man, but this technical point is important enough to mean that we are still going to have to resist the Bill, while at the same time holding to our clear position of removing the subsidies for onshore wind in an organised and careful way.
Matthew Hancock
I have considerable sympathy for that point of view. We have made it absolutely clear that we will remove onshore wind subsidies in the future, and that the current 10% that is in the pipeline for onshore wind is plenty. After that, if the planning system allows a wind farm to go ahead, and if people want to come forward with a non-subsidised wind farm—and given that the planning system will be tightened to ensure that local people’s voices are heard—there could be future opportunities. As the Prime Minister has said, if they can make their case, they will do so, but I suspect that they will not.
The commitment from Conservative Members is clear. I personally have fought against the placing of onshore wind turbines in some of the most beautiful parts of Suffolk—and therefore the most beautiful parts of the country—in landscapes that were admired and painted by Constable in years gone by and that have changed little since. As a constituency MP, I have fought proposals to put wind farms in places where they would damage the local environment and the local amenity. The policy that we inherited had an override over local considerations because of the impact on climate change of putting up wind farms.
So we have taken steps in the planning system, some of which have been mentioned today, but we are clear that where local people do not want wind farms, the planning system will be strengthened, and there will not be these subsidies when we can remove them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) asked, not unreasonably, for a deadline, so I shall set it out this way. The 10% of the electricity system from onshore wind is expected by the coalition Government by 2020—that is a Government figure—and the Prime Minister has set out that then there will be no need for future subsidies. If, as the costs of all renewables come down, we are able not only to deal with the problem of climate change, but to do so in a way that allows us to remove subsidies sooner, so be it. That framework sets a clear deadline, but the clarity of our commitment to remove subsidies for onshore wind is stark—we shall do this. I hope that gives him the commitment he was seeking.
Mr Bone
I am not sure whether the Minister is talking as a split personality. Is he referring to a coalition commitment or a Conservative party commitment? Is the commitment to having 2020 as the back-stop as the latest time when the wind farm subsidies will go—although it could be earlier—a Conservative commitment or a joint Conservative-Liberal Democrat commitment?
Matthew Hancock
It is certainly not a joint Conservative-Liberal Democrat commitment. Let me be absolutely clear about the distinction. The 10% projection for onshore wind by 2020 is a coalition Government figure—that is a fact on which this discussion can be based—but the commitment is a Conservative party commitment for a future Conservative Government, and we are absolutely clear about that. The distinction is important, but given that we are only a few weeks away from the Dissolution of this Parliament, the way I have been expressing it is that things that have happened in the past and up until now are coalition Government facts or positions, but those relating to the future are, of course, Conservative party positions. That is because we hope and expect to be governing as a single coalition—my goodness, that was a mistake: a single Conservative Government after the election. I hope I have made that precise distinction clear, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to do so.
Before bringing things to a close, I want to set out why we need to do this in a measured way. The decision by Siemens and Associated British Ports to invest £310 million in offshore wind turbine manufacturing in Hull will create 1,000 direct jobs. It was a significant event for that region last year and it will provide an anchor for building the UK-based supply chain, as well as much-needed skilled jobs in one of the most deprived parts of the UK. To a large extent, that decision was based on the expected size of the UK market, but of course there will be the ability to export overseas. Offshore wind is one area where we have a dedicated industrial strategy, created and delivered by a partnership between government and industry, to ensure that we have the right conditions for UK companies to take advantage of this investment. I wish to pay tribute to and highlight the work of the Offshore Wind Investment Organisation—
Matthew Hancock
The research is being done by the Institute of Acoustics and it is hard to argue that it would make anything other than a fully objective statement and analysis. We need a view on appropriate advice about the impact of this excessive amplitude modulation and what thresholds might be set in planning considerations, which comes back to the point made earlier about the tighter planning conditions we have already put in place and that we propose in future. We are preparing a specification for the review and intend to publish an invitation to tender soon. I will take into account the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes to make sure that we are careful to ensure that the analysis undertaken is truly objective and we will appoint a contractor to conduct the review as soon as we can after the conclusion of the tendering exercise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough mentioned planning and the changes we have introduced and propose to introduce in the next Parliament under a majority Conservative Administration. We have already set out how we are putting in place measures to protect consumers from the cost of supporting wind farms, but we must also protect communities from poorly sited wind farms that are put up in a way that ruins England’s green and pleasant land.
British Values: Teaching
Debate between Peter Bone and Matt Hancock(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
Mr Bone, I hope that you, like me, have found this to be an enlightening, well thought through and extremely reasonable debate. It has been positive, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on securing it. I will try to address his five points and some of the points raised by other Members, but we need to set the debate in context. The question of the values that tie us together as a country is a crucial point that has been raised and relevant through the ages. This debate is not on a new subject, but one that has been raised throughout history.
It is best to start on the point about universal values and the question of what British values are. As has frequently been stated, the Government have set out that British values are
“democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we could all unite behind those values, and I certainly hope that we can, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) rightly pointed out, we are complacent if we say that that is easy or natural. British values are not universal around the world, and we should be proud that they are very widely, if not universally, accepted here at home. Those universal values flower in Britain because of the protection of our strong democratic state, defended through liberty—with blood, in times gone by—by our forefathers and the forefathers of those from many different backgrounds.
To seek to defend those values, and the British polity that protects them, is a valuable task. In that, I thought that many of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen were astute, but it was a sad irony that in arguing that we should come together in many of these things, he sought to find points of division where none exist. The argument for a conscious focus on nation building is one that we support. He argued not for a legal basis in that space, but for providing teachers with the powers and resources to enable them to deliver. While it is crucial to ensure that we defend British values by specifying what is not acceptable, that inevitably ends up with a legal basis for intervention. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) pointed out in describing the paradox of tolerance, if we are to ensure that we promote British values—including ensuring that we take action against extremist ideologies that are anathema to them—there need to be legal elements. There is, however, much, much more to the issue. For example, the broadening of the history curriculum is one part of a response to a need to strengthen the underpinning of British values that has been under way over the past few years.
On the promotion of citizenship and British values in the curriculum, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen made an odd critique about citizenship and Ofsted. Of course Ofsted inspects on the teaching of spiritual, moral, social and cultural education. That is a core part of its framework, and the argument that it did not inspect for that is, frankly, wrong. His point on involving young people in debate is important. Having listened to his speech very closely, I argue that there is much more that unites than divides us.
There is another crucial point, which everyone in the debate has touched on: British values are not simple and British identities are often multiple. I did not even know that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East had a Jewish background. Being Jewish and British is a widely held identity, much like being Scottish and British, English and British or Welsh and British. Once we get to Ireland it is slightly more complicated, because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, rather than Great Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) set out, however, identities expand to being Indian and British and many other different backgrounds. Nevertheless, the reticence with which some express British values, and the argument that it is rather British to be reticent about expressing British values, which I recognise, should not prevent us from setting out expectations on shared values. British values are a core set of beliefs that support and ensure freedom, liberty and tolerance and underpin the way we want our society to function.
The debate rightly touched on the issues in Birmingham schools. We are clear that we need to learn lessons from what happened there. I will deal with a couple of technical details before going on to the broader point. In 2008, when concerns were expressed, the schools were maintained schools. Much progress has been made in maintained schools. They must promote the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils so that they can participate in wider society, and they must promote community cohesion. The strategy for creating the conditions for integration recognises the critical role that local organisations, including schools, can play in bringing communities together. Existing advice on teacher misconduct confirms that misconduct includes:
“Actions or behaviours that undermine fundamental British values, democracy and law, promote…extremism, or demonstrate deliberate intolerance and/or lack of respect of the rights, faith and beliefs of others”.
Maintained schools are also required under the citizenship curriculum to teach pupils about subjects including democracy and human rights.
Those requirements are only part of the wider answer to the question on British values, of which the teaching of history is also part. Here I come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), because he, in his eloquent articulation of British values, warned against those who would try to divide us and pointed to the special role of Dover and its white cliffs in the British story. We should pay heed to his words. Having said that, we will take further action, in addition to the action taken since 2010, to strengthen guidance to schools to set out more clearly our expectations. That follows the publication of the Government’s Prevent strategy, which focuses not only on tackling directly violent extremism, but extremism more broadly. That is necessary to tackle the roots of violent extremism, and the Secretary of State has set out that we will consult on further action.
On Monday, we launched a consultation on strengthening the wording of the independent school standards, which apply to independent schools, academies and free schools, to require schools actively to promote principles that encourage fundamental British values. That builds on the change made last year to include a requirement to encourage pupils to respect fundamental British values. In addition, we will also require teaching
“on the strengths, advantages and disadvantages of democracy and how democracy works in Britain, in contrast to other forms of government in other countries”.
The guidance also describes the outcomes that independent schools, including academies and free schools, will be expected to demonstrate. That shows that the accountability of academies and free schools is stronger than that of maintained schools, not least because of inspection by the Education Funding Agency as well as by Ofsted.
Finally, I want to pick up on one point made by the shadow Minister. He said that there was no accountability whatsoever in academies. I would say that—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that time has beaten us. I would like to thank all hon. and right hon. Members for co-operating to get everyone in, and for an interesting debate.