Philip Boswell
Main Page: Philip Boswell (Scottish National Party - Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
Chris Heaton-Harris
That is a very wise point, and one that I will come to later, if I may. I will just tease the hon. Gentleman briefly. It is possible to monitor such noise and predict where it might occur. Therefore, when amplitude modulation is causing distress to nearby residents and that is being monitored, it is possible with the agreement of the wind farm developer to stop the turbines turning during that period of time—this has happened in a couple of places in England—so the noise stops and everybody goes about their business happily.
I know that some of the proposals in Wales have been massive, and I have been working hard with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on some amazingly large proposals for his constituency. I know that the matter is of real concern to many people across Wales.
As I have said, the current guidelines do not require amplitude modulation to be monitored at all. In fact, the noise falls outside ETSU monitoring. I know of only one wind farm planning decision in the United Kingdom in which a planning condition for amplitude modulation noise was imposed, which was the Den Brook development in Devon.
My concern is that everybody has known about this issue for a very long time—for decades—but no one has spoken up about it. We gave the green light to this industry, and I have previously spoken in this place about how some of the developers have not been particularly kind to villages and constituents of mine when proposing developments, because they knew everything was stacked on their side. I have previously made the argument to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that developers could have done a lot better in the past, and we might not have the current problem if it had been recognised that local people’s views should carry a great deal of weight.
For decades, there was no such recognition. The wind industry has consistently denied the existence of excessive amplitude modulation, even though I can point hon. Members to experts who have demonstrated that amplitude modulation is a frequent occurrence that potentially affects all large industrial wind turbines. It often does so for long periods, and more frequently than not during the night. I point to my survey of environmental health officers and planning authorities, many of whom said that they knew amplitude modulation or something of that ilk was happening, but had no powers to deal with it and did not have the correct guidance from Government to point them in the right direction.
People complain about amplitude modulation to Members of Parliament and local planning authorities, but I think there is a hidden silent majority. People are willing to suffer such noise in silence and do not want to complain because they fear the adverse implications of getting involved, such as having to disclose any complaint they have made to a planning authority or a council when they come to sell their house.
The existing legal remedies have been found wanting. Remedies are available for neighbours of wind farms who are affected by turbine noise under ETSU, but they are simply not fit for purpose, and they are certainly not fit for measuring amplitude modulation. Taking action for statutory nuisance has been actively advocated by the wind industry and supported by planning inspectors, but the evidence suggests that an abatement notice is not an effective control to protect nearby residents from excessive amplitude modulation. Other remedies, such as taking action for private nuisance and similar legal actions, have been considered, but they place too much risk and burden on residents for a problem that is not of their making, with the likelihood of adverse long-term financial implications.
In addition, the recent trend is for secondary operators to form individual shell companies for each wind farm. The impact of that was highlighted in July 2015 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) introduced a Bill to require wind farm developers to obtain public liability insurance for any nuisance they caused to nearby residents. That was particularly aimed at noise nuisance. One of his constituents had had a problem with noise from a local wind farm, but had found it impossible to sue because the operator was purely a shell company and had very limited assets.
Of more concern is the effect of amplitude modulation on health. I have read studies demonstrating adequately that wind turbine noise adversely affects sleep and health. It is abundantly clear from evidence examined by a world-renowned expert, Chris Hanning—I asked him to help me, and he worked with the group that I got together—that wind turbine noise adversely affects sleep and health at set-back distances and noise levels that are permitted by the current ETSU noise regulation. There is no reliable evidence—not one single study—that wind turbines are safe at those distances and noise levels. By contrast, an increasing volume of studies and evidence have outlined the contrary. There is a particular concern about the health of children exposed to excessive wind turbine noise. The inadequate consideration of amplitude modulation is a major factor in why I believe that ETSU fails to protect the majority of people who live near wind turbines and why I believe that it needs to be reformed. The wind industry’s denial is reminiscent of other denials of health issues in the past. It could be a very big public health issue.
I contend that the current noise standard, ETSU-97, is not fit for purpose and I have plenty of evidence to suggest that its methodology is completely incorrect. I do not have to go into that evidence because I am fortunately supported by the findings of a recent Northern Ireland Assembly report in January 2015 on wind energy. The report recommends a review of the use
“of the ETSU-97 guidelines on an urgent basis, with a view to adopting more modern and robust guidance for measurement of wind turbine noise, with particular reference to current guidelines from the World Health Organisation.”
I therefore contend that we need an effective planning condition for amplitude modulation. The wind industry’s claims that an amplitude modulation planning condition is not necessary, and that the legal remedy of statutory nuisance provides adequate protection, are thoroughly discredited by the evidence I have seen and that I have published on my website. Without a planning condition, there is no effective remedy for wind farm neighbours who suffer from excessive noise. The relevance of amplitude modulation in causing noise complaints has driven the wind industry to ensure that a planning condition of that type is not applied as standard planning practice. That is why I raise it today when we are having a conversation about renewables obligation certificates and the planning guidance that goes alongside them as part of our manifesto commitment.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the decision on whether projects go ahead should sit with the local people via the planning process, so that when local people have agreed to and are in favour of the project, it should be allowed to go ahead?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I have long contended—I have said it in pretty much every speech I have given on wind in the House—that, if local people want a wind farm, who is the local MP or any politician to get in their way? I want it to be subsidy-free and I want people to benefit from it, but if the majority of local people believe that it is a benefit to their local community, I have no issue with it whatever.
People should be aware of the potential health concerns from the noise from amplitude modulation. We have the opportunity to ensure that those concerns can be mitigated. When a local community steps forward and says, “Yes, we’d desperately love to have 100 wind turbines surround our village, devalue our houses and hide us from our rural hinterland,” they can do so knowing that they could get the turbines that produce amplitude modulation turned off, so that they could at least sleep comfortably in bed at night.
John Redwood
As I have been trying to explain, the reason we end up with dear gas is all the other subsidised interventions we have been making. We cannot run gas flat out and get the benefits of running it in the most economical way possible. Yes, I would rather have a much simpler market. The market worked a lot better in the 1980s and 1990s when we first set up a pretty open competitive market and power prices came down a lot. We had roughly a 25% margin of extra supply so that we were secure and we never had to worry that, if there was a cold day with the wind not blowing when industry was doing quite well, we would have to tell industry to switch its machines off. We did not get to such a position under that regime.
Now that we have a grossly intervened regime with all sorts of subsidies and priorities that do not reflect the economics of power production, we get to exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies, when we have to bid quite high to get people to provide gas-based power because we cannot guarantee full access to the market on a continuous basis. Of course, the more interventions there have been over the years of Labour and coalition and now the Conservatives, the more changes are needed in that intervention regime as the Government tinker or try to change it to make it work better, and the higher the prices tend to have to be because people become more suspicious if Government have so much power and if Government keep changing their mind.
So it is quite easy to get from a relatively free, successful market to a badly damaged, rigged, subsidised market. It is quite difficult getting from a badly damaged, subsidised market where the interventions are not very helpful to one that works better, because there is suspicion in the minds of investors, and they need longer contracts, bigger guarantees and higher prices to give them some kind of offset as they fear the Government may tinker unnecessarily.
This debate is about the amendment. I support the Government in their view. I want the Government to get on with removing the subsidies to onshore wind, as we said we would do. I hope the Opposition and the other place will not delay that further. We gave plenty of notice of this, and the sooner we do it the sooner we will get a bit closer to having a less damaged energy market.
Philip Boswell
Onshore wind is one of the most inexpensive forms of renewable energy, and it is therefore critical to maximise its input into a renewable energy solution across the UK to enable Scotland and the rest of the UK to meet our climate change targets.
Closing the RO early puts in jeopardy £3 billion-worth of onshore wind investment in Scotland alone for a forecast 30p saving in energy bills. This is a false economy because £3 billion of onshore wind investment equates to 63 million tonnes of CO2. That is from DECC’s own analysis and represents a missed opportunity both economically and in terms of hitting climate change targets.
I spoke at length in Committee on the grace periods and the importance of getting them right, so I will not labour the point here. However, it is important that they are fair and do not disadvantage projects which, through no fault of their own, fall through the crack owing to early closure of the RO.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who is no longer in his place, spoke eloquently about the real and very difficult deterioration in investor confidence caused by the early closure of the RO. Now that that is proceeding, it must be done fairly and with a view to the critical part that onshore wind plays in the overall energy solution for the UK. We must keep the lights on, which is why we intend to press amendment 8 to a Division.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
Before dealing with other proposals, I would like to speak to Government amendment 50. As I made clear during our last debate on this issue, I would like to see an equivalent approach taken right across the UK to the early closure of the renewables obligation to onshore wind, to provide consistency to industry and to protect consumer bills. Amendment 50 relates to clause 81—the backstop power regarding Northern Ireland.
In Committee, I introduced a clause with a view to protecting consumers in Great Britain from the costs of any additional support that Northern Ireland may decide to provide to onshore wind. I remind hon. Members that the clause received considerable support at that stage and that it is a backstop power—this is to say, it is intended to be exercised only if Northern Ireland decides not to close the Northern Ireland renewables obligation scheme to new onshore wind on equivalent terms to those in Great Britain.
The new amendment simply clarifies the drafting of the clause to ensure consistency with the provisions relating to the early closure of the renewables obligation in Great Britain by making it clear that the power in clause 81 extends to capacity added to existing onshore wind stations, as well as to new stations. I should highlight that the intent behind the clause has not changed at all.
I thank all hon. Members for their comments on the non-Government provisions. A number of them—specifically amendments 1 to 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell)—were discussed in some detail and at length in Committee. As far as I can see, the amendments have not changed at all since we last discussed them. Following our agreement not to include them then, the hon. Gentleman has tabled them here once again.
To ensure clarity for hon. Members who did not attend the Committee debates and to move forward with this debate, and indeed the Bill, I am happy to set out the Government’s position again. I will first remind hon. Members of the intended effect of clauses 79 and 80. Clause 79 implements the early closure of the renewables obligation to new onshore wind in Great Britain. Clause 80 sets out the grace period conditions under which certain projects may continue to accredit beyond the early closure date.
Let me be clear: the Government remain committed to delivering our manifesto pledge to end new subsidies for onshore wind, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for the clear support they expressed. The Government are, however, also conscious of the need for industry certainty. Therefore, in response to the question from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), I would like to make it clear that, if Royal Assent for the Bill goes beyond 31 March, the Government intend the provisions to come into force from the date of Royal Assent and do not intend to backdate them. I reiterate that there is absolutely no change to our commitment to end new subsidies for onshore wind, and our actions have shown that we will be tough on subsidies to keep bills down for families and businesses.
Onshore wind has deployed successfully to date. Based on our analysis, and taking early closure of the renewables obligation into account, we still expect the deployment of onshore wind to fall within our electricity market reform delivery plan projections of 11 to 13 GW by 2020. That is our best estimate of what is needed to meet our 2020 targets and of what is affordable under our low-carbon spending cap.
When we announced early closure on 18 June, we made it clear that it was appropriate to curtail further deployment of onshore wind, balancing the interests of onshore wind developers with those of the wider public. As I explained in our earlier debates, the grace period conditions in clause 80 were developed following extensive stakeholder engagement and have been designed specifically to provide certainty and clarity for industry. In particular, we engaged in detail on the core grace period conditions, referred to as the “approved development condition” in the Bill. This requires projects wishing to accredit under the RO beyond 31 March 2016 to provide evidence that, as of 18 June 2015, they had, first, relevant planning consents; secondly, a grid connection offer and acceptance of that offer, or confirmation that no grid connection is required; and thirdly, access to land rights.
Following further industry engagement and analysis by my Department, the Bill’s provisions have been improved in a number of ways: first, to capture those projects that had a planning application refused on or before 18 June 2015, or where the relevant planning authority failed to determine a planning application where a decision was due by 18 June 2015, and which are then subsequently granted consent on appeal; secondly, to introduce an “investment freezing condition” allowing certain projects that qualify for the grace period an additional nine months in which to accredit where they have been unable to secure debt funding due to legislative uncertainty; and thirdly, to provide that the existing grid and radar grace period will continue to be available so that projects that have suffered delays outside their control in this area will have a further 12 months in which to accredit.
Let me take a moment to reflect on the important point about investor confidence. The Government believe that the early closure and grace period provisions that we have presented within the Bill strike the right balance between protecting investor confidence and ensuring our ability to control costs under the levy control framework.
Callum McCaig
I very much agree. I remember sitting on this very Bench, looking through the Budget statement and being somewhat relieved that the rumours I had heard about this competition being scrapped did not appear to be in that statement. Lo and behold, however, an announcement was made to the stock market a few moments after the Chancellor had left the Chamber, removing that funding. I understand that no greater certainty was provided to the companies involved in both White Rose and Peterhead.
Philip Boswell
Further to that point, on the very morning of that Budget, I intervened on another Member and asked the Minister to provide assurances that both the Peterhead and the White Rose projects would not be cut, but no answer was forthcoming. There was nothing in the paperwork that day to show that this was going to happen.
Callum McCaig
I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that different parties have the same essential view not only about the Government’s abysmal handling of this process, but about how to salvage something from the ashes of the carbon capture competition suggests that there is not a huge amount of difference between my new clause and new clause 7, tabled in the names of Labour Front-Bench Members. The main difference—we discussed the issue in Committee—is that our provision includes the devolved Administrations as bodies that should be developing a strategy. I know that the Scottish Government—who, working with DECC, pursued what should have been the second phase of carbon capture and storage at Grangemouth—have high ambitions for the deployment of CCS and share the concerns of many Members here about the way in which the Government have handled this matter.
As for short-sighted decisions, I understand that the White Rose project had substantial European Union funding associated with it. The potential for Peterhead to use carbon capture and storage—or potentially carbon capture and utilisation to create a virtuous cycle for enhanced oil recovery—was there, but that potential has now been lost. The suggestion from the Energy and Climate Change Committee that this will make meeting our climate change commitments all the harder, highlights the need for the strategy that I am proposing.
We have seen that the Government are all over the shop when it comes to CCS. One minute they are for it; another minute they are against it. One minute it is not working; the next minute it is looking promising for the future. These represent severe mixed messages for investor confidence, when we need clarity. If we are to get investment from industry—I hope we do, and I gain the impression that Members of all parties want to see this become a reality in the UK—we need an unequivocal statement from the Government. Then we need an unequivocal strategy, which is what I am calling for today.
There is a tie-in between the utilisation of the infrastructure in the North sea and what can be deployed for CCS. I believe that it is also incumbent on the Government to bring forward a strategy for decommissioning, which is the subject of my new clause 1. Decommissioning is one of the sad realities of the North sea that is going to happen. We all, or at least the majority of us, hope that this will happen at some time in the future. The Government can take steps to deal with that. The industry has called for tax cuts, and loan guarantees for oil and gas companies are also a key part of ensuring that decommissioning happens as far in the future as possible. It is, however, going to come.
Decommissioning provides a huge opportunity, when there is upwards of £30 billion-worth of work to be done. A large part of the bill will be paid back by reimbursing the companies for previous tax paid. They have built up the tax to offset against decommissioning costs. Essentially, as we go forward, the Treasury will be footing the bill for a large part of decommissioning.
It strikes me and my party that we need to ensure that the greatest possible benefit comes to these shores. The east coast of this island is ripe with opportunities for ports and the like. Frankly, they should be champing at the bit to see the work come ashore. I believe that the Shell platform at Brent is coming to Hartlepool. That is a strong commitment and an investment in infrastructure, but also in skills.
Callum McCaig
A large number of things need to be done before we commence wholesale decommissioning, and this includes the widest possible consideration of what the infrastructure could be used for. The proposals and possibilities are perhaps not endless, but they are numerous. Whether we are talking about carbon capture, storage of hydrogen or looking for further hydrocarbon resources that are yet to be discovered, there are vast possibilities. While the infrastructure is there, the opportunities for doing other things with it will remain; once it is gone, the opportunity is gone. The Oil and Gas Authority—which a large part of this Bill deals with, although not the aspects we are debating at this precise moment—has done a lot of work on that and is to be commended on that development.
Decommissioning is a reality. If we are smart collectively —if we can line up the ducks, in terms of the supply chain, skills and investment in the ports and suchlike—there could be a massive windfall. We have considerable leverage, as funders of a large part of this work, through tax receipts offset against previous earnings, and we should be looking to maximise that economic potential, in the same way as we were looking to maximise the economic recovery of the North sea.
Philip Boswell
On the point about that opportunity, does my hon. Friend agree that decommissioning goes hand in hand with the critical assessment, evaluation and management of the infrastructure that surrounds these isles to enable access to marginal fields, which would not otherwise be available, were the critical infrastructure not kept in place, as part of an overall plan with a long-term vision for the energy supplies of these isles?
Callum McCaig
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is something the Oil and Gas Authority is set to look at. It will also be hugely beneficial to the oil and gas industry, so that work needs to take place. We need to be aware of what opportunities exist, but we also need to remember that this Government have a duty to support the oil and gas industry at this time, so I reiterate the calls made by me and others in my party to see substantial movement in Wednesday’sBudget.
It might seem somewhat ironic to some that I am moving from how we best exploit the North sea to how we best tackle climate change but, as I have said a number of times in this place, because we have been a major producer and user of hydrocarbons, there is a moral duty on us to do what we can. I note new clause 11, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), among others, which is not something I would be ready to support, although I wholeheartedly endorse the principle. This is something we need to do, but I would see new clauses 4, 8 and 10—which deal more closely with the short term—plus the issue around carbon capture and storage, as being the correct pathway.
It strikes me that we are very much at a crossroads when it comes to the deployment of technology. It is likely—or, I am hopeful—that a zero-carbon future can be achieved, but the pathway to that is not clear to me, and I do not think it would be clear to the Government if they were to commence that work now. I would rather see things that are in the gift of the Government at this precise moment in time—if they were to focus on them, to deliver on them and act sooner rather than later—because the more work we do now, the less we have to do in future. It is about timing and priorities. The concept is to be wholeheartedly commended and supported, but I am not quite sure I am there when it comes to prioritising it now.
Finally, I would like to talk about new clause 10, to which I was happy to add my support—I imagine that a number of others who also put their name to it will talk about it in greater detail. Our carbon accounting mechanisms need to be brought into line with what is happening and going to happen. The fact that we can get to the stage where upwards of half our emissions do not properly factor into our carbon accounting means that we cannot set about achieving what we must in an open and honest way. Following on from Paris, numerous people have said that we need to get serious about this. If we are to get serious about taking the steps we need to take to make our contribution to tackling climate change, we absolutely have to be clear about what we are counting, which is the basics of this. The bean counting of climate change might not seem particularly appealing to some, but it is fundamental. If we do not know what the emissions are and we are not counting them properly, how can we tackle the challenge of reducing them properly?
Andrea Leadsom
The new clauses seek to place a duty on the Secretary of State to produce and implement a CCS strategy by June 2017 and to report to Parliament on progress every three years. They also set out that the strategy must help to deliver the emissions reductions needed to meet the fifth and subsequent carbon budgets.
As I emphasised in Committee, the Government’s view remains that CCS has a potentially important role to play in the long-term decarbonisation of the UK’s industrial and power sectors, the long-term competitiveness of energy-intensive industries and the longevity of North sea industries. However, CCS costs are currently high, which is why we remain committed to working with industry to bring forward innovative ideas for reducing the costs of this potentially important technology.
Philip Boswell
I thank the Minister for her commitment to carbon capture and storage. However, in terms of our commitment on climate change, we have seen the increased construction and usage of coal-fired power stations around the world, and it has also been well noted in the House that the removal of the CCS competition was a missed opportunity. In Scotland, we still have the Grangemouth CCS project, involving a facility fitted with CCS technology that would cut 90% of emissions. Does the Minister agree that the CCS advisory group should look at that, as an opportunity to get us back on track?
Andrea Leadsom
What I can say is that the Government have invested more than £220 million in CCS since 2011. This financial year alone, we have invested £6 million, including £1.7 million in October 2015, to support three innovative CCS technologies—from Carbon Clean Solutions, C-Capture Ltd and FET Engineering—and £2.5 million to investigate potential new CO2 stores. We have also invested £60 million of our international climate fund to support CCS capacity building and action internationally. The hon. Member for Stockton North will be aware that DECC provided £1 million in 2014 for a feasibility study into industrial CCS on Teesside, as part of the city deal.
As I said, CCS prices are currently high, so we are committed to working with industry on bringing forward innovative ideas to reduce costs. A key part of that is our continuing investment in CCS through innovation support, international partnerships and industrial research projects.
I recognise that industry and others are keen for the Government to set out our approach to CCS as soon as possible. As I emphasised in Committee, we will do that by the end of 2016. In doing so, we will continue to engage closely with industry, the all-party group on carbon capture and storage, the CCS strategy group and Lord Oxburgh’s CCS advisory group, which is planning to deliver its findings and recommendations to the Government by the summer.
I hope I have reassured hon. Members that the new clauses are unnecessary. I therefore hope they will be content not to press them.