14/03/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.views on the monarch. It is a carefully drafted by the Honorable

:00:00. > :00:00.member for the process and not substance I hope the colleagues will

:00:07. > :00:12.frame their questions accordingly. Hear, hear! I seek not to embarrass

:00:13. > :00:18.you in anyway Mr Speaker and asked that the Leader of the House will

:00:19. > :00:23.make a statement on the endurance to the rules of the Privy Council in

:00:24. > :00:24.light of the suspension of collective responsibility in

:00:25. > :00:35.connection with the European Union referendum. Mr Speaker the Privy

:00:36. > :00:38.Council surprise support to Her Majesty and the implementation of

:00:39. > :00:43.the functions of the crown. The members of the Council also had

:00:44. > :00:50.access to confidential national information and documentation waited

:00:51. > :00:57.to do national security they swear an oath to maintain the

:00:58. > :01:03.confidentiality of these briefings. None of that has changed because of

:01:04. > :01:07.the current circumstances. Mr Speaker, last Wednesday the Sun

:01:08. > :01:12.newspaper published a front-page story relating to the EU referendum

:01:13. > :01:15.which it said was based on two impeccably placed sources. The

:01:16. > :01:19.Minister will know that every minister and minister of the City

:01:20. > :01:23.Council swears that solemn and binding oath to keep to the Queen

:01:24. > :01:30.that they will in the words of the oath, keep secrets all matters

:01:31. > :01:33.committed and revealed unto you. My Honorable friend has written to the

:01:34. > :01:36.Minister asking for an investigation, please can you

:01:37. > :01:40.confirm that that will take place? Please get he also confirmed that

:01:41. > :01:45.the Privy Council rules have not been suspended as a result of the

:01:46. > :01:49.referendum? Three members have categorically denied that they are

:01:50. > :01:59.the source of the justice, that they are the source LAUGHTER Get the

:02:00. > :02:06.Justice Secretary has only said that he does not know how the sun got its

:02:07. > :02:09.information Mr Speaker the sovereigns constitutional

:02:10. > :02:17.impartiality is a established principle of our democracy. It is on

:02:18. > :02:23.does a political office to ensure this remains the case. Such a breach

:02:24. > :02:25.would be significant. If the Justice Secretary would disclose this

:02:26. > :02:32.information he would breach the principle of confidentiality and

:02:33. > :02:35.evolve the monarch in a controversial manner. He will also

:02:36. > :02:41.have undermined the role as the Minister for responsible from

:02:42. > :02:43.holding the rule of law. Does the Minister therefore agree that the

:02:44. > :02:49.public has a right to know whether or not whether the does Justice

:02:50. > :02:53.Secretary was a source of this story. Please will he now urges

:02:54. > :03:00.colleagues to confirm or deny such allegations. There is a referral to

:03:01. > :03:04.investigate a complaint about the story but they cannot investigate

:03:05. > :03:08.whether a privy counsellor has broken his oath, only that Minister

:03:09. > :03:13.or Prime Minister can order that investigation. A cover-up will not

:03:14. > :03:19.do. Surely any member of the Privy Council who was a source of the

:03:20. > :03:22.story or whose special advisor or ally was standing contempt of his

:03:23. > :03:27.Privy Council of and should be removed from office and he won't

:03:28. > :03:36.honorably resigned himself. Hear, hear! Mr Speaker is the honourable

:03:37. > :03:39.gentleman said his remarks last to get national newspaper published a

:03:40. > :03:42.story ledge at the base of the conversation that took place at a

:03:43. > :03:48.lunch following a Privy Council meeting. However my predecessor the

:03:49. > :03:53.right honourable member from Sheffield Hallam said very clearly

:03:54. > :03:58.that the story was categorically untrue. As the house is aware

:03:59. > :04:01.Buckingham Palace has referred the matter to the press complaints body

:04:02. > :04:06.and it is now investigating the story. Given all this I do not

:04:07. > :04:15.believe that there is a need for further action here. Mr Speaker I

:04:16. > :04:21.would like to agree with my right honourable friend of the proper way

:04:22. > :04:27.to conduct this is as Her Majesty office has done. I don't see how

:04:28. > :04:32.this house can investigate every newspaper story that upset some

:04:33. > :04:38.people if neither the source of the newspaper chooses to reveal the

:04:39. > :04:43.source. Of course the reality is that the last president said the

:04:44. > :04:49.story is categorically untrue and this by definition must be something

:04:50. > :04:56.for the body that investigates the media. Mr Speaker I am surprised the

:04:57. > :05:02.Leader of the House does not want to carry out an inquiry and I will call

:05:03. > :05:06.him to do so after all they will able to carry out a successful

:05:07. > :05:11.inquiry in the Scotland offices. Will he reflect on the experiences

:05:12. > :05:15.for that and also there seems to be not just this but it is agreement

:05:16. > :05:18.and this is a question of fact between the Prime Minister and

:05:19. > :05:23.Minister of Justice. Thus you picked up by ministers handling the

:05:24. > :05:28.situation well? I do refer back to what I said a moment ago is that the

:05:29. > :05:32.previous Lord President who attended this event has said it is untrue. It

:05:33. > :05:39.is therefore a matter for the press complaints body and not anyone in

:05:40. > :05:43.this House or the government. Does my right honourable friend agree

:05:44. > :05:48.with me that what we are witnessing is a poorly disguised example of the

:05:49. > :05:55.tendency of the party opposite to play the man and not the boy. With

:05:56. > :05:59.the for the workings of the Privy Council are a matter for the Privy

:06:00. > :06:05.Council and other symbols that apply to ministers in this house? My

:06:06. > :06:09.Honorable friend is absolutely right and it is worth saying Mr Speaker,

:06:10. > :06:20.that the conversation that is alleged to taking place did not take

:06:21. > :06:23.place at a Privy Council meeting. Thank you Mr Speaker. With the

:06:24. > :06:27.leader of the House agree with me that when it comes to serial

:06:28. > :06:31.offenders one of the most effective forms of reparation for victims is

:06:32. > :06:36.restorative justice. Where the offender apologises directly to the

:06:37. > :06:44.victim. Does the later support the principles of restorative justice? I

:06:45. > :06:53.also support the principle better people who are innocent and not

:06:54. > :06:59.proven guilty. As the Lord high Chancellor is the keeper of the

:07:00. > :07:04.Queen's conscience is not inconceivable that he could misapply

:07:05. > :07:07.his conscience to Her Majesty and it is not further important and the

:07:08. > :07:10.Privy Council of privy counsellors swear that they will do the other

:07:11. > :07:19.most to bear faith and allegiance to the Queens Majesty and authority

:07:20. > :07:26.granted to Her Majesty by the crowd and otherwise. A grants all foreign

:07:27. > :07:32.princes persons and others. Howell, therefore could members of the Privy

:07:33. > :07:40.Council go off and be European commissioners swearing allegiance to

:07:41. > :07:46.the European Union? That is an interesting point. Someone say a

:07:47. > :07:52.fastening point but it is mildly tangential to the urgent question I

:07:53. > :08:01.have selected. Let's say rather apply. Mr Speaker think you would

:08:02. > :08:12.agree with me that his makes his remarks in his customary way.

:08:13. > :08:16.The former deputy prime ministers categorical denial that this

:08:17. > :08:21.conversation took place so could this matter be to bed very simply

:08:22. > :08:25.and straightforwardly if the Justice Secretary who was an honourable man,

:08:26. > :08:27.would come to the housing categorically denied that

:08:28. > :08:36.conversation ever took place himself? All I can repeat his

:08:37. > :08:40.blessed earlier, which is that my predecessor said the story was

:08:41. > :08:48.untrue. I don't think there is anything to answer for. The cabinet

:08:49. > :08:53.offices established a revenue from gas referendum and can he say what

:08:54. > :08:59.it does when it was established in how many civil servants are working

:09:00. > :09:02.there. The short answer is no, not now. The right honourable gentleman

:09:03. > :09:09.may be able to do so in the grocery private chat over the cup of tea or

:09:10. > :09:16.a written question but today the focus of the narrow terms of the

:09:17. > :09:18.question that has been granted. I thought it was an honour and a

:09:19. > :09:25.privilege to be a member of the Privy Council. I take very seriously

:09:26. > :09:30.and the trust that was placed in us. I think the allegations carry a

:09:31. > :09:33.great deal of currency and if they are not properly investigated they

:09:34. > :09:36.can undermine the whole of the Privy Council and on everybody in it. I

:09:37. > :09:42.think the Prime Minister was right to say that it would be very serious

:09:43. > :09:52.if a member of the Privy Council was the source of the sun's newspaper

:09:53. > :09:57.story. Just to ask the member involved to come to this house and

:09:58. > :10:04.to make a statement himself delay this matter to rest. I think all of

:10:05. > :10:06.us who are members of the Council take that responsibility and

:10:07. > :10:13.normalcy seriously and to us is a great honour to serve the crown in

:10:14. > :10:16.this way. As of the predecessor of me was a law professor and a man who

:10:17. > :10:23.takes responsibility very seriously has said it is untrue and therefore

:10:24. > :10:28.there is nothing to answer for. It is quite right that Her Majesty, our

:10:29. > :10:34.sovereign should have no views on important issues such as the EU

:10:35. > :10:37.referendum. How can it be in any way acceptable for members of Her

:10:38. > :10:42.Majesty's government for the Prime Minister downwards to encourage

:10:43. > :10:49.foreign heads of state to comments on the EU referendum. Is this not

:10:50. > :10:54.demonstrative that the fact that the international group is ganging up on

:10:55. > :10:57.the British people. I would discourage any foreign leader from

:10:58. > :11:05.entering the debate at the moment. This is a matter for the British

:11:06. > :11:11.people and it should remain so. What discussions, if any has the Minister

:11:12. > :11:13.had with the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary about allegations

:11:14. > :11:17.that the Justice Secretary may have been the source of the leaked

:11:18. > :11:24.information said such allegations were made in the media? Says my

:11:25. > :11:27.predecessor has said that the story is categorically untrue is actually

:11:28. > :11:33.no need for me to have such conversations. I suppose one thing

:11:34. > :11:37.we've learned today is that you should not believe everything you

:11:38. > :11:47.read in newspapers. I'm learning more about the Council which I am

:11:48. > :11:56.not a member of the Privy Council, does sticking very nearly to the

:11:57. > :11:58.point, does the Privy Council rules extend to previous colonies which

:11:59. > :12:03.might now have a president with Mike might want to come over here and

:12:04. > :12:11.tell us how to vote in the EU referendum? Can I just say, I think

:12:12. > :12:17.we know of whom the honourable gentleman speaks. He is the most

:12:18. > :12:21.illustrious individual but not a member of the Privy Council. I think

:12:22. > :12:28.we will leave it there because I think it was a rhetorical question.

:12:29. > :12:32.The leader of the houses clinging to the defence that he has got today.

:12:33. > :12:38.It is very clear the Honorable member was able to believe that he

:12:39. > :12:42.was the source and in fact it is true. Does the Leader of the House

:12:43. > :12:47.therefore not think that given the honourable member for Mid Sussex

:12:48. > :12:52.visitors as would be a matter for treason. His rather flippant

:12:53. > :12:59.approach for this massively undermines the importance of this

:13:00. > :13:04.very important role. I'm not sure where he is coming from on this. You

:13:05. > :13:08.cannot be found guilty of an offence when offence is not taken place.

:13:09. > :13:11.That is the case for my predecessor had said that the story is

:13:12. > :13:25.categorically untrue and that should be in into the matter. -- Ann and to

:13:26. > :13:29.the matter. Someone else made a note of a recollection of their

:13:30. > :13:35.conversation with their Majesty and taken it away perhaps or a book or

:13:36. > :13:40.diaries as cortisol and at the end of their careers tend to want to do

:13:41. > :13:47.then perhaps the number of people privy to the information might not

:13:48. > :13:50.only be Privy Council? Of course lots of people talk to others about

:13:51. > :13:55.lots of things but in this particular case, the president said

:13:56. > :14:07.the story was untrue. That's conversation did not take place.

:14:08. > :14:15.I've never been to this palace. I don't know LAUGHTER I don't know

:14:16. > :14:24.what take place at the most bizarre thing for me, what on earth is the

:14:25. > :14:41.queen doing confiding in Kent? LAUGHTER LAUGHTER I think the

:14:42. > :14:46.response to the honourable gentleman's comments across the

:14:47. > :14:53.House suggests that not everyone disagrees with the views put

:14:54. > :14:59.forward. I hope before he ends his illustrious career he does have the

:15:00. > :15:11.chance to go to the house. As palace. Will the members of the

:15:12. > :15:16.Council ensure that the statistics that are usually published will be

:15:17. > :15:21.published between now and the 23rd of June? I think we want to make

:15:22. > :15:30.sure that everyone on both sides of this debate has all the facts they

:15:31. > :15:34.need before the vote in June. The Prime Minister has described the

:15:35. > :15:42.referendum vote as more important than a general election, then does

:15:43. > :15:51.the Minister agree that the public confidence in his votes rely on both

:15:52. > :15:55.sides behaving fairly? Administers on both sides of the argument making

:15:56. > :16:02.the case clearly and still staying friends afterwards. Am I right

:16:03. > :16:09.honourable friend sitting alongside me demonstrating that we are uniting

:16:10. > :16:15.in doing the right thing for this country. Without invoking the body

:16:16. > :16:18.of the sovereign and asked the government when they plan to

:16:19. > :16:27.introduce a British sovereignty bill? Will soon be having a

:16:28. > :16:33.visitation for the queen into this palace flicked her speech. We will

:16:34. > :16:45.see what her plans are for the years ahead. The honourable gentleman is

:16:46. > :16:50.unfailingly courteous, but his question was a bit wide of the mark.

:16:51. > :16:55.There are people who are still try to catch my eye. It would be good if

:16:56. > :17:06.everyone can remain in order, but perhaps by Mr Stephen Powell. This

:17:07. > :17:18.whole business music pretty nasties stands in the nostrils. It is

:17:19. > :17:21.emerging that people are picking up scraps of rumour and parlaying that

:17:22. > :17:27.into a book later on in their careers. As one who was Sunday

:17:28. > :17:32.morning fry up was ruined when I turned to my copy of the Mail on

:17:33. > :17:36.Sunday to read the memoirs of Mr laws were the honourable gentleman

:17:37. > :17:42.not agree with me that we should actually impose a self-denying

:17:43. > :17:48.ordinance and stop writing these dreadful scandalous books, seeking

:17:49. > :17:54.to expose what is confidential. May I say that I have no intention of

:17:55. > :18:00.doing so. Not sure that a self-denying ordinance can be

:18:01. > :18:06.imposed. LAUGHTER Those who have consulted their craniums advise me

:18:07. > :18:14.that that might not be possible and indeed it might. Either the

:18:15. > :18:18.contradiction or even the tautology. We will see how robust the

:18:19. > :18:22.honourable gentleman determination to stay out of the world of diary

:18:23. > :18:27.and book writing when he concludes his illustrious career when he

:18:28. > :18:37.receives a lavish offer from a publisher. An interrogation into

:18:38. > :18:42.recent select committee raised to other possible breaches of this kind

:18:43. > :18:48.involving Her Majesty and Prince William. It is noticed that this

:18:49. > :18:58.carefully crafted answer said he did not know where the Queen gets or --

:18:59. > :19:03.all her information. As we are not being told that the justice

:19:04. > :19:09.minister, can we take it that this is an attempt to do with those do

:19:10. > :19:15.and achieve destruction and revolution of the monarchy? I have

:19:16. > :19:23.to say if we are talking about revolution by destruction, they

:19:24. > :19:29.currently take the biscuits. I have you were not deemed my question to

:19:30. > :19:33.be tangential, clearly the government have a strong views on

:19:34. > :19:37.this matter. We are witnessing varied opinions on the government

:19:38. > :19:41.benches. And the interest of future reference I wonder if the Leader of

:19:42. > :19:46.the House might consider drawing up a list of approved contributors to

:19:47. > :19:54.the debates. They'll be very handy for future reference for the

:19:55. > :19:58.Scottish national party. We are having a debate where everybody's

:19:59. > :20:06.views are being put forward and I will be carried on for another three

:20:07. > :20:12.months. I'm racking my brain were an occasion with the leader of the

:20:13. > :20:16.House agreed to so readily with the other member, surely he must accept

:20:17. > :20:20.that is the failure of the Justice Secretary to be quickly states that

:20:21. > :20:24.he had nothing to do with this is the reason he sitting there

:20:25. > :20:27.answering his urgent question now. Shouldn't his right honourable

:20:28. > :20:35.friend either make such a statement or resign? So he is asking at the

:20:36. > :20:46.Justice Secretary says it didn't happen that didn't happen that just

:20:47. > :20:48.does not make sense. Millions of working people in this country know

:20:49. > :20:53.that when an allegation of gross this conduct comes to an employee

:20:54. > :20:58.public attention and is expected that in the investigation will

:20:59. > :21:02.follow. To do nothing creates a president that others may rely and

:21:03. > :21:05.in the future. Allegations are made. Does the leader of the House agreed

:21:06. > :21:14.that failure to even investigate shows a lack of courage and creates

:21:15. > :21:17.an unwelcome precedents. Normally investigations are not launched into

:21:18. > :21:26.unsubstantiated stories. I simply say again that my predecessor said

:21:27. > :21:29.the story is categorically untrue. I disappointed to hear that the

:21:30. > :21:36.response of the Leader of the House, because Buckingham Palace have

:21:37. > :21:40.deemed concerned by the story. There are two impeccable sources so why is

:21:41. > :21:46.the government also taking it seriously by holding an

:21:47. > :21:48.investigation? If I understand correctly Buckingham Palace has

:21:49. > :21:54.complained about the story in the newspaper, any or body to

:21:55. > :22:09.investigate that is the price investigators. Best price. -- press.

:22:10. > :22:15.And if so why isn't he not wanting his own investigation? Is understood

:22:16. > :22:21.correctly the serious issue is what the story in the newspaper which is

:22:22. > :22:30.being investigated, but we have said it is categorically untrue.

:22:31. > :22:45.Yesterday the telegraph reported that the sources is a stackable

:22:46. > :22:56.offence. Can he... Yes. Before we proceed further, misses and Maine.

:22:57. > :23:03.If you publish any contingency plans for a department in trade agreements

:23:04. > :23:10.in event of the UK exit from the EU. In December European Council they

:23:11. > :23:18.gave the United Kingdom and social status. ... Is that the UK will be

:23:19. > :23:28.stronger, and better and reform to you. That is not answer the question

:23:29. > :23:34.and I believe agreed that it was prominently that questions must be

:23:35. > :23:39.given a standard answer. Can I get an answer to that particular

:23:40. > :23:44.question? As the Honorable Lady knows the chair is not was also full

:23:45. > :23:49.for the content of answers. There is a general presumption in favour of

:23:50. > :23:56.answers to questions that are both timely and substantive. If however

:23:57. > :24:02.the honourable lady is dissatisfied with the substance of the reply

:24:03. > :24:06.which she believes fails adequately to respond or to respond at all to

:24:07. > :24:13.her requiring she has to recourse is open to her neither of which

:24:14. > :24:16.involves the chair. One is to table further questions with that dogged

:24:17. > :24:21.persistence for which the honourable member has become world sound of the

:24:22. > :24:28.last nearly 11 years in the house, and the other course of action open

:24:29. > :24:33.to her is to complain to the chair of the procedure committee, the

:24:34. > :24:40.honourable gentleman with a view into securing an inquiry of Bush by

:24:41. > :24:44.ministers to providing answers to biometric questions. I hope that

:24:45. > :24:47.constitutes an adequate answer to the honourable lady who has aired

:24:48. > :24:55.her concern for today. There are no further points of order we come now

:24:56. > :25:03.to the main business. In the first instance to the programme motion,

:25:04. > :25:11.the Minister to move, thank you. The question is the energy bill as on

:25:12. > :25:22.the order paper. Though the honourable gentleman wish to

:25:23. > :25:30.contribute? No, very good. ... I think the eyes have it. As I inform

:25:31. > :25:36.the House on Monday the 26th of October if over sport begins on the

:25:37. > :25:40.bill I will seek to identify those changes made a committee which I

:25:41. > :25:46.would expect to certify together with the government amendments

:25:47. > :25:50.tabled which if passed would be likely to lead me to issue a

:25:51. > :25:55.certificate. My provisional certificate based on those changes

:25:56. > :26:04.and expected amendments is available in the vote office and on the bills

:26:05. > :26:08.before Parliament was site. I'm required to consider the bill as

:26:09. > :26:12.amended on the report for certification. At that point but

:26:13. > :26:17.today I will issue my final certificate. But Clark will now

:26:18. > :26:26.proceed to read the orders of the day. As of amendments in the public

:26:27. > :26:35.bill considered. We begin with new clause two was put be convenient to

:26:36. > :26:37.consider government to 50 and the other amendments listed on the other

:26:38. > :26:46.amendments listed on reflection paper. To move new cause to I call

:26:47. > :26:53.Mr Callum McCaig. It is a straightforward one, it is to read

:26:54. > :26:56.evolve and empower the closer order for onshore wind back to the

:26:57. > :27:05.Scottish Government. Where had belonged. That's power was

:27:06. > :27:10.re-reserved so to speak on the explicit understanding that there

:27:11. > :27:17.would be no changes to the closure and no material impact to Scotland

:27:18. > :27:22.from agreeing to that proposal. The proposal had intended at the time to

:27:23. > :27:28.rely for proposer for later next year. As had previously been agreed.

:27:29. > :27:35.For the renewables obligation. There has been extensive debate about

:27:36. > :27:39.renewables obligation. I think it is worth reiterating just briefly some

:27:40. > :27:48.of those concerns. As I said, this was removed from Scotland against

:27:49. > :27:53.the explicit undertaking they the government have given to Scottish

:27:54. > :27:57.ministers, I think there is an element of trust and betrayal of

:27:58. > :28:01.trust that is coming to this agreement. That is something that

:28:02. > :28:07.has woven its way through the entirety of the government's in

:28:08. > :28:10.handling of onshore wind and the closure of renewables obligation.

:28:11. > :28:18.The industry had for a long time period of trust and the government.

:28:19. > :28:23.That trust had vanished. It is the opportunity from today public

:28:24. > :28:30.debates most notably from the numerous ones in my honourable

:28:31. > :28:40.friend, the Member for... Who has meticulously detailed the closure

:28:41. > :28:46.TRO and could be dealt with in the fairest manner. Last week the energy

:28:47. > :28:51.and climate change select committee produced a report on investor

:28:52. > :28:57.confidence. Seven and numerous policy announcements have marred the

:28:58. > :29:03.reputation. I think that is fairly damning. I'm not steeped in the ways

:29:04. > :29:09.of select committee reports and how they finance their arguments about

:29:10. > :29:13.that but that is a clear criticism of the government policy and how is

:29:14. > :29:20.been implemented. It did not need to be done that way. I think we have

:29:21. > :29:23.accepted through the process at the energy bill committees the various

:29:24. > :29:28.stages of this bill that the government does indeed have a

:29:29. > :29:31.commitment to pursue this policy. We disagree with that, and I think it

:29:32. > :29:35.is as short-sighted and is not the correct way of going about things.

:29:36. > :29:45.Onshore wind in the view of myself and my party has a significant role

:29:46. > :29:53.to play to play the United Kingdom. It should not be had taken out what

:29:54. > :30:01.is effectively a rather crude... The government has chosen to act in that

:30:02. > :30:06.way. To look at this, and to accept what is happening in the government

:30:07. > :30:10.is doing this it should do it in the best way possible. I feel there's

:30:11. > :30:15.something else happening I'm not aware about. Very disorderly

:30:16. > :30:20.conduct. The honourable gentleman is missing a serious case and if I may

:30:21. > :30:26.be meant to say this, whatever is the subject of this debate,

:30:27. > :30:33.fortunately at least for him, Otis is not.

:30:34. > :30:42.I don't do quite caught that Mr Speaker. Gentleman he doesn't need

:30:43. > :30:46.to do so. The honourable gentleman is innocent. He has been

:30:47. > :30:52.transgressed against. He is not transgress. He can now speed ahead

:30:53. > :30:57.to which we look forward. LAUGHTER. Speed being the operative word there

:30:58. > :31:00.Mr Speaker. So in terms of this. We have a call for the read evolution

:31:01. > :31:05.of this. We have a call for the grace period to be dealt with in the

:31:06. > :31:11.most appropriate manner. The conservative manifesto and the party

:31:12. > :31:17.debate has expressed a desire to see local control. I don't think anyone

:31:18. > :31:23.can have a huge argument about that. To do that it requires respecting of

:31:24. > :31:27.local decisions. As they stand, the grace periods to not do that.

:31:28. > :31:32.Without the amendments that I think are required in particularly

:31:33. > :31:37.amendment eight, we are planning decisions committee were dealt with

:31:38. > :31:44.prior to the closure date of the approval of the certificate was not

:31:45. > :31:51.granted, due to section 75. Essentially I think it's such a one

:31:52. > :31:54.of six in England. That is a clear sense. That is local

:31:55. > :31:59.decision-making. That should Mr Speaker have the consent of this

:32:00. > :32:04.government and be allowed to be included in the energy bill. We

:32:05. > :32:08.accept that this is going to happen and needs to happen. Now at this

:32:09. > :32:12.stage having been explicitly opposed to it, the industry sees it is

:32:13. > :32:18.better to have some certainty, rather than to continue with

:32:19. > :32:21.uncertainty. Uncertainty needs to be correct and fair. It needs to be

:32:22. > :32:25.certainty that does what is it intended to do. If we are to respect

:32:26. > :32:34.local decision-making, when locally elected bodies either in England and

:32:35. > :32:41.Scotland, all welds are under different stipulations, have agreed

:32:42. > :32:44.to this. The cause of the technical decision-making and on other such

:32:45. > :32:54.issues have not been able to get their certificate. That is simply

:32:55. > :32:58.wrong. Can he does remind the House why he wishes to burden his

:32:59. > :33:09.constituency and others with this issue, from an end to a noble souls

:33:10. > :33:12.cannot rely on. I think it has been clearly been demonstrated as one of

:33:13. > :33:20.the cheapest forms of renewable energy. I would ask him why he

:33:21. > :33:29.supports this insane waste of money? It is in considerably in excess. Mr

:33:30. > :33:31.Speaker Ayatollah perhaps resist the temptation to ask. This is

:33:32. > :33:38.straightforward. We need to press ahead with an certainty doesn't need

:33:39. > :33:43.to be given. That has been handled incredibly badly. There is time,

:33:44. > :33:48.particularly with the ECC report last week, for the government to

:33:49. > :33:52.make amends to change some of the stipulations round about the grace

:33:53. > :33:57.periods. They can allow this to happen in the best way possible.

:33:58. > :34:10.Late is better than never. Hear, hear! . The honourable gentleman is

:34:11. > :34:21.not giving way but has concluded his remarks. Therefore... The question

:34:22. > :34:33.is that the New Clause to be read a second time. No. I think it will

:34:34. > :34:36.take Mr Chris Harrison then come to the honourable gentleman. Thank you

:34:37. > :34:42.Mr Speaker and thank you for calling me early on in this debate. I sat on

:34:43. > :34:50.the energy bill committee, along with many of the Honorable members

:34:51. > :34:57.here today and just wanted to add a bit of balance to the Scottish

:34:58. > :35:02.national party contribution. I... We had this debate in the committee in

:35:03. > :35:08.the Scottish national party would like to see the document sent back

:35:09. > :35:14.to Scotland and many people would like to see the Scottish commit to

:35:15. > :35:20.paying for that renewable obligation as well. There is only half of that

:35:21. > :35:30.in this particular amendment. I'm happy to give way. I think of. He's

:35:31. > :35:34.absolutely right in that regard. Would he accept that we would be

:35:35. > :35:41.paying the extortionate price for his parties nuclear power, if he

:35:42. > :35:46.gets his ways? If we are talking about paying for these, I wonder how

:35:47. > :35:53.the S would have paid for their proposals, had they gone independent

:35:54. > :35:57.on a crisis... Let's just make sure that we talk about energy in a

:35:58. > :36:01.sensible way. Actually we did have a very constructive and sensible

:36:02. > :36:08.debate, in the committee stages. It is good fun to follow up

:36:09. > :36:11.occasionally on different points. Mr Speaker I also, and unfortunately

:36:12. > :36:16.you did not choose any of the amendments that I put my name to

:36:17. > :36:24.today. I was not being cheeky in tabling them. I just wanted to make

:36:25. > :36:32.a point. With in this bill, we have the friend removal from the

:36:33. > :36:40.Conservative Party about removing the renewable obligations earlier,

:36:41. > :36:51.and also some planning changes. We were having a debate committee about

:36:52. > :36:55.how and if let's say members of the House of Lords decided that they did

:36:56. > :36:59.not like what we were doing to the bill down here, by putting back in

:37:00. > :37:02.what wasn't clear manifesto commitment from the Conservative

:37:03. > :37:08.Party, how actually that would be quite a foolish thing to do. There

:37:09. > :37:13.are other methods by which that are within the planning rules that we

:37:14. > :37:18.could go by. I think would be fair to talk about amplitude modulation

:37:19. > :37:24.as a planning requirement. There is a huge amount of concern about the

:37:25. > :37:29.noise from wind turbines. I thought I would identify a couple of those

:37:30. > :37:35.concerns today in a bit more detail, so members could understand where I

:37:36. > :37:40.was coming from. Now I'm happy to give way. I would just say to My

:37:41. > :37:44.Noble friend who has a great deal of knowledge and expertise in these

:37:45. > :37:51.issues, that it was a very unfortunate precedents set by the

:37:52. > :37:55.other that they should disregard the convention. They should consider it

:37:56. > :37:59.appropriate that they decide that the British public were wrong in

:38:00. > :38:05.reelecting the government on an manifesto commitment, to undertake

:38:06. > :38:08.the proposals that my Honorable friend has brought. I thank my

:38:09. > :38:12.Honorable friend for the intervention. Actually at the other

:38:13. > :38:17.end of this building, that there has been some sensible debate around

:38:18. > :38:22.this. There are a number from Labour and other peers that do understand

:38:23. > :38:29.his point. However it would be foolish for a Coalition partner to

:38:30. > :38:34.have very few MPs in this place, but you have a way to many peers in

:38:35. > :38:39.another place, to use that bulk of unelected opinion to force down a

:38:40. > :38:42.government manifesto commitment will stop there are many ways to get

:38:43. > :38:49.around this particular problem. I want to identify a plan where we can

:38:50. > :38:56.solve possibly, definitely a good thing to do for communities

:38:57. > :39:01.affected, but actually maybe not the peers at the other end of this

:39:02. > :39:07.building would like to go down. Maybe they should think very

:39:08. > :39:16.sensibly about how they use is still going for, just in case. Mr Speaker

:39:17. > :39:19.a couple years ago, I get a freedom information requested every planning

:39:20. > :39:25.authority across England. I wanted to see if any of them had actually

:39:26. > :39:30.experienced or had knowledge of a concern of an element within noise

:39:31. > :39:39.and wind called amplitude modulation. It's expired of low

:39:40. > :39:44.whooshing sound. I asked every EH bowl across the country whether they

:39:45. > :39:48.had an experience with this. A large number came back, especially from

:39:49. > :39:52.rural areas, where there's lots of wind from turbines. They said they

:39:53. > :39:58.had guessed some experience with it. The current government guidelines on

:39:59. > :40:03.this matter did not cover amplitude modulation. There was actually

:40:04. > :40:07.nothing they could do. They did not have much information from the

:40:08. > :40:11.government. In fact the wind industry and the department itself

:40:12. > :40:17.did not recognise the amplitude modulation existed until only a

:40:18. > :40:20.couple years ago. That was quite resolved considering that this was

:40:21. > :40:25.well recognised across the world at that point in time. Unfortunately or

:40:26. > :40:32.fortunately as I presented my findings to that department. They

:40:33. > :40:39.came up with the idea that amplitude modulation noise reduced by turbines

:40:40. > :40:42.can be a concern for residents. The Sultan should be bought in to review

:40:43. > :40:47.the amplitude modulation and decide how excessive this might be

:40:48. > :40:54.controlled through a planning condition. The study that I held

:40:55. > :41:01.commission, which was a study into what causes amplitude modulation and

:41:02. > :41:03.how it can be tempered, the eye in WG study will be considered

:41:04. > :41:08.alongside other evidence that has been gathered as part of this

:41:09. > :41:11.review. The evidence that I presented was actually that there

:41:12. > :41:15.are lots of communities up and down this country and lots of

:41:16. > :41:20.individuals, living in houses close to turbines that are directly

:41:21. > :41:24.affected by excessive amplitude modulation. In fact this is a very

:41:25. > :41:33.significant factor in peoples lives. Noise complaints from wind farms

:41:34. > :41:37.around the whooshing noise... It means that some people in many cases

:41:38. > :41:44.cannot sleep in their own house. Some people find this a great deal

:41:45. > :41:49.of stress. The want or wish or BD noise. You can experience it when

:41:50. > :41:57.you're standing close to helicopters and other turbines blades turning.

:41:58. > :42:05.It's the most intrusive element of noise around when Todd Burns. The

:42:06. > :42:10.Scots are at the forefront of everything to do with noise. But I

:42:11. > :42:17.will leave it as onshore wind turbine knowledge and found that

:42:18. > :42:23.between one to do: as from a Win form, 70% of people, suffering

:42:24. > :42:30.audible noise, strongly dislike the noise and that a vast number of

:42:31. > :42:34.those were actually suffering from the effects of excessive amplitude

:42:35. > :42:42.modulation. This noise is actually not covered by the noise guidelines

:42:43. > :42:49.that we currently have. I'm happy to give way. Would you agree with me

:42:50. > :42:54.that in my experience, this issue that he rightly raises, is

:42:55. > :42:58.compounded by the complementary problem of shadow flickering, which

:42:59. > :43:02.is causing distraction for many people within the environments of

:43:03. > :43:09.onshore wind infrastructure and also of course the movement of very large

:43:10. > :43:12.plant machinery on roads. This can also have an impact on the quality

:43:13. > :43:22.of life of the people adjacent to these facilities. . To very valid

:43:23. > :43:25.points. I have myself seen the Flickr and only stood there for a

:43:26. > :43:29.period of ten minutes. I can actually understand if that was

:43:30. > :43:37.Ashley affecting your house or your place of work, how interesting that

:43:38. > :43:40.could be. I'm sure many of my envelope members would have the

:43:41. > :43:46.means turbines when they are moving through small villages. You can

:43:47. > :43:51.sometimes not get the turbines through on small roads. A number of

:43:52. > :43:56.people visited me today, this morning, from the lovely village of

:43:57. > :44:02.Goldsboro, where a nearby wind turbine and inform would present a

:44:03. > :44:05.gap of inches between houses on each side of the road, and the turbine

:44:06. > :44:11.shaft being driven through this particular village is an issue. Yes

:44:12. > :44:17.they do cause concern. But there are more than the travel movement is a

:44:18. > :44:20.concern. I would argue that amplitude modulation is a bigger

:44:21. > :44:30.issue than Flickr. I'll happily give way. Will he share my concerns that

:44:31. > :44:38.conscious patient of policy on strategic zones and where all the

:44:39. > :44:41.developments are put into those zones and there are different

:44:42. > :44:49.projects and there's a difference between force and wind noise levels

:44:50. > :44:55.but that as far as the planning regime is concerned, when a small

:44:56. > :45:06.development, the issues of noise comes up? That is a very wise point.

:45:07. > :45:10.Just a very briefly TV Honorable gentleman, you can monitor this

:45:11. > :45:14.particular noise. You can also predict when it might occur.

:45:15. > :45:19.Therefore you can as has been done, and a couple of places in England,

:45:20. > :45:25.when you get those circumstances happening where I modulation is

:45:26. > :45:30.causing distress to nearby residents and is being monitored with the

:45:31. > :45:33.agreement with the developer of the wind form, you can stop the turbines

:45:34. > :45:40.from turning for that period of time. It does not mean the noise

:45:41. > :45:44.stops and everyone goes about their business happily. I know that some

:45:45. > :45:48.of the proposals that are then in wells have been absolutely massive.

:45:49. > :45:56.I have been working with the Honorable member very hard with him

:45:57. > :45:58.on this and some absolutely amazingly large proposals in his

:45:59. > :46:05.constituency. I know this is a real concern for many people across

:46:06. > :46:09.Wales. As I was saying the current guidelines don't actually monitoring

:46:10. > :46:16.-- monitor amplitude modulation at all. In fact this noise falls

:46:17. > :46:22.outside of monitoring. There is only one wind form that I know of, at

:46:23. > :46:25.where the planning decision the united kingdom, were planning

:46:26. > :46:32.conditions have been proposed for amplitude modulation noise. That was

:46:33. > :46:36.an development in den endeavour. In my concern is has been actually a

:46:37. > :46:38.very long time or decades where everyone has known about this

:46:39. > :46:44.particular issue, but no one has really spoken about it. We get the

:46:45. > :46:48.green light to this particular industry, and I spoke in this place

:46:49. > :46:54.previously about how some of the developers have not been

:46:55. > :46:56.particularly client to villages and constituents of mind when coming

:46:57. > :47:00.forward with development. They knew everything was stacked on their

:47:01. > :47:04.side. My argument as I made to the right Honorable Lady previously, was

:47:05. > :47:07.that the developers could have done a lot better in the past and maybe

:47:08. > :47:13.there would not be this problem that we currently have. Had there been a

:47:14. > :47:20.recognition that local peoples views on these matters should actually

:47:21. > :47:24.carry a great deal of weight. But for decades that did not happen. The

:47:25. > :47:31.wind industry is consistently denied the existence of excessive amplitude

:47:32. > :47:39.modulation. Even though I can point you to experts who will demonstrate

:47:40. > :47:43.to you, this is, amplitude modulation is a frequent occurrence

:47:44. > :47:46.potentially affecting all industrial large wind turbines, often for large

:47:47. > :47:54.periods of time and more frequently than not in the night-time. I can

:47:55. > :47:55.point actually to the survey of environmental health officers and

:47:56. > :48:03.planning authorities that I did myself. Who all or a large number of

:48:04. > :48:11.whom pointed to the fact that they need this thing or something of that

:48:12. > :48:14.ilk was happening but they had no powers to deal with it or nor did

:48:15. > :48:20.they actually have the correct guidance from government to point

:48:21. > :48:25.them into the right direction. While there are people who do complain

:48:26. > :48:29.about amplitude modulation to members of parliament and local

:48:30. > :48:32.planning authorities, actually I think there is a hidden file

:48:33. > :48:40.majority out there. There are people who are willing to suffer in the in

:48:41. > :48:50.silence of this noise because if they do get involved they fear if

:48:51. > :49:01.they had to disclose this when they sold the House it would be an issue.

:49:02. > :49:06.I think actually the existing legal remedies for... There are remedies

:49:07. > :49:11.for residents affected by turbulent noise. It is not fit for the purpose

:49:12. > :49:19.and certainly not fit for measuring amplitude modulation. Evidence

:49:20. > :49:23.however suggest that an abatement notice has not been effective

:49:24. > :49:30.control to protecting nearby residents from excessive amplitude

:49:31. > :49:33.modulation. Others such as private nuisance and similar legal actions

:49:34. > :49:39.have been considered the place to much risk and burden on residents

:49:40. > :49:42.for a problem not of their making, with likely long-term adverse

:49:43. > :49:47.financial implications. In addition there has been a recent trend of

:49:48. > :49:51.secondary operators forming individual shell companies for each

:49:52. > :49:58.wind form. The impact of this was highlighted in July 2015, when my

:49:59. > :50:03.right honourable friend house and introduce the bill into Parliament.

:50:04. > :50:08.With the purpose of acquiring were informed of elements to require

:50:09. > :50:17.public liability insurance for any noise. This was for any noise

:50:18. > :50:20.nuisance. One of his constituents had a problem with the local wind

:50:21. > :50:26.farm but found it impossible to sue. It was clearly a shell company with

:50:27. > :50:32.very limited assets. More concerning about amplitude modulation, is this

:50:33. > :50:36.affects on health. I have read studies that demonstrate quite

:50:37. > :50:41.adequately that wind turbine noise adversely affects sleep and health.

:50:42. > :50:46.This is clear from the evidence examined by a world-renowned expert,

:50:47. > :50:53.who are asked to help me on this, Chris Harrington. He worked with a

:50:54. > :50:56.group that I put together. Wind turbine noise affects sleep and

:50:57. > :51:06.health adversely. Noise levels committed by the current noise

:51:07. > :51:11.regulation... There is no evidence that wind turbine noise is safe. In

:51:12. > :51:15.contrast there are increasing volumes of evidence that outlined

:51:16. > :51:19.the country. There is a list particular concern to the health of

:51:20. > :51:24.children exposed to wind turbine noise. The inadequate consideration

:51:25. > :51:30.of the amplitude modulation isn't large factor in why I believed it to

:51:31. > :51:34.fails to detect the majority of people who live near wind turbines

:51:35. > :51:38.and need this to be reformed. The denial of the wind industry is

:51:39. > :51:43.reminiscent of other health issues in the past. I do believe this could

:51:44. > :51:48.be a very big public health issue going forward. As I can tan. The

:51:49. > :51:55.current noise standard is not fit for purpose. I have plenty of

:51:56. > :52:03.evidence to suggest that it's about -- methodology is completely

:52:04. > :52:06.incorrect. I don't really have to go into the evidence because I have

:52:07. > :52:09.been fortunate enough to be supported by the findings of a

:52:10. > :52:19.recent assembly report in January 20 15. This report recommended a review

:52:20. > :52:25.of the use of the exit 97 guidelines and with a view of adopted and more

:52:26. > :52:30.robust guidelines, with particular reference to current guidelines from

:52:31. > :52:35.the World Health Organization. So I contend that we need an effective

:52:36. > :52:41.planning conditions, for amplitude modulation. The wind industry claims

:52:42. > :52:47.that the amplitude modulation planning is not necessary and that

:52:48. > :52:52.the nuisance provides adequate protection. This is discredited by

:52:53. > :52:55.the evidence that I have seen and published on my website. Without a

:52:56. > :52:59.planning condition, there is no effective remedy to wind farm

:53:00. > :53:06.labourers, who suffer from excessive noise. The relevance of amplitude

:53:07. > :53:11.modulation causing noise complaints has driven the wind industry to

:53:12. > :53:15.ensure that a planning condition of this type is not applied a standard

:53:16. > :53:22.planning practice. This is why I wanted to raise it today. We are

:53:23. > :53:25.having this conversation about renewables obligation certificates

:53:26. > :53:35.and the planning guidance that goes alongside as part of a manifesto

:53:36. > :53:39.commitment. I'm happy to give away. Does he agree with me that the

:53:40. > :53:43.decision as to whether the product -- project go-ahead should sit with

:53:44. > :53:49.the local people and that when the local people have agreed on this? I

:53:50. > :53:54.thank the Honorable gentleman for his point. I have a long contended

:53:55. > :54:00.and said in every speech that I have given the wind in this place, that

:54:01. > :54:05.actually is local people want to have a web form, who is the local MP

:54:06. > :54:09.or any politician to get in their way? I wanted to be subsidy free. I

:54:10. > :54:15.want them to benefit from it. But they believe is a benefit to the

:54:16. > :54:22.local community, that I have no issue with that. I do think people

:54:23. > :54:27.should be aware of the potential health concerns around noise and

:54:28. > :54:30.amplitude modulation. I do think we have the opportunity here to ensure

:54:31. > :54:37.that any of those concerns can be mitigated. The local community in

:54:38. > :54:43.the future steps forward and says yes we desperately would love to

:54:44. > :54:48.have 100 wind turbines surround our village, devalue our houses, and

:54:49. > :54:57.hide us from our rural hinterland, they can do so knowing that if

:54:58. > :55:03.amplitude modulation was to happen, then actually they would be able to

:55:04. > :55:07.have turbines that are producing the amplitude modulation were turned

:55:08. > :55:13.off, so at least they could sleep. I wondered if he is aware of Professor

:55:14. > :55:20.Peter Stiles, who published a study on vibrations from wind turbines in

:55:21. > :55:27.Scotland? He says when the wind form starts to generate even a low wind

:55:28. > :55:33.speed sounds can be detected at stations out about ten km. Now some

:55:34. > :55:38.developers are proposing to install bigger turbines. So the older

:55:39. > :55:46.studies show that these were safe for the purposes of noise, are now

:55:47. > :55:52.out of date. And that now turbines are up to 100 metres high and

:55:53. > :55:55.causing more problems? I am very aware that study and I obviously

:55:56. > :56:00.agree with what the gentleman found. The interesting thing here is that

:56:01. > :56:06.as those turbines get longer -- a larger, it generates a slightly

:56:07. > :56:12.larger area and some of the turbines that we are now considering putting

:56:13. > :56:17.out, we have gone past the 18 metre stage, in my constituency, you will

:56:18. > :56:22.find dozens and dozens of wind turbines over 126 metres high. That

:56:23. > :56:25.is about the size of the one London eye. If you consider the blades

:56:26. > :56:30.moving around that, the way they top the wind, it does create this thing

:56:31. > :56:37.called amplitude modulation. My answer is yes. More and more people

:56:38. > :56:40.now have an understanding that this is happening. We just need a

:56:41. > :56:45.planning condition that is suitable and sensible to ensure that local

:56:46. > :56:49.communities that are affected by this problem have a way of stopping

:56:50. > :56:56.it from happening to them. This is why I wanted to talk about the

:56:57. > :57:02.application of amplitude modulation planning conditions such as the one

:57:03. > :57:05.in Denver and Devon. This came forward and 2009. It was fought

:57:06. > :57:11.tooth and nail by the wind industry at that point in time. To them it

:57:12. > :57:17.represented a serious risk to them because I planning condition of this

:57:18. > :57:22.type added cost and actually made it slightly more difficult to get

:57:23. > :57:26.turbines through planning and the first place. If there is a potential

:57:27. > :57:30.hit a health risk to a big industrial turbine being placed in

:57:31. > :57:38.the area, you might well Could he tell us with the fixes for

:57:39. > :57:43.this and if there is a way for suppressing the noise that is

:57:44. > :57:47.realistic? The best way of suppressing the noise is to turn the

:57:48. > :57:55.turbine off for a period of time that it is working. When the noise

:57:56. > :57:58.is likely to occur. As the accusations were demonstrated to me

:57:59. > :58:04.this noise is more likely to occur at night, because other background

:58:05. > :58:07.noises have dropped down. You can predict it because you know which

:58:08. > :58:14.way the wind is blowing and what speed. It drops down to the ground

:58:15. > :58:20.level and a certain way so you know exactly which houses and the zone

:58:21. > :58:25.area that is going to affect. With sensible meteorological readings and

:58:26. > :58:36.monitoring equipment which is now cheaper to purchase you can do a lot

:58:37. > :58:39.better. Not me personally thank you, but so many residents of my

:58:40. > :58:46.constituency. Everything you said is right. I find it staggering that

:58:47. > :58:49.given the world of figuring -- physics it is amazing that

:58:50. > :58:55.modulation is a surprise to us when it comes to wind farms. As a natural

:58:56. > :58:59.occurrence of wave technology. We have a knowledge base of my

:59:00. > :59:04.constituency damage to a wind farm which is outside my constituency.

:59:05. > :59:08.The residents there have been blighted with a wind farm for years.

:59:09. > :59:16.They cannot sell their houses or open their windows. That data is

:59:17. > :59:24.there in the government would be to use that data. I have to agree with

:59:25. > :59:27.the honourable lady. I have been to the farm to see the wind farm

:59:28. > :59:36.myself. I met with some of the residence. I think she has the

:59:37. > :59:39.illustrious Bev Grey who has provided me with more information

:59:40. > :59:44.than any man could possibly want behind the readings of amplitude

:59:45. > :59:51.modulation and the noise that his community suffers from on a regular

:59:52. > :59:57.basis. It is not rocket science. When you do get amplitude modulation

:59:58. > :00:00.people do suffer. There are genuine health concerns around this. For too

:00:01. > :00:10.long have been swept under the carpet. I then said with the Denver

:00:11. > :00:18.condition there is a chance visit the planning commission and try to

:00:19. > :00:23.deal with it could come forward. Instead of welcoming it as a method

:00:24. > :00:27.of defeating some of the wind farm opponents across the country who say

:00:28. > :00:33.that you do not deal with the problem of wind, we understand there

:00:34. > :00:37.is a problem with window and we will mitigate it when it happened. The

:00:38. > :00:42.wind industry went into complete denial upfront aggressiveness

:00:43. > :00:47.fighting this particular planning commission through the courts. Over

:00:48. > :00:53.an eight-year period they took to ensure firstly the planning

:00:54. > :00:59.condition was not applied, and then having it removed. And finally to

:01:00. > :01:02.make sure that if it ever came back it was sufficiently weakened and it

:01:03. > :01:11.was pointless if it was to ever return. I obviously would like to

:01:12. > :01:15.just suggest that when we look forward on the manifesto commitments

:01:16. > :01:20.of the Conservative Party of the last election, when we talk about

:01:21. > :01:27.doing what we are doing with the renewable obligation change. As of

:01:28. > :01:34.the end of this month. We have also brought forth the appropriate

:01:35. > :01:40.planning conditions to make sure this particular problem of amplitude

:01:41. > :01:45.modulation as well addressed and making wind developers and wind

:01:46. > :01:53.farms and more acceptable in the parts of the country. I wonder if he

:01:54. > :02:01.can answer this question now. Is it predictable? When you have a certain

:02:02. > :02:03.design is impossible to say for that design there will be this much

:02:04. > :02:07.modulation or is it just something that happens depending on other

:02:08. > :02:12.factors which is quite hard to plan for? As predictable as much as the

:02:13. > :02:16.wind is predictable. You know which direction it is coming from and how

:02:17. > :02:23.fast it is going to be. You can predict a zone which will be

:02:24. > :02:31.affected. On any given basis on any given day. My point to my honourable

:02:32. > :02:36.friend is firstly not to give up on the changes to the renewable

:02:37. > :02:47.obligation. This is a manifesto commitment. I have personally some

:02:48. > :02:51.concerns with the report that she commissioned by her department and

:02:52. > :02:57.would like to see judged against the evidence that I have taken to her

:02:58. > :03:02.going forward. Just to make the point that had the wind industry did

:03:03. > :03:06.behaved any more pragmatic and sensible way going back a few years

:03:07. > :03:12.we probably would not have been this position in first place. I know

:03:13. > :03:17.there are, and I am saying this, and I am known for my views on this

:03:18. > :03:19.subject, I know there are sensible developers out there of wind

:03:20. > :03:25.technology who try to do their best for the local communities that they

:03:26. > :03:29.install these turbines in. Unfortunately, I don't have an

:03:30. > :03:34.example of that in my constituency. I think that the wind industry has

:03:35. > :04:01.broken up this issue. I rise to move amendments 24 233 and

:04:02. > :04:13.4246. On the order paper for the amendments for this report stage. So

:04:14. > :04:16.moving I want to emphasise those amendments stand individually they

:04:17. > :04:26.are in fact a collective whole and today refer to successive parts of

:04:27. > :04:31.both the amendments to the bill as it came from another place that the

:04:32. > :04:39.government placed into the bill at committee stage to cut short the

:04:40. > :04:48.closing date of the renewable obligation from its original date of

:04:49. > :04:55.the 31st of March 2017 to 31st of March 2016. The effect of the

:04:56. > :05:03.amendments that we have placed today is to move those dates and the dates

:05:04. > :05:10.which are set out in the various grace period provisions that have

:05:11. > :05:19.been placed into the bill by the government to around a date of the

:05:20. > :05:25.1st of March 2000 17. That is the amendments they do bring propose

:05:26. > :05:34.closer of the Aru forward from the 1st of March 2017, the first -- 31st

:05:35. > :05:42.of March. As the present proposal before us. I want to add as well

:05:43. > :05:48.that's I do have some freezers in terms of the present closer dates

:05:49. > :05:59.that is in front of this as far as his bill is concerned. For its

:06:00. > :06:06.robustness in the face of the passage of this bill itself. We are

:06:07. > :06:12.today discussing report stage as Honorable members can see. A closure

:06:13. > :06:23.date, very close to the day that we are discussing the closure date. The

:06:24. > :06:28.passage of the rest of this bill having come from another place in

:06:29. > :06:37.the first instance is one that will have to finish. In another place,

:06:38. > :06:48.shortly. Certainly having a closure date before us today that is just a

:06:49. > :06:51.fortnight or so away from today does, in my view, create

:06:52. > :07:03.considerable difficulties for the closure of the Aru itself under the

:07:04. > :07:06.present circumstances. I think may well be understood it is not the

:07:07. > :07:09.case that we are discussing something today that does not exist

:07:10. > :07:15.and can be brought into existence by legislation. We are discussing

:07:16. > :07:20.something that not only exists today and if we do nothing as far as

:07:21. > :07:29.legislation is concerned, will continue to carry on until the 31st

:07:30. > :07:32.of March 2017. We discussing something which is on the face of

:07:33. > :07:39.legislation in this house already that is a specific mention of

:07:40. > :07:45.legislation in this house that the renewable obligation comes to an end

:07:46. > :07:49.on the 31st of March 2000 17. That means if nothing actually happens to

:07:50. > :07:56.stop that from carrying on that it will carry on until a particular

:07:57. > :08:04.date. And tends any sense as far as legislation here is concerned. We

:08:05. > :08:12.have one go and changing the date. Indeed if this bill is still on its

:08:13. > :08:16.passage through the houses apartments, after the closure date

:08:17. > :08:26.has come into being we will in fact be in a position of retrospective

:08:27. > :08:32.legislation. We know the case that from the moment everyone knew the

:08:33. > :08:35.general election it was going to be done as expeditiously as possible,

:08:36. > :08:42.surely ever want to plan perfectly well around that obvious point? The

:08:43. > :08:47.right Honorable member has perhaps jumped the gun in the point he

:08:48. > :08:51.wanted to make. About the effect of this particular closure. That is a

:08:52. > :08:58.different point from the point I am actually making about this closure.

:08:59. > :09:05.Which is that we stand in danger and the imposition of not investor

:09:06. > :09:12.conference finance or certainty but what we do in terms of exposing this

:09:13. > :09:18.house to the potential of legal action relating to the fact that

:09:19. > :09:23.although a renewable obligation will be closed administratively by this

:09:24. > :09:33.government it will not have been legislatively. If there are

:09:34. > :09:39.continuing discussions before the bill comes to a close and receives

:09:40. > :09:48.Royal assent in those discussions continue on before the 31st of March

:09:49. > :09:51.2016. I hear what the honourable gentleman is saying but isn't there

:09:52. > :09:56.an issue of fairness and social equity here in that he is making a

:09:57. > :09:59.special plea on behalf of the renewable companies for what is

:10:00. > :10:03.effectively a defect of fiscal payments for some of the poorest

:10:04. > :10:07.consumers in fuel poverty to those individuals in those companies.

:10:08. > :10:12.Isn't that the bigger issue not least also the fact we have

:10:13. > :10:17.intellectual mandates to carry through this policy which he is well

:10:18. > :10:22.aware of. I will come to the question of whether the Honorable

:10:23. > :10:25.members party as an electoral mandates carry through this policy

:10:26. > :10:33.in a moment. Again this is not the point that I am making right now. As

:10:34. > :10:42.a point that we stands in danger. Of indeed legal action available. To

:10:43. > :10:46.those who do not want this obligation to be close. And indeed

:10:47. > :10:52.perhaps the honourable member might reflect on the fact that the mandate

:10:53. > :10:59.perhaps if there is a mandate to get on and do it. And to do it properly.

:11:00. > :11:05.And it's not incompetently. In such a way that legal action is selling

:11:06. > :11:10.that one can be exposed to. The point of the fact that the renewable

:11:11. > :11:17.obligation is here has been here for quite a long time and as the

:11:18. > :11:21.legislation at the moment states will continue until the 31st of

:11:22. > :11:27.March 2017 unless someone does something from happening. If no one

:11:28. > :11:32.has done anything from stopping it happening by the 31st of March 2016

:11:33. > :11:38.then claims can still be put forward. For the renewable

:11:39. > :11:43.obligation after that day. It says on the face of legislation that

:11:44. > :11:52.renewable obligation continues. In practice I would not think that many

:11:53. > :11:56.people would venture forward to seek certification for renewable

:11:57. > :12:00.obligation after the 31st of March after 2016 Crystal discussing it in

:12:01. > :12:09.this house. That possibility is open however. It is something that I

:12:10. > :12:12.think reflects to some extent. Editing a new doctrine that the

:12:13. > :12:16.government should never try and change the law because the

:12:17. > :12:22.opposition might try and delay it. I think the Honorable member misses

:12:23. > :12:27.the point I am making. It is not trying to delay the law, but it is

:12:28. > :12:31.the fact that in terms of the rush to close this renewable obligation

:12:32. > :12:42.not by the Government or the opposition, the subsequence, nature

:12:43. > :12:47.of this and the way it has been scheduled. And the way that is

:12:48. > :12:51.physically possible that further stages may be scheduled and the net

:12:52. > :12:56.result of that is that the government and not the opposition

:12:57. > :13:01.they put it in a position that retrospective legislation is

:13:02. > :13:08.apparently the case and at the possibility of legal action is

:13:09. > :13:13.apparently the case. It is important that we remember that today. One of

:13:14. > :13:22.the reasons why I am suggesting that the closure of the renewable

:13:23. > :13:26.obligation ought to be early is because that is among things that

:13:27. > :13:37.actually avoids that potential legal action taking place. In reality what

:13:38. > :13:48.we know is that the proposed closure of the renewable obligation, in the

:13:49. > :13:56.early is not about carrying out a particular manifesto pledge if these

:13:57. > :14:01.are the renewable obligations not a new subsidy. That is what the was in

:14:02. > :14:09.the conservative manifesto and indeed we have had discussions about

:14:10. > :14:17.this issue. The proposals that are before us are about putting an end

:14:18. > :14:24.to something that has been in place for a considerable period of time,

:14:25. > :14:28.has worked well, was about to change in good time to a new system which

:14:29. > :14:36.does allow for underwriting in the path down to the ending of effective

:14:37. > :14:43.dissolving subsidies and underwriting technology to achieve

:14:44. > :14:47.market parity. And something which industry investors were clear about

:14:48. > :14:51.and were confident about. They were confident not just the fact that the

:14:52. > :14:56.renewable obligation had worked for a while, but there was a clear

:14:57. > :15:01.process that renewable obligation would come to an end, and there was

:15:02. > :15:05.a clear process where the contracts were different and new system which

:15:06. > :15:13.was discussed at length in the energy bill in 2013. There was a

:15:14. > :15:23.clear line of progression from one to the other and orderly roll-outs

:15:24. > :15:33.of renewable energy getting progressive and more cheaper over a

:15:34. > :15:40.period. In formulating his amendments has yet time to get to

:15:41. > :15:44.the climate change select committee. Of course that governments current

:15:45. > :15:50.party would lead to build increasing. The Honorable member is

:15:51. > :15:56.absolutely right to draw attention to that report and indeed to the

:15:57. > :16:01.issue that has arisen not just on these particular changes but from

:16:02. > :16:06.other abrupt and policy that the government has undertaken in the

:16:07. > :16:14.field of renewable energy. The net result overall has been a dramatic

:16:15. > :16:19.drop in investor confidence and a dramatic fall from advanced

:16:20. > :16:26.positions as far as being a country in which it was regarded as a safe

:16:27. > :16:30.place and a good place to invest in as far as renewable energy is

:16:31. > :16:36.concerned. And indeed, as a result of the policy lurches I feel with

:16:37. > :16:40.many investors the world is not one of confusion with the possibility

:16:41. > :16:45.that they perhaps do not recommend the investments go ahead in the

:16:46. > :16:48.boardrooms as far as this country is concerned and perhaps in light the

:16:49. > :16:52.competitiveness of other countries as far as renewables is concerned

:16:53. > :17:02.that they put those renewables elsewhere. This policy lurches has

:17:03. > :17:10.thrown very many programmes in two confusion. It has thrown a lot of

:17:11. > :17:16.potential investment in this country not just in the form of onshore wind

:17:17. > :17:21.but the form of her new boss. These things tend to create spread across

:17:22. > :17:29.the confidence in other areas of investment. When had well just been

:17:30. > :17:36.left alone it would have been possible to visage of a secure

:17:37. > :17:41.circumstance with a clear understanding of what investors were

:17:42. > :17:47.doing and a clear understanding of what those investments would change

:17:48. > :17:56.over time. This is not about putting an end to new subsidies, it is a

:17:57. > :18:02.question of taking a well understood long-lived subsidy and actually

:18:03. > :18:09.removing it before the period when investors, the market, and everyone

:18:10. > :18:15.else had expected it to be come to an end and be replaced by another

:18:16. > :18:19.system. Indeed as late as the spring of this year after I imagine a

:18:20. > :18:29.conservative manifesto being written, the Secretary of State made

:18:30. > :18:32.it clear that the RO was to close in 2017 and it would be undertaken and

:18:33. > :18:37.it therefore came as more of a surprise to investors in the market

:18:38. > :18:40.that this change would been undertaken. Previously the

:18:41. > :18:50.government had been so confident that the procedure had the under it

:18:51. > :18:56.was originally set out. Under this removal of the renewable obligation

:18:57. > :19:01.closure early date. Is that it is all OK because we are reaching

:19:02. > :19:10.targets of onshore wind. Indeed in terms of our renewable targets our

:19:11. > :19:17.2020 targets for the proportion of renewable energy that will make up

:19:18. > :19:22.our overall energy mix, 50% is our commitment as far as European

:19:23. > :19:32.targets of 2020 is concerned. -- 15%. It was represented by wind,

:19:33. > :19:38.particularly onshore winds, is reaching its targets and therefore

:19:39. > :19:47.it is OK to actually and the RO early in place the market in two

:19:48. > :19:53.confusion and has been placed into. We have to bear in mind when we are

:19:54. > :20:00.looking at that particular target we are looking at other components. On

:20:01. > :20:05.heat and on transport. It is a targets which by the way, the UK can

:20:06. > :20:14.be fined as far as missing is concerned. It is also a target which

:20:15. > :20:20.can be achieved by overachieving in some areas even if you are

:20:21. > :20:24.underachieving and others. The 12% renewable heat target, which we are

:20:25. > :20:30.failing miserably on at the moment, the 10% renewable field -- fuel

:20:31. > :20:35.target. Could actually be supported by continuing supporting onshore

:20:36. > :20:43.wind in this country. In order to make sure those targets were met. To

:20:44. > :20:46.cut onshore wind in this way might suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, just

:20:47. > :20:54.when the extent of the failure to keep the overall target is

:20:55. > :20:58.irresponsible to say the lease. The further claim that we have heard in

:20:59. > :21:02.the passage of this bill is that this is all being done to help

:21:03. > :21:08.customers who have to pay for the underwriting of onshore wind. Of

:21:09. > :21:12.course, it is very important that we consider what bills customers are

:21:13. > :21:19.paying. When we go about deciding how best we established our energy

:21:20. > :21:25.mix for the future. We will have to establish our energy mix that is the

:21:26. > :21:34.most affordable, is the least carbon icing, and is the most secure over

:21:35. > :21:42.the next period. Clearly this is being done to help customers in

:21:43. > :21:45.reality paper-thin. Among other things, because if the government

:21:46. > :21:53.were serious about renewables in general as they claim they are, the

:21:54. > :22:00.hole left by onshore wind by the closure of the RO and other things

:22:01. > :22:05.there is a loss of ?1 billion on the cards as result of what is happening

:22:06. > :22:10.in terms of lack of investment following on from the changes indeed

:22:11. > :22:15.is the select committee has reflected. The point is that those

:22:16. > :22:19.polls will need to be made up by other renewable sources that are at

:22:20. > :22:26.present more expensive to underwrite. Then the onshore wind

:22:27. > :22:31.that they replace. The next outcome of this particular measure could

:22:32. > :22:36.well be that actually the costs to customers is considerably more than

:22:37. > :22:38.is the case at the moment it particular abridgments at the stand

:22:39. > :22:44.right now I have been allowed to continue to their conclusion.

:22:45. > :22:49.Indeed, onshore wind is at the root bleeding edge of market parity. The

:22:50. > :22:57.government will be aware was on a stained blind path to parity when

:22:58. > :23:08.investor confidence high. I estimate that the test -- damage to investor

:23:09. > :23:13.confidence is Norma's. -- enormous. It was competitive deployment will

:23:14. > :23:29.progress a cliff in which investment will fall. The further claim that

:23:30. > :23:40.the change that is being proposed in this bill is necessary is all to do

:23:41. > :23:49.with the Levy control framework, the eminent that we have these days is a

:23:50. > :23:56.control framework formed and ask security by government and has the

:23:57. > :24:02.same background gloom that people attend to have the Thai collations

:24:03. > :24:10.in variations that have the consequence. It was devised in 2011

:24:11. > :24:19.by the government to get us into a position where something like seven

:24:20. > :24:37.points ?6 billion at 2012 prices of Levy payers money -- seven 6p, that

:24:38. > :24:41.is... Was supposed to provide a framework for renewables to develop

:24:42. > :24:47.within. The Levy control framework I think a number of honourable members

:24:48. > :24:57.will be aware is based on a static end points, 2020 in this instance.

:24:58. > :25:04.When actually prices are very low. It is based on the idea of a strike

:25:05. > :25:12.price, which energy, renewable energy will receive. Agreed in

:25:13. > :25:16.certainly is for onshore wind is concerned an auction process.

:25:17. > :25:24.Against a reference price which is the price that is the medium price

:25:25. > :25:28.for energy at a particular time. They will be considered in two of

:25:29. > :25:35.what rewards will be undertaken for that renewable energy. As and if

:25:36. > :25:39.energy prices go down than the difference between the strike price

:25:40. > :25:44.and the reference price widens. Although renewable energy

:25:45. > :25:49.development will receive the same amount of money for their renewable

:25:50. > :25:53.energy the makeup of that particular amount of money to the renewable

:25:54. > :25:58.energy developer will turn out to be very different. That is the more

:25:59. > :26:04.prices go down the less they will get in terms of the reference price

:26:05. > :26:08.as the more they will get in the difference of the reference price in

:26:09. > :26:13.the strike price from the daily control framework. The Levy control

:26:14. > :26:18.framework over the period of time as it is presently designed increases

:26:19. > :26:23.the reward to those who are inside the system even though they don't

:26:24. > :26:28.get a total additional reward, but it squeezes new interest out of the

:26:29. > :26:32.process because all of the money is made up of rewarding those who are

:26:33. > :26:36.already inside the system and less and less money is made up of

:26:37. > :26:41.providing money from new interest outside the system. Many

:26:42. > :26:46.commentators consider that the Levy control framework in its present

:26:47. > :26:58.form is essentially busts as far as new entrants are concerned.

:26:59. > :27:03.Therefore the claim that the relatively small amount of change

:27:04. > :27:08.that will be undertaken by the Levy control of framework by ending the

:27:09. > :27:11.renewable obligation period a year early is all about how the Levy

:27:12. > :27:17.control framework balances itself. It is already a pretty thin claim

:27:18. > :27:23.indeed. Bearing in mind for city range of headroom is that

:27:24. > :27:27.theoretically has been in the Levy control framework added to

:27:28. > :27:32.difficulties of the Levy control framework itself has. I was struck

:27:33. > :27:45.recently by a simultaneous announcement that government will be

:27:46. > :27:54.closing the RO early. To have other technology to save an estimate of ?1

:27:55. > :28:01.2020. Line the same breath as it expensive thing which will be paid

:28:02. > :28:06.for by customers and in this instance but ?20 on bills by 2020.

:28:07. > :28:11.In this instance it is estimated that the early closure of the

:28:12. > :28:17.renewable obligation saves bill pay or something like 30p on their

:28:18. > :28:25.bills. It increases their carbon emissions by millions of tonnes. The

:28:26. > :28:33.number of conservative parties back benches on wind as it is about a

:28:34. > :28:38.surgical strike on an area of difficulty and your honourable

:28:39. > :28:42.friends for the control framework. As the inadequacies of the grace

:28:43. > :28:48.period of this organisation show it is not even if this government will

:28:49. > :28:57.benefit the schemes from those backbenchers and need to ensure the

:28:58. > :29:00.look making favours wind that we on the side support incidentally.

:29:01. > :29:04.Providing it really is the case because of a wind farm get support

:29:05. > :29:10.to the planning process and has community backing as many schemes

:29:11. > :29:14.currently do, then it does get the go-ahead from government. It really

:29:15. > :29:17.is the principle behind the deployment of onshore winds that the

:29:18. > :29:20.government supports than it should immediately include other than

:29:21. > :29:25.exclude in number of schemes which is the current case. The schemes

:29:26. > :29:29.have always gone on the path of seeking local support and seeking

:29:30. > :29:32.local payment agreements and instead the government have put in place an

:29:33. > :29:37.arbitrary cutoff dates for such schemes even if they were in an

:29:38. > :29:38.advanced position to support them locally, there's awaiting their

:29:39. > :29:50.final certificate. A few moments ago he mentioned that

:29:51. > :29:54.he wasn't happy he didn't appear to be happy that the capacity auction

:29:55. > :30:01.with the government announced two weeks ago in the way has it that has

:30:02. > :30:09.with the Labor front bench the capacity auction should not be

:30:10. > :30:12.brought forward? The question of whether the capacity auction to be

:30:13. > :30:15.brought forward to an extent is a subset of the government believes

:30:16. > :30:21.those capacity options will actually be produced in the capacity or not

:30:22. > :30:27.the honourable member is fully aware. Indeed the capacity auction

:30:28. > :30:33.controls the framework I won't go into much deeper rather tepid

:30:34. > :30:36.arranges that the government has arranged as far as those auctions

:30:37. > :30:43.are concerned simply to try bringing auction forward by a gear with

:30:44. > :30:46.roughly the same parameters applying with clearance prices of the auction

:30:47. > :30:53.and roughly the same parameters about the distance between the

:30:54. > :30:57.clearance prices and the price to secure any new investment over the

:30:58. > :31:02.15 year period, it doesn't necessarily strike me as a smartest

:31:03. > :31:06.way to proceed with the aim of actually procuring long-term

:31:07. > :31:14.capacity in the capacity market itself. I think it is required of a

:31:15. > :31:22.capacity options to secure that and of the next period. But where I was

:31:23. > :31:35.just briefly, thinking about before that intervention, was indeed the

:31:36. > :31:45.subject of two back the House amendment 23 which I'm meeting also

:31:46. > :31:50.today -- moving. Schemes that have local support received should

:31:51. > :31:54.proceed and should adopt these amendments. These amendments are

:31:55. > :31:57.about schemes that have actually undertaken all the right moves and

:31:58. > :32:01.germs of getting local agreement to their particular plans, all the

:32:02. > :32:06.inquiries, the concerns, the planning arrangements, they are

:32:07. > :32:11.actually on the cusp of hitting those agreements agreed on. The

:32:12. > :32:18.planning on the local authority level in the government had just

:32:19. > :32:25.pulled the plug on that. The government therefore ought to adopt

:32:26. > :32:29.these amendments with its own principle that local areas should

:32:30. > :32:35.decide on local schemes and those local schemes could support where

:32:36. > :32:42.local community supported him. Conversely however Mr Speaker I fear

:32:43. > :32:49.that the bill if it is amended is a programme on wind short execution,

:32:50. > :32:53.and not on wind short programme. Our vision on the side of the House is

:32:54. > :32:59.locally supported up on shore when deployment complement in other

:33:00. > :33:04.places such as solar, optional wind options. Not because we have to do,

:33:05. > :33:08.but it is the right thing to do it insure and we have a balanced low

:33:09. > :33:13.carbon energy for the future. This bill stands in respect to this

:33:14. > :33:22.Clause points in the opposite direction. I earned -- urged the

:33:23. > :33:26.honourable members... Mr Deputy Speaker I rise to support the

:33:27. > :33:29.government in projection of the amendment which would delay getting

:33:30. > :33:35.rid of these subsidies for wind power. Our country desperately needs

:33:36. > :33:41.more electrical power to be available, I am pleased the

:33:42. > :33:45.government is now taking action with capacity auction to get more power

:33:46. > :33:50.available. It is more affordable power available. We need to tackle

:33:51. > :33:53.fuel poverty and prices that households can afford and purchase

:33:54. > :34:05.we need to have affordable power for extra industry which is one of the

:34:06. > :34:12.tensor product aims. People expect continuous power for light and to

:34:13. > :34:18.power their home, the industry needs continuous power for its processes.

:34:19. > :34:23.So for all his ground when it does not cut the mustard Mr Speaker. I am

:34:24. > :34:32.glad we have a government that recognises this. What the European

:34:33. > :34:36.Union is doing, what the Labour government is doing on energy policy

:34:37. > :34:41.will go down as one of their catastrophic failures. I think it is

:34:42. > :34:47.to be the exchange rate mechanism was destroyed much clap posterity in

:34:48. > :34:52.our country. It may not be as big as the disaster of the euro which may

:34:53. > :34:57.be the biggest classic possessed of the European Union. Europe as a

:34:58. > :35:08.whole, is becoming a area of two high-cost energy which is driving it

:35:09. > :35:12.out of the European Union. Far from sparing the planet any extra carbon

:35:13. > :35:15.dioxide, all these mad policy doing is the future carbon dioxide is

:35:16. > :35:18.produced somewhere else rather than within the European Union itself.

:35:19. > :35:24.When we look at the company like Germany, went in its respect you can

:35:25. > :35:29.admire, they have much more wind power, what happens when the wind

:35:30. > :35:34.doesn't blow up Mr Speaker I hop up tight what happens when the wind

:35:35. > :35:36.doesn't blow. Germany relies on extremely dirty coal powers to turn

:35:37. > :35:44.the electricity producing more carbon dioxide, which on average

:35:45. > :35:50.would have been better than the strange mixture of wind when the

:35:51. > :35:55.wind blows, the back-up power very often in Germany and Europe

:35:56. > :36:04.generated from coal is extremely bad for carbon dioxide, when the wind

:36:05. > :36:11.doesn't blow. In fact in Germany these the cold all the time the

:36:12. > :36:23.reason the carbon emissions 30% higher than the UK unit of GDP and

:36:24. > :36:29.at capita to be so much fossil fuel and cold here as well. When the wind

:36:30. > :36:34.doesn't blow then you can use more coal because obviously it there

:36:35. > :36:39.replaces the come from fossil fuel, so my point is that the wind system

:36:40. > :36:43.with fossil fuel back-up doesn't even work on its own terms and he is

:36:44. > :36:48.right that the German merit order is somewhat different in this country

:36:49. > :36:52.as we would like to point out Mr Deputy Speaker we have managed to do

:36:53. > :36:57.every damage of power in our generation from an economic point of

:36:58. > :37:03.view. Because it insists on giving economic priority like wind it means

:37:04. > :37:07.that the more liable to per sources like gas, themselves become

:37:08. > :37:10.intermittent because they have to be switched off every time the wind

:37:11. > :37:16.blows, and switched back on every time the wind isn't blowing, which

:37:17. > :37:20.in itself is difficult and expensive process. But also undermines the

:37:21. > :37:25.economics, which would otherwise be good economic power because you

:37:26. > :37:30.can't run the power plants flat out, you have higher operating costs of

:37:31. > :37:38.switching on and off and managing the furnaces accordingly, where you

:37:39. > :37:44.have as much generating less power that you cannot continuously sell

:37:45. > :37:52.power to the market. The honourable gentleman seems to understand the

:37:53. > :37:55.policy is sports the hand invested intervention that we have in the

:37:56. > :38:01.market, means that we are less reliable energy with intermittent

:38:02. > :38:12.unreliable energy every much cleared their energy -- cleaner energy. In

:38:13. > :38:20.the weight that this is been included in the cost of renewables,

:38:21. > :38:32.that the nonrenewable power I give way. Now the government per notes

:38:33. > :38:48.fossil fuels is at work, energy based on fossil fuels is a smart as

:38:49. > :38:51.opposed to up for... . Know it is a very interesting observation, with

:38:52. > :38:55.the fundamental truth I just given him what she does not seem to have

:38:56. > :39:03.reflected on at all. The truth of our current economic policy, I'll

:39:04. > :39:12.give way and the second. The truth about our energy policy is that

:39:13. > :39:14.various agencies have conspired unless we start to reverse those

:39:15. > :39:27.interventions you get those permissions affects -- pernicious.

:39:28. > :39:32.That doesn't mean that it is a good idea which is something that was

:39:33. > :39:50.very unreliable. It is dear then unremarkable fuel. I give way. Which

:39:51. > :39:54.I wonder with his own constituent which actually takes a great deal of

:39:55. > :40:00.work bouncing the system and includes substantial constraints as

:40:01. > :40:05.well as nonfossil fuel and fossil fuel inputs into the system, which

:40:06. > :40:10.causes actual shortages in power delivery at various stages whether

:40:11. > :40:18.fossil fuel or nonfossil fuel delivery queue might reflect on that

:40:19. > :40:26.in terms of his comments was white? Very instant comments, the last was

:40:27. > :40:31.quite recently they were saying it is very difficult to manage the

:40:32. > :40:35.systems with more intermittent winds put on the system and I think the

:40:36. > :40:38.honourable gentleman for reinforcing my point I'm not sure that's what he

:40:39. > :40:50.was trying to do but that is exactly what he does -- it does. The changes

:40:51. > :40:55.of the weather and the winds is screen factor could be accounted for

:40:56. > :40:59.primarily with Palm systems they could send a command from working to

:41:00. > :41:05.ignore to the water came down the hill very quickly the kettles could

:41:06. > :41:08.boil, the interval could whatever was causing the surge in power

:41:09. > :41:12.demand, it is much more difficult to the same time with the wind suddenly

:41:13. > :41:19.drops get the call power for other reasons. It is also leading to but

:41:20. > :41:23.more interconnected with other countries that we then connected

:41:24. > :41:28.order of power on a regular basis which is then not something I value.

:41:29. > :41:44.I want is to secure energy supply in our country, we are after all the

:41:45. > :41:48.land of seed oil and gas -- see. But as I want a industrial revival in

:41:49. > :41:55.this country, industrial revival could well start with importing less

:41:56. > :42:00.electricity is popular it is about security would he raise concerns,

:42:01. > :42:09.about the operation of the capacity market. As a huge deal among money

:42:10. > :42:18.and it is a monument to sleep feeling... The reason you end up

:42:19. > :42:22.with this cast, to try and make you can't run gas flat out into the

:42:23. > :42:28.benefits of running it in the most economical way possible. Yes I would

:42:29. > :42:32.rather have a much simpler market, I think the market works better in the

:42:33. > :42:39.80s and the 90s it was much more competitive and power prices peaked

:42:40. > :42:44.out a lot something like 25% in extra supplies we never had to worry

:42:45. > :42:47.about if you had a cold day with the wind not blowing and whether the

:42:48. > :42:55.industry was quite well. They had to switch the machines off under that

:42:56. > :42:59.regime now we have is grossly intervened regime with subsidies and

:43:00. > :43:05.priorities that don't reflect the economic powers of production. As

:43:06. > :43:11.the honourable gentleman rightly points out, you have to be quite

:43:12. > :43:14.high to provide gas phase power because you can't guarantee them

:43:15. > :43:21.full access to the market on a continuous basis. The more

:43:22. > :43:26.interventions you have over the years, Labour Party conservatives,

:43:27. > :43:30.the more it intervention in this regime you'll try to change it to

:43:31. > :43:35.make it work better the higher the prices must be because people become

:43:36. > :43:40.more suspicious if government has so much power, if the government keeps

:43:41. > :43:44.changing his mind. So it is quite easy from a relatively free

:43:45. > :43:57.successful market to badly damage wreaked subsidizing... You have so

:43:58. > :44:02.positioned in the minds of the investors, bigger contracts bigger

:44:03. > :44:10.guarantees higher prices to give them some kind of offset as they

:44:11. > :44:13.fear you might tinker unnecessarily. The government in its view I wish

:44:14. > :44:19.the government would get on with the remainder subsidies with onshore

:44:20. > :44:24.wind and the wind we said we would do, I hope the opposition will not

:44:25. > :44:38.delay further we get plenty of notified notice of this to get a

:44:39. > :44:44.better energy market. Onshore winds is the inexpensive form of renewable

:44:45. > :44:52.energy and is therefore critical, to maximise input into across the UK to

:44:53. > :45:03.enable both Scotland and the rest of the UK to hit and meet claim change

:45:04. > :45:13.targets. Closing the RO early, pounds of... The forecast of saving

:45:14. > :45:22.bills, this equates to 63 million tonnes of CO2 and is therefore a

:45:23. > :45:26.missed opportunity in terms of hitting climate change targets. I

:45:27. > :45:31.spoke at length at the committee in terms of grace periods to get them

:45:32. > :45:34.right as I won't Labor the point here, however it is important and

:45:35. > :45:43.should not disadvantage projects with no follow their own fall to the

:45:44. > :45:49.cracks due to closure of the RO. My friends out the honourable members

:45:50. > :45:56.as he is no longer in his place, they have both spoken about the real

:45:57. > :46:03.and very difficult deterioration of invested confidence, now is

:46:04. > :46:07.proceeding it must be done fairly and with a view to the critical part

:46:08. > :46:14.of onshore wind plays in the over all energy solution for the UK. We

:46:15. > :46:16.must keep the lights on, and this is why I am moving forward amendment

:46:17. > :46:29.eight of the bill thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.

:46:30. > :46:40.As they made clear during our last debate on this issue are the

:46:41. > :46:44.equivalent approach about onshore winds in order to provide

:46:45. > :46:50.consistency to industry and to protect the bills. So amendment 50

:46:51. > :46:53.is in relation to Clause 81 to backstop our regarding Northern

:46:54. > :46:59.Ireland. At committee stage, I introduced a Clause with a view crew

:47:00. > :47:06.of protecting viewers the macro customers in group a and -- Great

:47:07. > :47:08.Britain. I'd like your remind the honourable members the Clause

:47:09. > :47:15.receives considerable support at that stage, but also with backstop

:47:16. > :47:19.power. That is only to save the power is exercised if Northern

:47:20. > :47:22.Ireland decides not to close the Northern Ireland renewable

:47:23. > :47:28.obligation scheme to renew onshore winds with renewable terms. This new

:47:29. > :47:33.moment simply clarifies the drafting of the Clause, to ensure consistency

:47:34. > :47:42.with the early closure of the renewals observation by making it

:47:43. > :47:46.clear that the power in Clause 81 extends to additional capacity adds

:47:47. > :47:50.to on store... Onshore wind stations. So Mr Deputy Speaker I

:47:51. > :47:56.should highlight that the intent behind the Clause is not use at all.

:47:57. > :47:59.Coming now to a nongovernment amendment I like to thank all

:48:00. > :48:05.honourable members for the complements and I will not respond

:48:06. > :48:11.to the amendment to this group. A number of amendments specifically

:48:12. > :48:17.set out one through 21 have already been discussed in some detail and at

:48:18. > :48:29.length during committee. Mr Deputy Speaker as far as I can see

:48:30. > :48:33.following their agreement not to... Gerald... But to ensure clarity for

:48:34. > :48:37.the honourable members that have not attended that debate, to move

:48:38. > :48:44.forward this debate, I am very happy to gain this government position. I

:48:45. > :48:49.will remind these are all members of clauses 79, and 80. Closet 79

:48:50. > :48:53.implements the early closure of the renewables obligation to onshore

:48:54. > :48:59.winds in Great Britain. Clause 80 sets up the great period under which

:49:00. > :49:04.certain period projects may be accredited beyond the early closure

:49:05. > :49:08.date. So let me be very clear at this point. The government remains

:49:09. > :49:11.committed to delivering our manifesto pledge to end new

:49:12. > :49:17.subsidies for onshore wind, and I'm grateful to my right honourable

:49:18. > :49:22.friend am I to my other honourable friends for their clear support

:49:23. > :49:28.expressed during this debate. But, the government is also conscious of

:49:29. > :49:33.industry certainty and to respond to the quest the honourable friend I

:49:34. > :49:43.like to make it clear that if it goes beyond this bill be on the 31st

:49:44. > :49:47.of March,, and it does not intend to back the provisions. I want to

:49:48. > :49:51.reiterate there is absolutely no change to our commitment to and new

:49:52. > :49:56.subsidies for onshore winds and our actions have shown that we are going

:49:57. > :50:02.to be tough on subsidies in order to keep bills down for families and

:50:03. > :50:07.businesses. Onshore wind has deployed successfully to date, and

:50:08. > :50:14.as demonstrated renewable obligations into account, we expect

:50:15. > :50:21.onshore to fall within our delivery plan projections at 11 to 13

:50:22. > :50:25.gigawatts by 2020. This is our best estimate of what is needed to meet

:50:26. > :50:31.our 2020 target, and is what is affordable by low spending cap. When

:50:32. > :50:36.we announced early closure on the 18th of June, we said it was

:50:37. > :50:40.appropriate that the did appointment of onshore wind balancing the

:50:41. > :50:45.interests of onshore developers with the white public. As I have

:50:46. > :50:52.explained in our debates, the grace period with Clause 80 would develop

:50:53. > :50:57.extensive state engagement and would be designed physically to divide

:50:58. > :51:10.specific seat and clarity in the market. Referred to as the condition

:51:11. > :51:25.in the bill. This requires projects under the RO under the March 2017 --

:51:26. > :51:32.2017... All confirmation that no connection is required and three

:51:33. > :51:35.Access to land rights so Mr Deputy Speaker following further industry

:51:36. > :51:39.given and announced to buy my department, the bill provisions have

:51:40. > :51:42.been improved in a number of ways. Firstly to capture those projects

:51:43. > :51:55.which have a planning application refused before the eight 10th of

:51:56. > :52:04.June -- 18th of June. Which is then subsequently granted consents...

:52:05. > :52:09.Allowing certain projects that qualify for the grace period an

:52:10. > :52:13.additional nine months in which to accredit whether they have been

:52:14. > :52:20.unable to secure debt funding due to legislative uncertainty. Thirdly, to

:52:21. > :52:25.provide the existing rid in regard grace period will be available so

:52:26. > :52:28.that projects who have suffered out of control of their area will have a

:52:29. > :52:35.further 12 months in which to accredit. Let me take a moment to

:52:36. > :52:40.reflect on this. The government believes that the early closure

:52:41. > :52:44.grace period provisions we have put in the bill strikes the right

:52:45. > :52:51.balance between protecting invested confidence and ensuring our costs

:52:52. > :53:10.under the living control framework I give Wade. Does she create a

:53:11. > :53:12.understand this difficulty obviously in Wales the infrastructure

:53:13. > :53:16.applications Wales and England are different can they come together?

:53:17. > :53:26.I'm grateful to the honourable General plan for his point --

:53:27. > :53:32.gentlemen those clarity have gotten it from the words in the debates,

:53:33. > :53:41.and on the face of the bill. Invested confidence seems to be the

:53:42. > :53:45.main reason used to support more changes. Many of the under other

:53:46. > :53:51.amendments which have been tabled here today so let me make reference

:53:52. > :53:55.to the energy and climate change select committee recent inquiry

:53:56. > :54:00.invested confidence which was included later this year I want to

:54:01. > :54:11.reflect at one point in particular which was raised in the committee's

:54:12. > :54:15.sessions. He suggested that if that investments... For example in

:54:16. > :54:22.offshore wind, foreign policies actually putting investors off for

:54:23. > :54:27.policy the UK significant as it is so coming forward. So Mr Deputy

:54:28. > :54:35.Speaker I like to think my honourable friend as well as my

:54:36. > :54:40.honourable friend over there, who have all raised with me the

:54:41. > :54:43.important issues around noise impact from onshore wind farms and the

:54:44. > :54:49.impact they can have on the local level I can confirm to them

:54:50. > :54:54.specifically hope the spread of onshore wind farms and change the

:54:55. > :54:58.laws to the local people have the final say on wind farm applications.

:54:59. > :55:06.We are making sure that people's concerns are sure and addressed that

:55:07. > :55:10.amplitude modulation and ways are controlled. We touched on this on

:55:11. > :55:16.the committee, as I said then we would address them at matter and

:55:17. > :55:19.find a solution to the problem. This might be taking longer than my

:55:20. > :55:22.honourable friend would like, but we are taking independent advice on how

:55:23. > :55:26.best to act in light of that advice, which I do expect to receive

:55:27. > :55:30.shortly. So at this stage, I can't comment further but I think my

:55:31. > :55:34.honourable friend will continue to beat patient with me in the laws and

:55:35. > :55:46.we are very closely looking at this. So turning out to New Clause to Mac

:55:47. > :55:49.it is imperative that the early in order to protect consumers from the

:55:50. > :55:58.risk of over deployment by what beyond what has been degreed. New

:55:59. > :56:02.Clause dos mac would allow Scottish ministers for Scottish ministers

:56:03. > :56:06.under the obligation as a cost consumers right across the Great

:56:07. > :56:15.Britain in fact our estimates show in 2015, 20 million pounds were

:56:16. > :56:20.approximately 60% of our support are ready to go to funding onshore wind

:56:21. > :56:27.farms in the around 20% of UK bill payers are in Scotland. The

:56:28. > :56:33.honourable member busy tabled this at that time we discussed Scotland

:56:34. > :56:38.being willing to take responsibility to taking that obligation. During

:56:39. > :56:44.the debate, the honourable member of Cambridge responded with the short

:56:45. > :56:47.answered no to that suggestion. I can't imagine that his position has

:56:48. > :56:56.changed in the brief period of time since that debate. Turning out

:56:57. > :56:59.amendments eight a planning committee made have been reminded to

:57:00. > :57:05.grant planning consent but woods to not have full operation of the 18th

:57:06. > :57:10.of June last year that Mr Deputy Speaker would include projects with

:57:11. > :57:19.had just had an indication that they received planning consent subject to

:57:20. > :57:24.section 106 all those projects were minded to approve a planning

:57:25. > :57:27.application before the 18th of June. The planning was not issued until

:57:28. > :57:35.after the state. Such an amendment would lead to additional appointment

:57:36. > :57:40.further blurring the clear bright line which government has set out

:57:41. > :57:49.projects wishing to be accredited under the RO under the 31st of

:57:50. > :57:51.March. To be clear as projects did not have committee permission and

:57:52. > :58:03.would not meet the grace period I'm very grateful, and to my

:58:04. > :58:09.intervention, issue go to and for the House on whether the project in

:58:10. > :58:15.my constituency will now be eligible for that? Did not have the

:58:16. > :58:20.infrastructure planning commission, and despite my request to the

:58:21. > :58:28.department, nobody can tell me or my constituents where that project will

:58:29. > :58:31.be. As I have already said to the honourable gentleman, I think it is

:58:32. > :58:37.very clear from words in this committee chamber as well as in the

:58:38. > :58:41.bill committee, what our intentions are, and I will certainly look into

:58:42. > :58:44.the case that he mentions, but I do not have the information is looking

:58:45. > :58:49.for right now. I do want to turn to speak specifically to amendments

:58:50. > :58:54.24-46. All of these amendments are intended to delay the early closure

:58:55. > :58:56.of the RL, until the 1st of March 20 17. Closing at only one month

:58:57. > :59:03.earlier than the original closure date, of the 31st of March. 2017. It

:59:04. > :59:07.is therefore my understanding that Honorable members wish to see the

:59:08. > :59:10.Argo closed in the onshore wind, only a month earlier than planned.

:59:11. > :59:14.While maintaining the grace period provisions as set out by the

:59:15. > :59:18.government. Clearly, such a change would not meet the objectives of the

:59:19. > :59:21.early closure policy, which I have consistently set out in debates on

:59:22. > :59:25.the bill, and which I have explained the danger today. To change the

:59:26. > :59:30.early closure date to the 1st of March 2017, it would go against the

:59:31. > :59:33.intentions of our manifesto commitment, but would also likely

:59:34. > :59:38.have no production on overall deployment or cost, and to the levee

:59:39. > :59:41.control framework. May I remind Honorable members that these limits

:59:42. > :59:45.have been set for a crucial reason, as my right arm or friend the

:59:46. > :59:49.Secretary of State set out in her speech in November last year, we can

:59:50. > :59:54.only expect to bill payors to support low carbon power as long as

:59:55. > :59:58.costs are controlled. I inherited a departmental policy costs on bills

:59:59. > :00:03.in spiral. Subsidy should be temporary, not part of a permanent

:00:04. > :00:07.business model. May I also remind Honorable members again that this

:00:08. > :00:10.government has an electoral mandate to deliver on our manifesto

:00:11. > :00:15.commitment to help the spread of onshore wind, and that is exactly

:00:16. > :00:18.what this Clause is intended to do. However, the government is mindful

:00:19. > :00:22.of the need to protect investor confidence, and to take into account

:00:23. > :00:25.the interests of the on door -- onshore wind industry. This is why

:00:26. > :00:29.we have set a grace period provisions that appear in Clause 80.

:00:30. > :00:34.I believe I've consistently explained that the government has an

:00:35. > :00:38.obligation to protect consumers, from the risk of over deployment of

:00:39. > :00:42.new onshore wind, and rising energy bills. The date changes proposed by

:00:43. > :00:47.these amendments simply put us back to where we started. Providing no

:00:48. > :00:52.protection for consumers, and with the risk of deploying up to another

:00:53. > :00:56.7-.1 gigawatts of onshore wind, well beyond what the government has

:00:57. > :01:00.decided, under the levee control framework. To conclude, Mr Deputy

:01:01. > :01:03.Speaker, I want to stress the importance of moving swiftly forward

:01:04. > :01:08.with these proposals. I would like to again quote the Honorable member

:01:09. > :01:13.for Coatbridge, who said during the to -- committee debate on this

:01:14. > :01:17.issue, that we agree that the swift passage of the bill with clear and

:01:18. > :01:20.consistent than auto grace period provisions is needed, in order to

:01:21. > :01:25.provide certainty to investors in the onshore wind sector, as quickly

:01:26. > :01:28.as possible. Clear and consistent provisions are exactly what this

:01:29. > :01:33.government is attempting to provide, and we need to be able to move

:01:34. > :01:38.forward with this debate to do so. Thank you, Mr to be the Speaker. --

:01:39. > :01:45.Deputy Speaker. We now come to amended to move 24

:01:46. > :01:57.formally. The question is that amended the 24

:01:58. > :01:59.be made, As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

:02:00. > :15:25."no". Clear the lobbies! Voter! Order! -- order! The ayes,

:15:26. > :15:39.183, the noes, 270. The ice to the right, 183, the noes to the left,

:15:40. > :15:44.270. The noes have it! Will we move formally? As many as are of the

:15:45. > :18:33.opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Clear the lobbies!

:18:34. > :18:37.This is amendment take. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To

:18:38. > :26:53.the contrary, "no". Order, order! De-ice next to the

:26:54. > :27:07.right 229. The noes to the left, 271. -- the ayes. The ayes 229, the

:27:08. > :27:19.nose look back 271. The noes habit. Unlock.

:27:20. > :27:31.Minister to the government -- ayes. The contrary know. I think the ayes

:27:32. > :27:46.habit. The not come to New Clause three. -- new. Thank you Mr Deputy

:27:47. > :27:58.Speaker. I stand to move New Clause three of one and four. You are -- I

:27:59. > :28:07.am confused by the ordering. On behalf of my party. It struck me in

:28:08. > :28:12.the previous debate we had when the honourable member who is no longer

:28:13. > :28:18.in his place talked about how we could find an environmentally

:28:19. > :28:26.sustainable way of getting power from the island of coal in a sea of

:28:27. > :28:29.oil and gas, which I think he was referring to Griffin in that regard.

:28:30. > :28:31.I think that there may well be a way of doing that in an environmentally

:28:32. > :28:34.sustainable way. That is through carbon capture and storage. New

:28:35. > :28:41.Clause three that I have put forward is calling upon the government to

:28:42. > :28:45.bring forward proper, well thought out, and a well consulted plant in

:28:46. > :28:53.strategy for carbon captured storage and how it can be utilised in both

:28:54. > :29:05.the energy and also the the energy intensive industry tobacco industry.

:29:06. > :29:16.We talked a large amount about the discussion in the report from the

:29:17. > :29:21.energy and climate claim a macro change select committee with a

:29:22. > :29:26.mentioned the changes to policy having an impact on the edition of

:29:27. > :29:31.the United Kingdom but it comes to investor confidence. The decision to

:29:32. > :29:38.withdraw the funding, ?1 billion that was available for carbon

:29:39. > :29:40.capture capture at the same time as the Secretary of State for Energy

:29:41. > :29:44.and Climate Change was in Paris meeting the high ambition Coalition

:29:45. > :29:53.on behalf of the country at the Paris talks is perhaps the most

:29:54. > :29:56.grades of those changes. Ante with the honourable gentleman and I think

:29:57. > :30:00.him for giving way. Does he agree with me about the fact that that

:30:01. > :30:05.information was extolled to the city of London rather than this place on

:30:06. > :30:10.the same day is a demonstration of where the government's real attitude

:30:11. > :30:13.towards this place is? I think the honourable member for his

:30:14. > :30:17.intervention. I would agree very much about. Iron member sitting on

:30:18. > :30:23.this bench looking through the budget statement and being somewhat

:30:24. > :30:27.relieved that the rumours that were being scrapped to not appear in the

:30:28. > :30:34.budget statement. Low and behold on the announcement of the stock market

:30:35. > :30:37.some moments after the chance to let the chamber is for moving back

:30:38. > :30:42.funding, and confirming to the stock exchange. As I understand it, no

:30:43. > :30:49.greater certainty was provided to become the micro companies that were

:30:50. > :30:52.involved. I thank my honourable friend forgiving way. I would add

:30:53. > :30:59.further to the point that on the morning of this budget I intervened

:31:00. > :31:06.on another member and asked that the Minister despond and get assurances

:31:07. > :31:11.that both of those projects would not be cut, and that it was

:31:12. > :31:20.forthcoming. There was nothing in the ... I think my honourable friend

:31:21. > :31:24.for that and I would agree likewise. I think that the fact that we have

:31:25. > :31:29.differing parties with the same essential view about the way that

:31:30. > :31:33.not only the government has abysmally handled this process, but

:31:34. > :31:37.also how we need to salvage something from the ashes of the

:31:38. > :31:41.carbon capture competition. It strikes me that there is not a huge

:31:42. > :31:45.amount of difference between the proposal in my name and a New Clause

:31:46. > :31:49.seven, and the name of the Labor front benches. The difference that I

:31:50. > :31:53.would say, and we have this discussion on committee, is that it

:31:54. > :31:58.is the inclusion of the devolved administrations in terms of

:31:59. > :32:03.developing strategies and working have been pursuing what would have

:32:04. > :32:09.or should have been the second phase of the carbon capture and storage

:32:10. > :32:14.agreement. They have high ambition in terms of the deployment of carbon

:32:15. > :32:18.capture storage and shared the concerns of many in this house in

:32:19. > :32:23.the way that the government has handled that. In terms of

:32:24. > :32:28.short-sighted decisions, I understand that white rose had

:32:29. > :32:35.substantial European Union funding. The potential in terms of Peterhead

:32:36. > :32:42.in particular to use carbon capture and storage, or potentially carbon

:32:43. > :32:46.capture and utilisation in terms of creating a cycle in terms of

:32:47. > :32:50.enhanced oil recovery, there is a potential to use this resource. That

:32:51. > :32:56.potential has not been lost. The suggestion from the climate change

:32:57. > :33:01.committee that this meeting -- would make meeting our commitments even

:33:02. > :33:05.harder, suggest the need for the strategy that I'm proposing. We have

:33:06. > :33:08.seen the government be all over the shop when it comes to carbon capture

:33:09. > :33:13.and storage. One minute they are for it, the next they are against it.

:33:14. > :33:17.One minute it is not working, and in the next it is promising for the

:33:18. > :33:24.future. Investor confidence, these are severe mixed messages. We need

:33:25. > :33:28.clarity. If there is going to the investment from an industry, which I

:33:29. > :33:31.certainly hope, and I get the general impression that on both

:33:32. > :33:35.sides of this house there are honourable members who wish to see

:33:36. > :33:39.this become a reality in the United Kingdom. We need an equivocal

:33:40. > :33:44.statement from the government, and we need an unequivocal strategy,

:33:45. > :33:50.which is what I am calling for today. There is a time between the

:33:51. > :33:55.utilisation of the infrastructure in the North Sea, and what can be

:33:56. > :33:59.deployed for carbon capture and storage. My New Clause one, in terms

:34:00. > :34:03.of a strategy for decommissioning, I think that that is something that is

:34:04. > :34:08.incumbent upon the government to bring forth. Decommissioning will be

:34:09. > :34:16.one of the sad realities, I think, of the North Sea. It is going to

:34:17. > :34:21.happen. We all hope that it will happen sometime in the future. I

:34:22. > :34:26.think that the government can take steps around about that, the tax

:34:27. > :34:36.cuts that are being called for from the marker from the industry. It is

:34:37. > :34:43.going to come. That is a huge, huge opportunity. There is upwards of 30

:34:44. > :34:47.billion of pounds worth of work to be done in terms of decommissioning.

:34:48. > :34:51.A large part of that bill will be paid back in terms of reimbursing

:34:52. > :34:56.the companies from previous tax. They have built up the tax to offset

:34:57. > :35:00.against decommissioning cost. Essentially, going for the Treasury

:35:01. > :35:06.will be fitting the bill for a large part of decommissioning. It strikes

:35:07. > :35:11.me, and my party, that we need to ensure that the greatest possible

:35:12. > :35:21.benefit comes to these shores as possible. The marker. The East

:35:22. > :35:23.Coast... Chomping at the bed, quite frankly, to see work come ashore. I

:35:24. > :35:45.know that the shelf platform -- ... He is spot on in relation to...

:35:46. > :35:48.However, when he agreed that with the inclusion of the decommissioning

:35:49. > :35:55.there is also the potential for extra surveys where rigs currently

:35:56. > :35:59.are to investigate gas potential? You already have the infrastructure

:36:00. > :36:06.there to look at subsea coal, for example. There is a large number of

:36:07. > :36:07.things that need to be done before become and wholesale

:36:08. > :36:11.decommissioning. The widest possible consideration before the

:36:12. > :36:15.infrastructure can be used from, that are not in the proposals and

:36:16. > :36:20.possibilities, but they aren't the rest whether it is carbon capture,

:36:21. > :36:26.storage and other things. Whether it is looking to see if there are

:36:27. > :36:30.further hydrocarbon resources that have yet to be discovered there are

:36:31. > :36:33.vast possibilities. While the infrastructure is there, the

:36:34. > :36:37.opportunities for doing other things that there will always remain. Once

:36:38. > :36:41.it is gone, the opportunity is gone. That is incumbent. I think that is

:36:42. > :36:46.something that the Oil and Gas Authority, which is a barge part of

:36:47. > :36:50.this bill, but not the particular aspect have done a lot of work on

:36:51. > :36:54.and are to be commended not in terms of the development. The

:36:55. > :37:01.decommissioning, as I say is a reality. If we are smart,

:37:02. > :37:05.collectively, and we are able to line up the ducks in terms of the

:37:06. > :37:10.supply chain, skills, investments imports, and such like. It is a

:37:11. > :37:16.massive windfall that can be brought back. We have considerable leverage

:37:17. > :37:22.as funders of a large part of this. Through tax receipts offset against

:37:23. > :37:28.previous earnings. We should be looking to maximise that economic

:37:29. > :37:33.potential in the same ways of looking to maximise the economic

:37:34. > :37:37.recovery of the North Sea. I think my honourable friend for giving way.

:37:38. > :37:41.On the point of the opportunity here, does he agree with me that

:37:42. > :37:47.didn't decommissioning goes hand in hand with the critical assessment,

:37:48. > :37:50.evaluation, and management of the infrastructure that surrounds these

:37:51. > :37:55.things to have access to marginal fuel which would not otherwise be

:37:56. > :37:59.available for the critical infrastructure is not kept in place

:38:00. > :38:05.as part of an overall plan with a long-term vision for the energy? I

:38:06. > :38:08.agree with my honourable friend. That is something that the Oil and

:38:09. > :38:15.Gas Authority is set to look at. And something that will be chiefly

:38:16. > :38:21.beneficial to the oil and gas that position going for. That were dusty

:38:22. > :38:25.to take place. We need to aware of, but we also need to remember that

:38:26. > :38:28.this government has a duty to support the will and gas industry at

:38:29. > :38:32.this time, and will reiterate the calls made by myself and others in

:38:33. > :38:44.my party to see substantial movement. It may seem ironic that I

:38:45. > :38:47.am going to move on from talking about how we can best exploit the

:38:48. > :38:54.North Sea to talk about how we can best tackle climate change. Because

:38:55. > :38:58.we have been a major producer and user of hydrocarbons, there is a

:38:59. > :39:06.moral duty upon us to do what we can. I know that New Clause 11, and

:39:07. > :39:12.the name of the right honourable members of among others is on the

:39:13. > :39:15.order paper. It is not something that I think that I would be able to

:39:16. > :39:20.support, but I endorsed possible. I think that it is a big need to do

:39:21. > :39:27.going for. I would rather see is the correct pathway to that, there are a

:39:28. > :39:28.number of new clock for micro classes that deal with the

:39:29. > :39:47.short-term. It strikes me that we I am hopeful that zero carbon future

:39:48. > :39:51.can be achieved, but the pathway to that is not clear to me and I don't

:39:52. > :39:55.think that it would be clear to the government if they were to commence

:39:56. > :39:58.at work. What I would rather see is things that are in the gift of the

:39:59. > :40:02.government at this moment in time if they were to focus on that and

:40:03. > :40:06.deliver upon them, and to act sooner rather than later. The more work

:40:07. > :40:13.that we do not, the less we have to do in the future. It is about timing

:40:14. > :40:16.and priorities. The concept is to be wholeheartedly recommended, and

:40:17. > :40:23.supported. I think in terms of prioritising it. I am not quite on

:40:24. > :40:28.terms with that. I would like to talk about news Clause ten which I

:40:29. > :40:33.was happy to add my support to. I would imagine a number of others who

:40:34. > :40:41.will also talk about it in greater detail. The carbon accounting

:40:42. > :40:44.mechanisms that we have need to be brought into line with what is

:40:45. > :40:49.actually happening and going to happen. The fact that we can get to

:40:50. > :40:55.the stage where upwards of half of our emissions do not properly

:40:56. > :41:01.factored into our carbon accounting means that we are not able to set

:41:02. > :41:07.about in an open and honest way and achieve what we must. Numerous

:41:08. > :41:12.people have said that we need to get serious about this. If we were to

:41:13. > :41:16.get serious about taking the steps that we need to make our

:41:17. > :41:20.contribution to tackling time and change, we absolutely have to be

:41:21. > :41:25.clear about what we are counting. It is the basics of this. The bean

:41:26. > :41:28.counting of climate change might mean seem particularly appealing to

:41:29. > :41:33.sign, but it is the absolute fundamental. If we don't know what

:41:34. > :41:37.the initials are and we are not counting improperly, how do we look

:41:38. > :41:48.to tackle the challenge of reducing them properly? With that, Mr Speaker

:41:49. > :41:56.I will drop my marks. The question is that New Clause three be read a

:41:57. > :42:01.second time. Thank you Mr Speaker. In the absence of alternatives on

:42:02. > :42:05.the side of the House, I am happy to follow the Member for Aberdeen top.

:42:06. > :42:10.I agree with much of what he said about carbon capture, but my

:42:11. > :42:15.comments around New Clause ten. I don't agree with the rest of that

:42:16. > :42:24.new clock and I want to set out with why that is. Let me be clear. I also

:42:25. > :42:29.regard man-made climate change as a clear and present danger. The

:42:30. > :42:34.concerned that I have is that we are increasingly acting in this country

:42:35. > :42:40.unilaterally in terms of what we are doing to fix it. Indeed, the

:42:41. > :42:46.emission trading system was an attempt to have a Pan European

:42:47. > :42:53.solution to a Pan European problem. I don't want us to turn our back on

:42:54. > :42:58.it. I speak also for 900,000 people that are working in energy intensive

:42:59. > :43:01.industries and millions of people that break in and manufacturing

:43:02. > :43:06.industries and his country. The central premise of what I'm going to

:43:07. > :43:11.say is that I don't believe it is possible to rebalance our economy,

:43:12. > :43:17.to have a marked the makers, to do more in the north of the country

:43:18. > :43:25.predicated on the chastity devices that are approximately double up

:43:26. > :43:41.what they are in continental Europe. -- electricity. This morning, at our

:43:42. > :43:53.energy intensive industries are paying for P per unit. Or nine

:43:54. > :43:59.keepers unit. -- 9p. The gap between the UK and EU electricity prices is

:44:00. > :44:07.80 to 90%. I could just come back from aim and people in the north of

:44:08. > :44:10.this country. They want to see this established in the north that they

:44:11. > :44:22.cannot see on the basis of differentially higher devices stop

:44:23. > :44:26.yellow. If you talk about... The government that

:44:27. > :44:35.... Also there is a factor in relations that our European

:44:36. > :44:47.competitors that they put. The cost generally are, by and

:44:48. > :44:55.large, the same varying from country to country. He has made two points.

:44:56. > :45:00.First is about the price for. I don't support policy in that area.

:45:01. > :45:03.The consequent of policy in that area is that we are not importing

:45:04. > :45:08.electricity that is being produced in the continent by power stations

:45:09. > :45:18.that don't pay the carbon tax at the level that we do. That is no sort of

:45:19. > :45:23.economic or industrial policy. On the second point, I have forgotten.

:45:24. > :45:26.If you could just reminding. The distribution of the cost is more on

:45:27. > :45:32.the consumer then on the member state. Germany. That is true

:45:33. > :45:39.particularly of Germany. Apparently, I invited expert, but I hear Mrs.

:45:40. > :45:50.Talking about that. There is a state eight issue. -- aid. They can charge

:45:51. > :46:00.such a differential, and apparently began. I agree that it is

:46:01. > :46:03.unsatisfactory. I talk a little bit about the 900,000 jobs in energy

:46:04. > :46:14.intensive energy for micro industry that we have to be cognizant of as a

:46:15. > :46:17.new Ford. Steel, aluminium, what is left of the aluminium industry.

:46:18. > :46:23.There were three smelters in this country until the year ago. It is

:46:24. > :46:28.not one left in Scotland, and that is under consultation for closure.

:46:29. > :46:34.This stuff matters. Of course, so scrimmages. Our only point is that

:46:35. > :46:37.we have to a balance. The people that paper that balance cannot be

:46:38. > :46:43.those that work in some those industries. I have four points that

:46:44. > :46:48.I would like to put in front of the House and terms of what I believe is

:46:49. > :46:53.as different in approach between the UK with our climate budget and

:46:54. > :46:58.climate change act in the EU. The first one, Paris. People talk of the

:46:59. > :47:04.Paris agreement in December as a time. In many ways it was. I

:47:05. > :47:11.personally don't believe that the agreement will be made. I think that

:47:12. > :47:17.it is an optimistic analysis. The key thing that we need to understand

:47:18. > :47:23.as legislators is that the European Union, the UK did not have a

:47:24. > :47:31.submission. Europe did. Europe apostle exhibition was to reduce

:47:32. > :47:34.carbon emissions by 40% the UK is part of that, so therefore complicit

:47:35. > :47:38.and that is what we had to do as well. And yet, our commitment could

:47:39. > :47:45.we have legislated for it in this house is to reduce emissions by... I

:47:46. > :47:49.think the honourable gentleman for giving way. I know that he is

:47:50. > :47:59.talking about individual submissions and European wide emissions.

:48:00. > :48:06.The former acute problem that this government has is about the problem

:48:07. > :48:13.of Chinese dumping. That is a far more serious issue than anything

:48:14. > :48:16.coming out of the European Union. I agree that Chinese dumping is at

:48:17. > :48:19.issue. I agree that the business grades are an issue, but I think

:48:20. > :48:24.that he is wrong if he says that energy prices are not also an issue.

:48:25. > :48:28.He is wrong to say that. One of the pieces of evidence of that being

:48:29. > :48:33.wrong isn't the steel industry in the aluminium industry is not under

:48:34. > :48:40.such pressure in parts of Europe as it is under here. He will be

:48:41. > :48:50.contradicting the comments from others where the two primary issues

:48:51. > :48:54.pertaining... And Chinese dumping. I am sure that he's going to get back

:48:55. > :49:00.to the point as it relates to EU ET as, but that is the primary concern

:49:01. > :49:04.from the industry itself. I think that his position is an often,

:49:05. > :49:13.because I immigrate with them that the MES data has stated that

:49:14. > :49:19.something is important. I have in my office a report from the aluminium

:49:20. > :49:24.industry. It is the prices. This is not a massively controversial point,

:49:25. > :49:27.I didn't think, if you are in an industry which uses a significant

:49:28. > :49:34.amount of electricity it is not a competitive advantage if you if it

:49:35. > :49:37.costs more than other people. Tony something is a more significant

:49:38. > :49:47.thing, I agree with that, but we are talking about economics. -- Chinese

:49:48. > :49:53.dumping. That happens at the margin. If we are intended to have a marked

:49:54. > :49:58.the makers predicated on high electricity prices, it is going to

:49:59. > :50:07.be tough. I was talking about the parents I in DC emissions, I wanted

:50:08. > :50:12.to say that the cost submission for that is something like 50% less

:50:13. > :50:18.onerous than our own climate change act. When I first saw that I thought

:50:19. > :50:26.it was on. I did not understand why that would be. Why was it? Had to be

:50:27. > :50:31.a light allow that to happen? We have this stringent, rigorous, good

:50:32. > :50:35.process in many ways of carbon budget starting down and missions in

:50:36. > :50:43.all that was about. And yet, we go into the European submission INDC

:50:44. > :50:52.for something so feeble. The difficulty is that even the

:50:53. > :50:57.submission to the Europeans put in, even though it is so much lower than

:50:58. > :51:04.the UK submission is not allocated by countries. That process starting

:51:05. > :51:09.this year, or maybe next year. It seems to me to be very feeble. The

:51:10. > :51:15.second thing is the European emissions trading system in the

:51:16. > :51:23.first place. Reason that New Clause ten has been deemed necessary is

:51:24. > :51:26.because it is felt that this is not enough for carbon emissions. The

:51:27. > :51:32.price of carbon that is implicit within that is too low, something

:51:33. > :51:40.like 5 euros a time versus something like 23 euros a tonne. In 2013, they

:51:41. > :51:44.debated this part in the European Parliament. There was a proposal for

:51:45. > :51:51.the European Parliament to actually Paris based like the EU emission

:51:52. > :51:54.trading system in a way that would be meaningful, and prevented the

:51:55. > :52:01.need for a carbon price for in the UK. That properly reflected where

:52:02. > :52:08.the market needs to be in order to drive actions, which is why this

:52:09. > :52:11.amendment has come for. The European Parliament did not put that

:52:12. > :52:18.commitment through, and I think that it does not put food in his funds to

:52:19. > :52:23.vested in interest. I think that that is a pity. The consequence of

:52:24. > :52:31.that is that we are here now. Saying that this emissions trading system

:52:32. > :52:36.is not fit for purpose. It was intended in the climate change act

:52:37. > :52:40.of being a way of controlling generated power, it doesn't work.

:52:41. > :52:53.The urgings of indifferent. Our answer is not to turn our back. The

:52:54. > :52:59.parties on the other side, those of the deeply committed to the European

:53:00. > :53:03.ideal. This is odd that they are turning their back on this European

:53:04. > :53:17.solution. In the time-outs remaining for me, -- time dots. I find that

:53:18. > :53:23.odd. The third is to talk about that is country based controlling. Since

:53:24. > :53:31.1990, Austria has increased their emissions. Ireland has increased by

:53:32. > :53:34.some number as well. If an organisation such as the eat you

:53:35. > :53:49.were serious about getting to grips with admissions -- EQ. -- EU. We are

:53:50. > :53:55.seeing dysfunctional member state behaviour in terms of certain

:53:56. > :54:09.countries building new coal power stations at Germain:

:54:10. > :54:15.that is not indicative of the book to understand the counsellor has to

:54:16. > :54:22.come and all of this. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a node that has come

:54:23. > :54:27.to me saying to wrap up. -- note. I would just finish by saying that it

:54:28. > :54:30.is not a question of agreeing that climate change is a clear and

:54:31. > :54:35.present danger, but we must bring the rest of the world with us. By

:54:36. > :54:40.turning our back on things at the European ETF system, that is doing

:54:41. > :54:46.the opposite of that. By allowing the EU to put a submission into the

:54:47. > :54:52.Paris that was feeble, we are turning our back. We are not going

:54:53. > :55:02.to solve global warming by fixing our 1.5% of total global emissions.

:55:03. > :55:04.I rise to move a number of new clauses that relates to a number of

:55:05. > :55:21.aspects of this bill. Starting with New Clause seven,

:55:22. > :55:24.which we are moving this afternoon. Honourable members will see that it

:55:25. > :55:29.is based similar to New Clause three and moved by the honourable member

:55:30. > :55:35.for Aberdeen South. It is a Clause that I think that both opposition

:55:36. > :55:41.parties today feel very strongly about in terms of the need to

:55:42. > :55:46.develop a systematic strategy for carbon capture and storage, which we

:55:47. > :55:58.do not have at present. We heard to today several things. The government

:55:59. > :56:02.reference carbon capture and the least cost routeing decarbonization.

:56:03. > :56:05.They will clearly, surgically, according the advice of the

:56:06. > :56:16.committee has to do think carefully about this. Since CCS and other

:56:17. > :56:25.things suggest implementations of least cost. Indeed, a shameful

:56:26. > :56:31.pulley of the two CCS pilot projects mentioned by the honourable member

:56:32. > :56:40.for Aberdeen South, in essence represents a missed investment

:56:41. > :56:43.opportunity. That cost is an important moment of our approach to

:56:44. > :56:47.a future CCS strategy. It is important to be clear that the

:56:48. > :56:53.cancellation of the project is not mean the end of the CCS. We will

:56:54. > :57:02.have to bring about large scale CCS sooner than a number of people

:57:03. > :57:07.consider. That is especially true because CCS relates not only to

:57:08. > :57:11.energy production, but too energy intensive industries and other

:57:12. > :57:16.intensive carpet industry. The cancellation of CCS pilots is that

:57:17. > :57:19.we would have to importing technology from the rest of the

:57:20. > :57:20.world instead of having leading technology have the pilot gives

:57:21. > :57:31.Ghana had. I agree with him. Ten he tell me how

:57:32. > :57:35.likely do think it will be that any private money is ever going be

:57:36. > :57:42.forthcoming, given the rational manner in which the funding to

:57:43. > :57:47.projects were abandoned? The honourable member makes an important

:57:48. > :57:50.point, and indeed, the need to have a carbon capture strategy, which

:57:51. > :57:56.actually sets out a longer-term route to how we go about carbon

:57:57. > :58:05.capture and storage, would be an important part of that process. The

:58:06. > :58:10.honourable member also makes the point that indeed, the cancellation

:58:11. > :58:14.of this pilot projects has caused quite a pullover, future and the

:58:15. > :58:18.stability of carbon capture and storage projects in the future,

:58:19. > :58:24.which is despite the fact that they are now getting under way across the

:58:25. > :58:30.world. So, it is important to reflect on how in a new CCS strategy

:58:31. > :58:33.we are to import that technology, and how as much as possible the rest

:58:34. > :58:38.of the supply chain stay in the UK, in particular, substantial

:58:39. > :58:42.development and intellectual property gained from those projects,

:58:43. > :58:46.the White Rose and other projects, must be retained in the UK, for the

:58:47. > :58:51.use of CCF developments. All that should be part of a strategy that we

:58:52. > :58:55.simply do not have at the moment. Having a strategy in place would

:58:56. > :58:59.enable us to recover substantially from the event setback caused by the

:59:00. > :59:03.cancellation of those pilot projects in the amendment calls for such a

:59:04. > :59:08.strategy to be articulated in the early stage, and for us to be clear

:59:09. > :59:12.between ourselves about how exactly and why we're keeping CCF on track

:59:13. > :59:21.for the future. New Clause eight, we have also heard about, it relates to

:59:22. > :59:28.the undertakings that won't provided in part one of the energy act, 2013,

:59:29. > :59:32.about setting a target for decarbonization by 2030. Part one of

:59:33. > :59:40.the act makes it clear that the Secretary of State has... Is no

:59:41. > :59:45.greater than the maximum admitted level of the decarbonization target

:59:46. > :59:47.rate. That is a clear undertaking to set a decarbonization target range,

:59:48. > :59:54.requiring Secretary of State to take related actions. As I mentioned, the

:59:55. > :00:03.target is already there, and has been there since the end of 2013,

:00:04. > :00:07.and it was passed... But what the target range it should be, and under

:00:08. > :00:12.the legislation, it is a to ministers to clear up that matter.

:00:13. > :00:15.One may say it is not a small matter since it is within the gift of

:00:16. > :00:20.ministers to decide whether the target for decarbonization as strong

:00:21. > :00:24.or not. During the discussions that took place during the process of

:00:25. > :00:29.that legislation, the energy act of 2013, members across the committee

:00:30. > :00:33.envisaged that the target should be strong and aligned with carbon

:00:34. > :00:36.production contribution. Unfortunately during the passage of

:00:37. > :00:42.this bill, and another place, we heard in a letter to the opposition

:00:43. > :00:46.from the Minister that he stated powers taken within the energy act

:00:47. > :00:49.2013, which is the Secretary of State the ability to set a

:00:50. > :00:53.decarbonization target range from the electricity sector for your, not

:00:54. > :00:58.before 2030. This allows a target to be set on the same date after the

:00:59. > :01:05.fifth carbon budget, which must be set up for the end of June 20 16.

:01:06. > :01:09.Measured... Is the and intention this government is not exercise his

:01:10. > :01:13.power. This position is consistent with our manifesto pledge not to

:01:14. > :01:17.support additional distorting and expensive power sector targets. This

:01:18. > :01:25.is not an additional distorting target. It is a target within the

:01:26. > :01:28.bill, 2013, and indeed, it is clearly incumbent on the government

:01:29. > :01:31.to take action on the decarbonization target range to the

:01:32. > :01:35.Secretary of legislation, and it is extremely disappointing that the

:01:36. > :01:41.Minister indicated that they were not going to exercise this power.

:01:42. > :01:44.The New Clause would provide the Secretary of State and said

:01:45. > :01:50.decarbonization target, and should discharge section one of the 2013

:01:51. > :01:58.act. This is, and I think honourable members would agree, very important,

:01:59. > :02:02.such targets... That is what the amendment seeks to do. New Clause

:02:03. > :02:07.nine addresses an aspect of the de-carbonized future, and looking at

:02:08. > :02:18.the perverse result of the first to capacity auctions in procuring and

:02:19. > :02:25.indeed not procuring any long-term new large generating plant. And

:02:26. > :02:31.procuring almost the only long-term outcome of diesel's generators.

:02:32. > :02:37.Gigawatts of generators procured, more polluting than coal, which the

:02:38. > :02:41.secretary has said to take up the system by 2025. The New Clause adds

:02:42. > :02:48.to the energy act of 2013, relating to fossil fuels, which... That plant

:02:49. > :02:53.must adhere to certain conditions, if the contract is to be granted.

:02:54. > :02:56.One of those conditions the emissions performance standard, and

:02:57. > :03:01.section 57 of the energy act, and content to target or a formula that

:03:02. > :03:08.Undersecretary -- subsequent legislation, it set grams, and this

:03:09. > :03:13.Clause clearly doesn't not seek to capture gas, because new plans for

:03:14. > :03:17.gas come in at something like 370 grams, and that emissions

:03:18. > :03:24.performance standard. What this New Clause refers to is diesel coming

:03:25. > :03:28.into the provision of electricity, particularly in the context of what

:03:29. > :03:34.is happened in those two previous capacity auctions. Those diesel

:03:35. > :03:44.act... Bare below the size which could pass court, but they are the

:03:45. > :03:49.most dirty, of various energy generation devices. Because diesel

:03:50. > :03:52.is exempt from EPS levels, because of the individual size of the

:03:53. > :03:55.reciprocal dating sector, it is curious that we have obtained a

:03:56. > :03:58.substantial proportion of long-term capacity payments coming into the

:03:59. > :04:02.system, and of course, one reason that diesel sectors have been able

:04:03. > :04:06.to get to capacity auctions is not because diesel sector is particular

:04:07. > :04:10.cheap to run, it is in part because we would receive a substantial

:04:11. > :04:13.underwriting until recently, from HM Treasury, through the enterprise

:04:14. > :04:16.investment scheme. Payments for the establishment of this plane,

:04:17. > :04:23.originally, it appears that the payments of sector... But of course,

:04:24. > :04:25.they have been used for other purposes in the capacity auctions.

:04:26. > :04:29.Although that group has been changed in the Autumn Statement, the most

:04:30. > :04:33.polluting generating plants have managed to get to lots of subsidies

:04:34. > :04:36.for generating and cutting through the capacity auction process as

:04:37. > :04:41.well. That is not only that climate policy, but bad public policy in

:04:42. > :04:44.general. It was discussed during the committee stages of the bill, and

:04:45. > :04:51.the government recent Lee made a statement on changes to the capacity

:04:52. > :04:54.auctions and although as they suggested the proposals to change

:04:55. > :04:57.the air quality regulations under the large plant directive that might

:04:58. > :05:02.include diesel sex, they suggested these changes might not occur until

:05:03. > :05:06.2019 at the earliest. Too late for the next series of capacity

:05:07. > :05:10.auctions. This amendment, New Clause, seeks the straightforward

:05:11. > :05:14.route to make sure that diesel is not the perverse diesel it is now.

:05:15. > :05:19.New Clause ten looks further towards the Fed carbon budget, but perhaps

:05:20. > :05:24.no much for... Would have to do for -- decide on the carbon budget, it

:05:25. > :05:27.seeks to strengthen the intention of the government to use its powers to

:05:28. > :05:32.ensure we keep on track, and by outlawing the use of private trader

:05:33. > :05:37.sector credits, and the Honorable member for Morgan made some very

:05:38. > :05:41.valuable points in the process discussing this New Clause ten for

:05:42. > :05:44.the future. Honorable members will recall that when the bill arrived in

:05:45. > :05:49.the House from the other place, it had a net Clause 80 of the energy

:05:50. > :05:55.bill seeking to simple by the count in the UK's carbon budget under the

:05:56. > :05:58.2008 Clause, which was removed during the passage of the building

:05:59. > :06:02.to committee stage. This Clause seeks a different route, of more

:06:03. > :06:09.effective carbon accounting in the fifth carbon budget, and beyond. It

:06:10. > :06:12.seeks to make the government directly accountable for emissions

:06:13. > :06:15.in the sectors covered by the EU emissions trading scheme, by

:06:16. > :06:20.determining whether the UK is staying within it's not sure carbon

:06:21. > :06:22.budgets. The EU BTS covers admissions and the electricity

:06:23. > :06:27.sector, and currently the accounting regulations another -- allow the

:06:28. > :06:31.government to ignore these, when determining whether the carbon

:06:32. > :06:34.budgets have been met. As currently designed, the UK carbon budgets

:06:35. > :06:39.failed to provide a framework with all this investor confidence in the

:06:40. > :06:42.UK for that reason, in particular, there is no assurance that the

:06:43. > :06:45.government will do the necessary measures in place to ensure that the

:06:46. > :06:49.power sector is larger and de-carbonized by 2030. To the fact

:06:50. > :06:56.that the cover change committee has repeatedly indicated that the power

:06:57. > :06:59.sector must reduce emissions by 2030 in order to maintain the cost

:07:00. > :07:05.effective trajectory to our 2050 climate target. If those rules

:07:06. > :07:11.change, the committee has indicated... For the first time

:07:12. > :07:14.ever, the committee will be able to recommend a budget, that reflects

:07:15. > :07:22.the cost-effective pathway of UK omissions economy wide. Animation,

:07:23. > :07:27.this differ from the original Clause, and a very cocky respect,

:07:28. > :07:31.and that is while Clause prevented any carbon units in the EU trading

:07:32. > :07:34.scheme for affecting the UK carbon account, this new amendment

:07:35. > :07:40.specifically prevents the carbon trading behaviour of private firms,

:07:41. > :07:43.from affecting the national Council. This is the issue that currently

:07:44. > :07:48.allows the government to ignore it omissions in the sector under this

:07:49. > :07:54.new amendment, which would obtain the option of counselling carbon

:07:55. > :08:06.allowances to offset them at a state level. This offsetting option would

:08:07. > :08:11.also of course strengthen the issue in the EU commissions trading

:08:12. > :08:19.scheme, if exercise. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, amendment 47 which I

:08:20. > :08:23.am moving to today, reminds us of the first part of our bill, where

:08:24. > :08:31.there is wide consensus for change, as far as North Sea oil is

:08:32. > :08:35.concerned, it seeks to gives -- give the office new oversight to ensure

:08:36. > :08:39.that decommissioning is used to the best advantage in the North Sea, and

:08:40. > :08:43.is not operate in the interest of those who might be involved in

:08:44. > :08:49.commissioning, but in the long-term interests of the cooperative use of

:08:50. > :08:53.infrastructures. On... For the benefit of production, not only a

:08:54. > :08:58.future more marginal filter for the next period, but also possibly for

:08:59. > :09:02.the future use of the North Sea, as one of the world's finest

:09:03. > :09:05.repositories, for carbon capture and storage is under way, it is an

:09:06. > :09:11.amendment that would be very important to add to the arsenal of

:09:12. > :09:18.the office for oil and gas and I hope the Minister will be forward in

:09:19. > :09:26.accepting that. Ed Miliband. I rise to speak to the news Clause 11,

:09:27. > :09:30.which stands in my name, and another friend, and that another five

:09:31. > :09:35.parties across the South, in order to thank the Honorable mumbles Fort

:09:36. > :09:42.lawn still, Brighton Pavilion, and essentials of it, and North Ipswich,

:09:43. > :09:46.and I also want to thank my front bench and also Baroness Worthington

:09:47. > :09:51.and the other place that has supported advice on this issue. Mr

:09:52. > :09:54.Deputy Speaker, this New Clause will put the commitment in the Paris

:09:55. > :09:58.climate change equipment 20 omissions, and to our domestic law.

:09:59. > :10:02.But the climate change committee to advise when it should be achieved. I

:10:03. > :10:08.believe this is a right thing to do, because of what the signs -- science

:10:09. > :10:14.tells us. Science is clear that we will need to get 20 omissions as the

:10:15. > :10:18.world early in the second half of this century. It is worth saying Mr

:10:19. > :10:23.Deputy Speaker, in the context of the sites to remind the House that

:10:24. > :10:30.the context of this debate is. Just a few facts about what we know from

:10:31. > :10:36.recent scientific analysis, that 2015 was the hottest year on record.

:10:37. > :10:40.That each of the last five months, the record for global temperatures

:10:41. > :10:46.has been broken in every month with February being an awful

:10:47. > :10:50.record-breaker, and then this other fact Mr Deputy Speaker, that

:10:51. > :10:54.atmospheric concentrations of CO2, and it is hard to get your head

:10:55. > :10:58.around this, are now higher than they have been for at least 1

:10:59. > :11:02.million years. Because that is what the scientists tell us. That is the

:11:03. > :11:07.sense of urgency that I think we should have about this issue. I know

:11:08. > :11:13.that is shared on all sides of the House. My proposal makes economic

:11:14. > :11:18.moral, and political sense. It makes economic sense because you have to

:11:19. > :11:23.get to zero omissions eventually. Since we know it will be tough, we

:11:24. > :11:28.need to start planning now. We already know some of the tools that

:11:29. > :11:31.we will need. We do not know all of them, but we need clean energy

:11:32. > :11:39.supplies, we need a revolution in the House -- housing sector. We

:11:40. > :11:44.need... We need carbon capture and storage, so we can trap any

:11:45. > :11:47.omissions, and we will need reforestation, and will lead other

:11:48. > :11:51.technologies in the early stages of development. Here's the crucial

:11:52. > :11:56.point, Mr Deputy Speaker. We need to start the work now, so we can make

:11:57. > :12:01.zero happened at least cost. I believe the economic case is proven

:12:02. > :12:06.by the support we have in the business community for this

:12:07. > :12:10.proposal. I went to pick up event, cantilever, Kingfisher, and the

:12:11. > :12:14.broader business Coalition for their backing. It makes economic sense. I

:12:15. > :12:20.believe it makes moral sense as well, because we know zero omissions

:12:21. > :12:23.will be necessary. It will be frankly irresponsible to pretend it

:12:24. > :12:28.is not. I think future generations will look very badly on a generation

:12:29. > :12:34.that stuck its head in the sand, and refuse to plan ahead. And, Mr Deputy

:12:35. > :12:40.Speaker, and makes political sense as well. Because, we were all very

:12:41. > :12:44.pleased by the Paris agreement, and I say that is shared on all sides of

:12:45. > :12:48.the House, but the danger is that we lose momentum and go backwards.

:12:49. > :12:52.There are straws that this may happen. We need to build on the

:12:53. > :12:55.momentum and not wander. I want you to close the gap, and this is where

:12:56. > :12:59.the honourable gentleman is right. We need to close the gap between the

:13:00. > :13:05.ambitions of Paris to keep warming to know more than 155 degrees, and

:13:06. > :13:09.the reality of the current pledges, which are off-track. Now, here's the

:13:10. > :13:15.other thing to say to all members of this house. We can make a

:13:16. > :13:19.difference. We maybe able only 1.5% of global omissions, but look at the

:13:20. > :13:22.experience of the climate change. That is what the Honorable gentleman

:13:23. > :13:27.and I discussed outside of the House, look at the spirit of the

:13:28. > :13:33.climate change act. I party support in to one -- 2008. It did push

:13:34. > :13:36.others to follow. Not maybe as much as we wanted, but it did push others

:13:37. > :13:40.to follow. I just want to make one point to the honourable gentleman he

:13:41. > :13:44.speaks to this what national party. He's right of course about the

:13:45. > :13:49.short-term. And we need to get the short-term right, but the long-term

:13:50. > :13:56.effects and short-term effects. Just like the 80% target that we put in

:13:57. > :14:00.to -- 2008, if you'd like to show discussions, of all parties, to

:14:01. > :14:05.account, so it would be the case of a put zero omissions and we know

:14:06. > :14:12.that will have to be the backstop, my cases that we might as well get

:14:13. > :14:18.on with it. I will give way. Thank you. I have enormous respect for my

:14:19. > :14:21.honourable member, and I applaud your positive steps and everything

:14:22. > :14:25.that happened at the climate change act, but we do have to be

:14:26. > :14:30.economically realistic as well. I do wonder whether this is the right

:14:31. > :14:33.time, and this might be better go to climate change committee to have a

:14:34. > :14:36.closer look at this, because we are in the process of agreeing the fifth

:14:37. > :14:41.carbon budget, and perhaps all energy would be put into that. At

:14:42. > :14:45.the end of her point makes a case I agree with. Which is that my

:14:46. > :14:50.proposal is deliberately pragmatic. It is to put zero omissions into

:14:51. > :14:53.law, but the date to be decided by government on the basis of advice

:14:54. > :14:58.from climate change committee, and I think that is the right, pragmatic,

:14:59. > :15:02.and least cost way of proceeding, because we need the advice of the

:15:03. > :15:07.experts in who appointed them with cross party support, and we need to

:15:08. > :15:12.get them to advise us. Mr Deputy Speaker, since I put forward this

:15:13. > :15:15.proposal three months ago, I'm delighted to say that very

:15:16. > :15:18.constructive discussions with the government. I'm not going to

:15:19. > :15:22.anticipate the reaction of the Minister of which you want at this

:15:23. > :15:26.debate. I do want to put on record my thanks to Secretary of State, to

:15:27. > :15:29.the Minister, and indeed the Minister of the Cabinet office for

:15:30. > :15:35.their willingness to engage with me this issue. I do believe, and very

:15:36. > :15:39.much hope that we can move this idea forward in the months ahead. I think

:15:40. > :15:43.we can demonstrate once again the cross party commitment for this

:15:44. > :15:47.shared, by the vast majority members of this house, to tackle the threat

:15:48. > :15:57.of climate change, and I look forward to the Minister's responded

:15:58. > :16:04.her report. -- response. I have new clauses, eight, six, and five. They

:16:05. > :16:09.are covered by other new clauses before the House. It is not my

:16:10. > :16:19.intention to go to a division, because we lead in the direction.

:16:20. > :16:24.With the question of carbon capture, I intervened on the envelope --

:16:25. > :16:27.honourable gentleman speaking, the term that I'd used in relation to

:16:28. > :16:34.the government's decision to pull the funding from projects was

:16:35. > :16:39.rational. I hope I was not kind to the government in saying that, if it

:16:40. > :16:44.wasn't irrational, that must've been ideological, in any event, it

:16:45. > :16:47.certainly did not make any sense. That was a competition that was

:16:48. > :16:51.running, and the point of which we withdrew the funding, and the

:16:52. > :16:57.competition to run for a little bit competition to run for a little bit

:16:58. > :17:01.longer, who knows, that debt to the conclusion that would be no more

:17:02. > :17:06.money to be spent. The truth of the matter is that we'll never know. Was

:17:07. > :17:14.irrational, because of the impact it will have for the future. When it

:17:15. > :17:19.comes to getting your own carbon capture and storage industry up and

:17:20. > :17:23.running in this country. As the honourable gentleman from the

:17:24. > :17:28.opposition said, this is something where work is being done, and

:17:29. > :17:34.inevitably you will not end up playing catch-up and importing

:17:35. > :17:43.expertise but could've generated here. Who is going to be responsible

:17:44. > :17:48.for shareholders? Who's going to suggest that you put money into

:17:49. > :17:52.carbon capture and storage in this country in the future? Is the

:17:53. > :18:00.ultimate failure of every policy. I think we have got to the point that

:18:01. > :18:04.not understanding the terms of the amendments and the new clauses, I

:18:05. > :18:11.frankly wonder whether it is now worth calling for, because in fact,

:18:12. > :18:14.even if you had new government commitment, who on earth is going to

:18:15. > :18:19.believe that given the weight that they have believed thus far? The

:18:20. > :18:23.honourable member from Aberdeen South made that point that it is a

:18:24. > :18:28.synergy between carbon capture and storage, and the issues around

:18:29. > :18:32.decommissioning in the North Sea. It is of course, the case for some

:18:33. > :18:43.years now that the technology that is used in carbon capturing and

:18:44. > :18:49.storage... Using gas to extract oil from other parts of the existing

:18:50. > :18:56.substantial infrastructure that is there. It brightens my heart that

:18:57. > :19:00.the OG goes from strength to strength, and it is a project I have

:19:01. > :19:08.followed closely, from its inception from the work of the word

:19:09. > :19:13.commission, and into the shadow authority. In order to get the

:19:14. > :19:16.maximum benefit for that, it will of course be necessary for the budget

:19:17. > :19:22.to get on now, use the powers that we have given them already, and to

:19:23. > :19:27.come forward with the strategy, it is going to be making these things

:19:28. > :19:33.happen. Of course, in order for there to be a strategy, the bill has

:19:34. > :19:39.to be survivable. The very real danger is that because of the age of

:19:40. > :19:47.the assets on the North Sea, especially in the north North Sea,

:19:48. > :19:57.we could see critical mass tip over and, not literally, and for them to

:19:58. > :20:03.be rushed to decommission. That rushed to decommission could be

:20:04. > :20:10.back, for the economy, and the northern Wales. It would be tragic

:20:11. > :20:13.also, if that decommissioning means the infrastructure was removed,

:20:14. > :20:24.which means that the opportunities to develop carbon capturing and

:20:25. > :20:32.storage will need to be lost. I will give way. The point I made about the

:20:33. > :20:34.large part of the tax liability for decommissioning following the

:20:35. > :20:38.Treasury in terms of paying the back, if there is that rushed to

:20:39. > :20:40.decommissioning, as he is mentioned, it will mean that the Chancellor

:20:41. > :20:44.will find it more difficult to meet its fiscal target, as he has to hand

:20:45. > :20:51.out cash. Will he agree that there needs to be government to delay that

:20:52. > :20:56.happening? We have seen tap input from the North Sea fall off a cliff,

:20:57. > :20:59.and if it doesn't now follow this, I cannot remember the figures exactly,

:21:00. > :21:04.but I seem to recall that there was something in the region of ?20

:21:05. > :21:10.billion, set aside to provide for. That is the future of liar --

:21:11. > :21:17.liability. If the liability work to come to the left of the sheet, then

:21:18. > :21:23.it would be the double whammy for the Treasury. Not only losing the

:21:24. > :21:28.incumbent, but suddenly liable for a expenditure at an earlier stage. In

:21:29. > :21:33.fact, the real significant event in that regard would feel it is not

:21:34. > :21:38.here tonight, it will be Wednesday when the Chancellor comes forward

:21:39. > :21:43.with his budget. The Minister in the Secretary of State will have also

:21:44. > :21:47.heard that the measured and well-thought-out requests come from

:21:48. > :21:52.oil and gas UK, and I trust that even at this stage, they will be

:21:53. > :21:58.using them for every piece of influence they have to ensure that

:21:59. > :22:03.as much as -- of these requests are actually delivered, when the

:22:04. > :22:10.Chancellor stands up. The right honourable gentleman moved who stood

:22:11. > :22:16.close bloated voodoo Vicky is absolutely right and has brought

:22:17. > :22:21.this forward. This is future proof, if you like, of the commitments, but

:22:22. > :22:25.indeed, given the very substantial commitment to the Secretary of state

:22:26. > :22:31.herself showed in relation to the House negotiations, I think that

:22:32. > :22:42.this would be a very suitable way in which that commitment was given some

:22:43. > :22:45.lived by this house. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to speak

:22:46. > :22:50.mainly to New Clause 12, which stands in my name on the need for

:22:51. > :22:54.strategy for a just transition away from fossil fuels and towards 100%

:22:55. > :22:58.renewable energy. I also want to highlight a few of the other

:22:59. > :23:03.amendments that I support, and this particular bill. I want to speak in

:23:04. > :23:07.favour of New Clause 11, tabled by the former secretary of state, and

:23:08. > :23:16.thank you very much for all of the very constructive work that he has

:23:17. > :23:18.been doing in terms of promoting this idea about zero omissions. This

:23:19. > :23:21.puts one really crucial part of the Paris climate agreement into UK law.

:23:22. > :23:24.It is not convoluted, it doesn't make it clear that globally, it must

:23:25. > :23:28.meet net zero omissions in the second half of the century. Many

:23:29. > :23:32.argue that this long-term goal should have been stronger, including

:23:33. > :23:34.through a specific reference to phasing out fossil fuels.

:23:35. > :23:37.Nonetheless, it seems immensely reasonable for the UK government to

:23:38. > :23:42.set the date for zero omissions, on the advice from the committee on

:23:43. > :23:46.climate change. Very much to seem a win-win here, economically and

:23:47. > :23:50.environmentally to have that date set, so that we can have a clarity

:23:51. > :24:01.of direction of travail, and investors. -- travel. I look forward

:24:02. > :24:06.to hearing the response when they come to speak later on. Just a few

:24:07. > :24:11.words as well, Mr Speaker, about New Clause ten, or carbon accounting,

:24:12. > :24:14.and the ET as. Again, I support this amendment, it would meet the UK

:24:15. > :24:19.taking responsibility for making our own carbon emission cuts, and

:24:20. > :24:23.another immensely reasonable proposal. I think the need for that

:24:24. > :24:26.kind of change is undermined by the recent, somewhat incredible claims

:24:27. > :24:35.that a new dash for gas would somehow be compatible... The UK's

:24:36. > :24:39.energy potential is vast. The cost of solar and wind power is falling,

:24:40. > :24:43.and the need for the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves to get more

:24:44. > :24:46.mainstream by the week. There is no longer a case for using the EU

:24:47. > :24:49.emissions trading system as an excuse for not meeting our own

:24:50. > :24:54.carbon budgets by cutting our own omissions here in the UK. The global

:24:55. > :24:57.carbon budget is rapidly shrinking, and there's simply no room for free

:24:58. > :25:04.riders. Adding the UK should be leading the race to a zero carbon

:25:05. > :25:07.economy, not weaseling our way out of making a fair contribution. And

:25:08. > :25:10.that is why New Clause ten is so important. Turning now to my New

:25:11. > :25:14.Clause 12 on a just transition, this is another aspect of the Paris

:25:15. > :25:19.climate agreement that should become a central tenant of the UK's climate

:25:20. > :25:23.and energy policy. Just transition is about essential steps a country

:25:24. > :25:27.needs to take to transform into a zero carbon economy. In a way that

:25:28. > :25:30.creates new jobs, and by supporting and engaging workers and communities

:25:31. > :25:34.currently reliant on high carbon sectors. I will give way. I'm

:25:35. > :25:39.thankful for giving way. They should think that the German strategy, I

:25:40. > :25:46.think I pronounced it correctly, offers a way forward for the UK?

:25:47. > :25:49.Fossil fuels to renewable energy? Thank you for his intervention,

:25:50. > :25:56.added to agree with them. That doesn't point to a very helpful

:25:57. > :26:03.direction of travel. As you would expect, -- does. At the EU, and

:26:04. > :26:07.globally. During the Paris climate talks, unions made an incredibly

:26:08. > :26:11.powerful case for stronger ambition, and faster action to cut a mission

:26:12. > :26:17.and make this transition away from fossil fuels. Central to that is the

:26:18. > :26:21.huge opportunity for job creation in new low carbon industries. I spoke a

:26:22. > :26:26.moment ago about win-win, it should be a win win win, because of the

:26:27. > :26:30.jobs as well as the economy, and advantages, because of a clear

:26:31. > :26:36.direction for this transition. The European trade Union Federation

:26:37. > :26:43.representing 90 trade unions firms 39 countries was really vocal on

:26:44. > :26:48.this issue. As... In a way that benefits the whole of society and is

:26:49. > :26:51.not simply pile B costs on the most privileged. They define the elements

:26:52. > :26:56.of this, some of which are incorporated into my memory, in

:26:57. > :27:00.terms of participation, because consistent and strong worker

:27:01. > :27:01.participation is essential, so that a change can be managed in a

:27:02. > :27:18.socially acceptable way. This is not about whether the embark

:27:19. > :27:22.on a transition, it is about a proactive approach to ensure that

:27:23. > :27:24.that transition happens in a way that protects, maintained, and

:27:25. > :27:30.creates decent jobs and wages. Its looks at what this means in

:27:31. > :27:37.practice. Essentially a government led active, education, training and

:27:38. > :27:41.skills policy. A social safety net through active Labor market

:27:42. > :27:44.policies, strong social support production and measures. There is no

:27:45. > :27:54.lack of clarity on what this might look like. At the minute, but is

:27:55. > :28:02.sadly lacking is an inclusive plan of action. Thanks to the effort of

:28:03. > :28:05.trade unions, the... This commitment needs to be delivered in a

:28:06. > :28:08.meaningful way, otherwise it is just words on paper. I think that the

:28:09. > :28:11.same is urgent and needed in the UK. Although we will also need a first

:28:12. > :28:15.step. That is the commitment to the principle of the transition as well.

:28:16. > :28:21.Because what I described here is fairly straightforward, I hope that

:28:22. > :28:26.the government can support at part of my amendment. My New Clause 12

:28:27. > :28:31.also requires the Secretary of state to be clearer about the existing

:28:32. > :28:38.reserves that should remain unexploited. The energy minister

:28:39. > :28:44.insert a peek you in a a few months ago saying that the international

:28:45. > :28:53.agency has suggested that around a third of them are available under 2

:28:54. > :28:57.degrees scenario I would be really grateful at the department could get

:28:58. > :29:02.an up-to-date figure globally and for the UK so that we have a bit

:29:03. > :29:07.more clarity on that. New research found globally that 82% of fossil

:29:08. > :29:13.fool reserves must be left underground. Of course, Mark Carney

:29:14. > :29:18.has also recently been warning that the vast majority of fossil fuels

:29:19. > :29:21.are essentially unprintable. The government, as we know high sign-up

:29:22. > :29:26.to the Paris agreement which goes even further, especially the 1.5

:29:27. > :29:29.degrees goal. As delegates and pairs heard, that is essentially the

:29:30. > :29:32.balance between life and death for many citizens and poorer countries

:29:33. > :29:40.that are the most vulnerable impacts -- to the impacts of of climate

:29:41. > :29:45.change. We needed up to date change and concrete policies. My New Clause

:29:46. > :29:53.also requires the government to redirect to alternatives. It seems

:29:54. > :29:57.to have a particular meaning only to energy circles. This meaning, allows

:29:58. > :30:02.them to claim that they don't have any subsidies. By using any other

:30:03. > :30:15.definition, the WTO does this is clearly a nonsense. For example,...

:30:16. > :30:17.That is almost twice the financial support and provides renewable

:30:18. > :30:22.energy providers and that urgently needs to change. The barriers to

:30:23. > :30:26.100% renewable energy aren't about technology or money, they are about

:30:27. > :30:29.political will and vested interest. Those who argued against hundred

:30:30. > :30:33.percent renewable energy seem to think that they are the only people

:30:34. > :30:36.who are clever enough to notice that the wind is not always below where

:30:37. > :30:40.the sender as object. They are not. They need to get up to speed with

:30:41. > :30:45.21st century innovation and technology. For example, why is the

:30:46. > :30:48.UK doing so little on energy stores, efficiency, and demand side

:30:49. > :30:53.response. These are proximal Dunn are practical ways to meet peak

:30:54. > :31:04.demand, rather than the back demand. During the climate talks 43

:31:05. > :31:13.companies issued an action. This is a joint statement from a CEOs

:31:14. > :31:17.calling for 100% renewables by 2050 and an urgent and imprison

:31:18. > :31:22.anti-fossil fuel subsidies. Those are the government needs to be

:31:23. > :31:26.distinctive. They also need to be listening to leading academics. Last

:31:27. > :31:37.year, Stanford University laid out a road map. Is that the world can

:31:38. > :31:43.reach 80% by 2030, and 100% by 2050 with no negative impact on economic

:31:44. > :31:51.growth. A last September from them in had the UK can get 80% of its

:31:52. > :31:54.renewables by 2030. Even if that were not the case, the sensible

:31:55. > :31:58.course of action is meant to turn our back, it would be to invest in

:31:59. > :32:01.the RAD to make sure that we can get there. This is about fairness and

:32:02. > :32:06.justice, as well as jobs and creating a modern and successful

:32:07. > :32:16.British economy. During the para climate talks they issued

:32:17. > :32:19.scientist called today for renewable energy by 2050 and zero emissions by

:32:20. > :32:24.mid-century in order to keep the world on track. That group

:32:25. > :32:27.represented some 200 million people which has contributed less than 2%

:32:28. > :32:32.of global omissions, but would suffer around 50% of climate

:32:33. > :32:35.impacts. This energy bill should be heating that call for 100%

:32:36. > :32:39.renewables and putting in place policies to be between getting

:32:40. > :32:44.there. To conclude, these are the reasons why I have tabled New Clause

:32:45. > :32:48.12 on just transition. I think that the government needs to recognise

:32:49. > :32:54.they are imperative of leading fossil fuels and the ground and to

:32:55. > :32:57.stop squandering taxpayers money and essential oil and gas that we can't

:32:58. > :33:03.afford to burn. In doing so, I believe that there is a huge

:33:04. > :33:10.opportunity to collaborate with workers and others to build a just

:33:11. > :33:19.transition to a secure, sustainable economy work workers have today in

:33:20. > :33:29.the future. Hear, hear! I rise in support of New Clause seven this

:33:30. > :33:39.evening for cleaning to CCS. ICT site and he... The absence of CCS

:33:40. > :33:46.policy in the UK is a major concern being a critical technology for

:33:47. > :33:51.industrial processes as well as power stations. Within the last 72

:33:52. > :33:56.hours, and other steel company in my constituency is going to close its

:33:57. > :34:07.doors in May with a loss of 40 jobs. It is critical that we stop start

:34:08. > :34:11.making these decisions now. That was a major blow, not just to those two

:34:12. > :34:17.projects, but to the entire industry. Those are very specific

:34:18. > :34:30.where the country's first initial CCS project was still being implied.

:34:31. > :34:33.The energy to Sir attend a meeting and claimed that the economics...

:34:34. > :34:35.Despite the fact that the final business cases were yet to be

:34:36. > :34:38.submitted. She said an updated policy would be developed, but then

:34:39. > :34:41.went on to suggest that we learned from other countries as they develop

:34:42. > :34:44.their Oil and Gas Authority industry. That is not good enough.

:34:45. > :34:52.Britain has tremendous capability and this area. . I am also worried

:34:53. > :34:59.that the Chancellor does not understand what CCS is. When asked

:35:00. > :35:03.him a question a few weeks ago. I asked him what funding would be

:35:04. > :35:09.available for CCS projects once they come up with new policy? He

:35:10. > :35:12.answered, we have set out our capital budget and our energy policy

:35:13. > :35:19.which was the doubling of the investment of renewable energy over

:35:20. > :35:23.the next five years. While Mr Speaker, not capital for CCS

:35:24. > :35:28.projects there. They spoke of her noble energy. I would like to think

:35:29. > :35:35.that he was just dodging my question. But I sure he understood

:35:36. > :35:45.it. The need for him to sent a signal to personally committed to

:35:46. > :35:48.making macro three and -- CCS. Develop a real strategy but its real

:35:49. > :35:55.intention to make the UK a leader in this field. I thank my honourable

:35:56. > :36:01.friend for giving way. CCS is vital because it gives means by which

:36:02. > :36:05.existing industries which manufacture foundation products

:36:06. > :36:10.which go into wind turbines and other mechanisms that we need for

:36:11. > :36:18.renewables, but it is fundamentally dependent upon technologies which

:36:19. > :36:22.are virgins. They are carbon intensive. If you want to have a

:36:23. > :36:28.renewable strategy with a 42% or higher, we need to have still have

:36:29. > :36:33.parts of the traditional sense. My honourable friend makes the point

:36:34. > :36:36.clear for himself. I believe that being a leader is actually critical

:36:37. > :36:41.to our energy intensive and other industries. For us to overcome the

:36:42. > :36:51.competition from across the world. No use hanging back while other

:36:52. > :36:54.nations steal from us. Home to some of the country possum energy most

:36:55. > :37:00.energy intensive energy. I do like to take this opportunity to invite

:37:01. > :37:05.the Minister in Chancellor to the next meeting on the 23rd of March to

:37:06. > :37:09.learn about their ambitious plans. I know that the Chancellor will be

:37:10. > :37:13.busy until the night before, but I guarantee that be a PPG will be much

:37:14. > :37:17.more for just on the needs of industrial Britain and his possible.

:37:18. > :37:30.The government has made clear to build solicitations. -- power

:37:31. > :37:40.stations. The infrastructure exists to put electricity into the national

:37:41. > :37:46.grid. Both of which can incorporate carbon capture. They can develop

:37:47. > :37:50.their own power station, a potential partner is looking to install a 300

:37:51. > :37:57.megawatts power plant on that plot. I know some have reservations about

:37:58. > :37:59.the use of fossil fuels, but what an opportunity for the government to

:38:00. > :38:09.put some meaning into the much abused term "Northern Powerhouse".

:38:10. > :38:13.The unmeasurable quarters of doing it that the Teesside collective in

:38:14. > :38:19.developing an exciting project that can be for Teesside that only people

:38:20. > :38:25.in the South can believe will reality. At vision my honourable

:38:26. > :38:30.friend's generosity. At a time when Teesside has seen so many job losses

:38:31. > :38:34.in the last few weeks, carbon capture stores can provide a few

:38:35. > :38:36.opportunity. Is he agree good feedback to enable some kind of

:38:37. > :38:40.transition we need to ensure that jobs are going to local people in

:38:41. > :38:46.that terms and conditions are not being undercut by recruitment of

:38:47. > :38:51.overseas? I know that local trained units have been campaigning in

:38:52. > :38:58.Teesside companies undercutting what is a living way for the people and

:38:59. > :39:01.the skilled people on Teesside. I know that private-sector power

:39:02. > :39:08.stations are always fraught with cleaning congregations. When the

:39:09. > :39:13.time comes, ministers will be open to ensure a quick decision on the

:39:14. > :39:17.planning application. Mr Speaker, it is difficult to see how some of our

:39:18. > :39:25.industries that are critical to our economy can remain located in the UK

:39:26. > :39:32.without CCS. The government appears to have the strategy for macro one

:39:33. > :39:35.development. -- CCS. New Clause seven to compel government to fill

:39:36. > :39:39.this huge hole in energy policy platform. It does everything any

:39:40. > :39:44.self-respecting government want to do. More than that, and can send a

:39:45. > :39:49.signal to the sector that ministers are serious about carbon capture and

:39:50. > :39:52.storage, but they understand it, are prepared to deliver, and our country

:39:53. > :39:59.can benefit from what could be hundreds of thousands of jobs if

:40:00. > :40:05.they got it right. Hear, hear! I rise to speak very briefly in

:40:06. > :40:08.support of New Clause 11 of which I am delighted to have had an

:40:09. > :40:16.opportunity to add meaning to him to pay tribute to my honourable friends

:40:17. > :40:20.for the amendments and consensual way in which he has built the

:40:21. > :40:26.discourse around it, and indeed for the work that he did as the

:40:27. > :40:29.country's first Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. This

:40:30. > :40:38.is an issue that all of us lobbied on. For me, last year by a group of

:40:39. > :40:41.school students from a secondary school on the edge of my

:40:42. > :40:48.constituency who came to Westminster to make the point that their

:40:49. > :40:54.generation was conscious of the consequences they would face if our

:40:55. > :40:59.generation failed to act. It is an incredibly powerful point, but it

:41:00. > :41:03.goes beyond the immediate generation, because there was a

:41:04. > :41:06.report published last month in the Journal nature climate change which

:41:07. > :41:14.may be point that much of the discourse we have around the issue

:41:15. > :41:20.has been focused on the consequences of failing to act by the end of the

:41:21. > :41:23.century. In fact, the problems looking beyond the end of this

:41:24. > :41:32.century are even more serious indeed. The authors made the point

:41:33. > :41:36.that we are making choices that will affect our grandchildren's

:41:37. > :41:41.grandchildren and beyond. We need to think carefully about the long-term

:41:42. > :41:46.skills of what we are admission. That was a professor from Harvard

:41:47. > :41:52.University. The need to act has never been more clear. The need to

:41:53. > :41:57.act more ambitiously. The agreement of the Paris summit is a for, but as

:41:58. > :42:02.last month's report highlighted, even if global warming is capped at

:42:03. > :42:08.government's target of two Celsius, which is already seen as difficult,

:42:09. > :42:14.20% of the world pub for macro's population will have to migrate away

:42:15. > :42:20.from coasts swarmed by populations such as New York, London, Rio,

:42:21. > :42:26.Cairo, Jakarta, in Shanghai would all be submerged. We have seen the

:42:27. > :42:31.struggle to grapple with the refugee crisis, that we have seen grow over

:42:32. > :42:37.the last couple of years. A crisis that was driven by a war in one

:42:38. > :42:42.country, in a number of other related conflicts. Imagine, for a

:42:43. > :42:49.moment, what we will face if 20% of the world's population is forced to

:42:50. > :42:57.do what people have always done when their phones become uninhabitable,

:42:58. > :43:05.move to somewhere better. We need ambition and urgency. It is provided

:43:06. > :43:12.by this New Clause. It is a professor one of the authors of the

:43:13. > :43:16.report that said, the next 20 years are in Port to put us on a path and

:43:17. > :43:23.ensuring that the next 200 years the impacts are limited and give us time

:43:24. > :43:31.to adapt. I would say to the honourable member for Aberdeen South

:43:32. > :43:38.and his comments on this New Clause that the reservations that he

:43:39. > :43:41.expressed have been taken account of in the thoughtful way that the

:43:42. > :43:44.Clause has been drafted, and the role that it provides for the

:43:45. > :43:51.committee on climate change. What we need is the ambition that is

:43:52. > :43:58.embodied in this New Clause. As my right honourable friend said, we did

:43:59. > :44:03.it but the 2008 UK climate act. It sends a signal to the world. We can

:44:04. > :44:08.do that again. We need to do that again. He cannot afford not to. The

:44:09. > :44:15.reality is that the future is bleak if we do not cut our emissions

:44:16. > :44:19.further than Paris suggested. The role that this New Clause proposes

:44:20. > :44:25.for the committee on climate change is important but in terms of your

:44:26. > :44:27.robustness of that ambition, and also its portability. I am pleased

:44:28. > :44:31.to hear that the constructive engagement that there has been the

:44:32. > :44:35.my right honourable friend and the secretary of state, and I hope that

:44:36. > :44:39.we can in her comments later here that we came together -- can

:44:40. > :44:48.together move forward together on this issue. I will not speak very

:44:49. > :44:56.briefly to government and the events 48, 49, and also 51. Amendment 48

:44:57. > :45:01.and 49 ad development provisions of the well taxation act of 1975 in the

:45:02. > :45:12.Corporation tax act 2010 to the legislation listed at Clause to (6).

:45:13. > :45:16.This ensures that the functions provided for in these acts fall

:45:17. > :45:19.within the definition of relevant functions, and can be transferred

:45:20. > :45:25.from the secretary of state to the Oil and Gas Authority by regulations

:45:26. > :45:33.made under Clause two of the bracket to close bracket.

:45:34. > :45:40.Contain the important oil and gas functions of determining oil fields

:45:41. > :45:45.and cluster areas by selectively. These functions from the basis of

:45:46. > :45:50.well taxation. Petroleum revenue tax supplied by determined field and

:45:51. > :45:54.allowances given by cluster area to reduce the amount of profits to

:45:55. > :45:59.which the supplementary charges apply. Both of these functions

:46:00. > :46:04.currently undertaken by the Oil and Gas Authority in its capacity as an

:46:05. > :46:08.executive agency have a fundamental to our tax regime and incentivizing

:46:09. > :46:12.investment. These amendments by technical and simply seek to put

:46:13. > :46:15.beyond doubt that these key functions can be transferred to the

:46:16. > :46:22.OG a want ad because a government company as it -- as we have always

:46:23. > :46:26.intended. To explain government amended 51 which introduces an

:46:27. > :46:46.amendments title. This amendment as consequent to the removal of the

:46:47. > :46:50.bell at committee stage. -- bill. Now Mr Speaker, coming the proposed

:46:51. > :46:55.amendments put forward by honourable members, firstly to New Clause three

:46:56. > :46:59.which was tabled by the honourable member for Aberdeen South and New

:47:00. > :47:07.Clause seven table by the honourable member for Wigan and others. I also

:47:08. > :47:14.know that the honourable member for the -- force CCS and we have

:47:15. > :47:20.discussed on a number of occasions. These amendments... I am pleased to

:47:21. > :47:24.acknowledge the work that the Minister has done, but the important

:47:25. > :47:27.thing is that we are able to convince the Chancellor that he

:47:28. > :47:34.should fund CCS sometime in the future. I wonder how open the

:47:35. > :47:39.Minister is the that? These amendments seek to please a duty on

:47:40. > :47:45.the secretary of state to commenced a CCS strategy by 2017. An report on

:47:46. > :47:49.progress every three years. The Clause is also set out the strategy

:47:50. > :47:55.must help deliver the emissions reduction to meet the fit and

:47:56. > :47:58.subsequent carbon budgets. As I emphasised at the book committee,

:47:59. > :48:03.the government's view remains that the CCS has an important role to

:48:04. > :48:12.play in the long-term decarbonization of the UK's

:48:13. > :48:17.industrial power sectors. And in the longevity of must-see industries.

:48:18. > :48:21.However, we know that currently CCS costs are high, which is why we

:48:22. > :48:25.remain committed to working with industry to bring forward innovative

:48:26. > :48:29.ideas for reducing the costs of this potentially important technology. I

:48:30. > :48:34.will give way to the honourable gentleman. I think the Minister for

:48:35. > :48:46.giving way. I think her her comments. Given the increased

:48:47. > :48:50.construction, and the fact that it has been well noted in this house of

:48:51. > :48:53.the removal of the CCS competition was a missed opportunity. In

:48:54. > :49:01.Scotland, we still have the CCS project which was committed with CCS

:49:02. > :49:07.technology, will the Minister agree that CCS advisor group should look

:49:08. > :49:12.at this as an opportunity to get us back on track? What I can say is

:49:13. > :49:19.that the government is invested over ?220 million since 2011 and CCS.

:49:20. > :49:25.This financial year alone we invested 6 million, including 1.7

:49:26. > :49:33.million and October 2015, Lasher, to support three CCS innovative

:49:34. > :49:38.technologies. And to .5 million to investigate potential new CO2

:49:39. > :49:42.stores. We have also invested ?60 million of our international climate

:49:43. > :49:45.fund to support CCS capacity building and action internationally.

:49:46. > :49:57.The honourable Sentinel the micro gentleman will be aware that they

:49:58. > :50:02.provided money and 2015. As I say, Mr Speaker, we know that currently

:50:03. > :50:05.CCS costs are high. We are committed to working with industry to bring

:50:06. > :50:12.forward innovative ideas to reduce the costs. A key part of this is our

:50:13. > :50:14.continuing investment and CCS to innovation support, international

:50:15. > :50:20.partnerships, and industrial research projects. I recognise that

:50:21. > :50:24.industry and others are keen for government to set out its approach

:50:25. > :50:27.to CCS as soon as possible. As a emphasise that the book committee,

:50:28. > :50:33.the government will do this by the end of 2016. In doing so, we will

:50:34. > :50:43.continue to engage closely with industry, the all party group, the

:50:44. > :50:47.CCS strategy group, which will give recommendations by the summer. I

:50:48. > :50:51.hope that I have reassured honourable members that their new

:50:52. > :50:55.clauses are unnecessary. I do hope that they will be content to

:50:56. > :51:00.withdraw their amendments. I will give way to the honourable

:51:01. > :51:03.gentleman. I wonder if she would hazard a comment on the proposed

:51:04. > :51:11.project for Teesside that would see a 300 megawatts power station built

:51:12. > :51:17.on the site Appleton backed up with CCS. I wonder if she has a comment

:51:18. > :51:22.on that? As I said to the honourable gentleman, I continue to engage with

:51:23. > :51:28.him and others. The CCS advisory group will be publishing its

:51:29. > :51:35.findings. As he and other honourable members will know, CCS costs are

:51:36. > :51:40.currently extreme high. I can't make any kid at its own particular

:51:41. > :51:46.profits right now. Turning to new clauses six and ten tabled by the

:51:47. > :51:49.right honourable members, these are intended to restrict the carbon

:51:50. > :51:56.accounting rules that are allowed under the climate change act. From

:51:57. > :52:01.the fifth carbon budget period. Under the current rules, we count

:52:02. > :52:04.the UK's admissions for some sectors, and for other sectors,

:52:05. > :52:10.reflect the EU emissions trading works. These amendments will prevent

:52:11. > :52:17.us from continuing with this approach. Instead, the intention is

:52:18. > :52:21.presumably that the UK's actual admissions for all sectors are

:52:22. > :52:26.counted, but without the ability to offset any of these do a system of

:52:27. > :52:29.carbon accounting. As I said previously, even with this change we

:52:30. > :52:32.would still participate in the EU emissions trading system. The effect

:52:33. > :52:42.of these amendments would just be that we would not reflect how the EU

:52:43. > :52:45.emissions trading system works. Of course, there are arguments for and

:52:46. > :52:49.against different accounting methods. It does require careful

:52:50. > :52:54.consideration of several different factors, including the impact on

:52:55. > :52:58.consumers, businesses, and industry, and of course on meeting our

:52:59. > :53:02.domestic, EU, and international covenants and the cheapest way. My

:53:03. > :53:06.honourable friend for Warrington South clearly set out to be

:53:07. > :53:11.challenges for energy intensive industries. It is absolutely right

:53:12. > :53:17.that we keep under review our current practices. Now is not the

:53:18. > :53:21.right time to make these changes. We are focused on setting the fifth

:53:22. > :53:25.carbon budget, and we have to do that by the 30th of June this year

:53:26. > :53:30.as required by the climate change act. That is less than four months

:53:31. > :53:34.away. Accepting new clauses six or ten at this point in the process

:53:35. > :53:38.with threaten serious delay to setting the fifth carbon budget.

:53:39. > :53:41.This cannot be right, and it can't be what right honourable members

:53:42. > :53:46.intended. I just can't accept that it is at risk of not complying with

:53:47. > :53:51.the weekly committed climate change act. -- legally. I hope that

:53:52. > :53:54.honourable members will be prepared to withdraw these memos. I turned

:53:55. > :53:59.out to New Clause 11 tabled by the right honourable member for

:54:00. > :54:03.Doncaster North. This amendment would set a new climate change

:54:04. > :54:07.target for the UK, specifically, it would require the government to set

:54:08. > :54:10.a cure by which the images would be zero or less. And to ensure that

:54:11. > :54:15.this target is met for that year and the subsequent ones. The year but

:54:16. > :54:17.have to be set within 12 months of this energy bill coming into force,

:54:18. > :54:21.and following advice in the committee on climate change. I want

:54:22. > :54:25.to sincerely thank the right honourable gentleman for raising

:54:26. > :54:28.this important issue. And for his statements over a long period of

:54:29. > :54:31.time to the House on the matter. I know the House was delighted with

:54:32. > :54:35.the Paris agreement, which included a goal for global net zero

:54:36. > :54:39.admissions by the end of the century. By right honourable friend,

:54:40. > :54:41.the secretary of state, played a crucial role herself in

:54:42. > :54:46.support for the school in Paris, and I would also like to think the right

:54:47. > :54:50.honourable Zondervan for his support and securing such an ambitious deal.

:54:51. > :54:55.I am fearful for his past and continued commitment to the

:54:56. > :54:59.continued subject of climate change. The government believes that we will

:55:00. > :55:07.need to take the step of the micro of enshrining the parents goal. The

:55:08. > :55:11.question is not whether, but how we do it. There is an important set of

:55:12. > :55:17.questions to be answered before we do. The committee on climate change

:55:18. > :55:21.is looking at the implications of the commitments and parents, and has

:55:22. > :55:24.that able to report in autumn. We all want to consider, carefully, the

:55:25. > :55:27.recommendations of the committee. I am very happy to get the right

:55:28. > :55:32.honourable gentleman the undertaking that we will also discuss with him

:55:33. > :55:37.and put others the House how best to approach this matter once we have

:55:38. > :55:41.undertaken a consideration. I believe, Mr Speaker, that this is an

:55:42. > :55:45.example once again of the House demonstrating on a cross party basis

:55:46. > :55:50.in determination to tackle climate change as he showed and the climate

:55:51. > :55:54.change act. We are determined to build on the momentum of Paris, and

:55:55. > :55:58.I believe our positive response to the right honourable gentleman today

:55:59. > :56:00.is a clear example of it. I hope that on that basis, the right

:56:01. > :56:06.honourable gentleman will agree to withdraw his amendment. Next I will

:56:07. > :56:11.respond to New Clause 12 tabled by the honourable member for Brighton

:56:12. > :56:15.Pavilion. This amendment will require the secretary of state to

:56:16. > :56:20.develop and publish a national strategy for the energy sector

:56:21. > :56:23.towards 100% renewable energy by 2050 under the framework of a

:56:24. > :56:30.so-called "Just physician". I want to start to start recognising the

:56:31. > :56:33.member and I can agree. She is a passionate advocate for tackling

:56:34. > :56:37.climate change. That is something that this government is firmly

:56:38. > :56:41.committed to doing. Out domestic climate change act is world leading,

:56:42. > :56:45.and my right honourable friend the secretary of state played a critical

:56:46. > :56:50.role/ year in securing a strong, global deal in Paris. He also agreed

:56:51. > :56:53.on the important pool for renewables and helping to reduce emissions. In

:56:54. > :56:58.particular, I welcome the progress that we have seen so far in driving

:56:59. > :57:03.down the cost of renewables technologies such as offshore wind

:57:04. > :57:07.and solar. While I hope that we can indeed agree on these points, we do

:57:08. > :57:11.have different views on the best way to go about reducing emissions.

:57:12. > :57:17.There are three reasons why I can't accept her amendment. First, it goes

:57:18. > :57:21.against the principle of technology neutrality which ensures that we can

:57:22. > :57:28.cut emissions at the lowest cost to consumers. Second, we already engage

:57:29. > :57:33.vary widely on our approach to decarbonization. Thirdly, it

:57:34. > :57:36.overlaps significantly with the existing legislative requirement for

:57:37. > :57:41.us to publish policies and proposals for tackling climate change.

:57:42. > :57:47.We are committed to ensuring the UK doesn't part to tackle climate

:57:48. > :57:51.change, and we want to cut omissions as cheaply as possible, and drive

:57:52. > :57:58.down costs for families and for businesses. I will give way to the

:57:59. > :58:03.Honorable Lady. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more on

:58:04. > :58:06.her technology neutrality point. All am talking about here is renewables

:58:07. > :58:09.and energy efficiency, and storage and so forth, if she knows of some

:58:10. > :58:13.wonderful new technology that can get our omissions down more quickly

:58:14. > :58:19.and more cheaply, I would love to hear about it. At the Honorable Lady

:58:20. > :58:23.well knows, one transitional approach to decarbonization is to

:58:24. > :58:28.move away from coal and towards gas as a bridge to a low carbon future.

:58:29. > :58:31.She will also be very aware that new nuclear offers a low carbon

:58:32. > :58:37.technology for the future, and one that this government is committed to

:58:38. > :58:41.supporting. So, I do appreciate the intent behind much of the Honorable

:58:42. > :58:45.Lady's amendment, but I hope she can see why I cannot accept the

:58:46. > :58:49.specifics of the amendment, and that she will be content to withdraw it.

:58:50. > :58:52.I turned out to New Clause eight, Mr Speaker, which was tabled by the

:58:53. > :58:56.Honorable member for Wigan, and others. This amendment would require

:58:57. > :59:01.the Secretary of State to step a decarbonization target range

:59:02. > :59:04.electricity sector. We debated very similar amendments in the last

:59:05. > :59:09.Parliament, and also during the passage of this spell, and the other

:59:10. > :59:12.place, and in other stages. The government has made our own position

:59:13. > :59:16.on this matter very clear, and we are committed to ensuring the UK

:59:17. > :59:20.continues to do its part to tackle climate change, in line with the

:59:21. > :59:24.climate change act, and are international and EU obligations.

:59:25. > :59:29.However, we want to do this as cost effectively as possible. To keep

:59:30. > :00:04.costs down for families and businesses,

:00:05. > :00:07.while delivering on legally binding commitments. We cannot do that by

:00:08. > :00:09.blocking ourselves into additional expensive, and inflexible targets,

:00:10. > :00:11.relating to the power sector. There are just too many things we cannot

:00:12. > :00:14.predict about how the energy system will develop over the next 15 years

:00:15. > :00:17.and beyond. The cost of getting this right now would be picked up by

:00:18. > :00:19.families and businesses for decades to come. I find it strange that

:00:20. > :00:22.opposition parties are often arguing that we'r e not doing enough to

:00:23. > :00:24.tackle fuel poverty. And yet they're urging us to sign consumers up to

:00:25. > :00:26.distorting and expensive power sector want to know that we have

:00:27. > :00:29.clear, investors want to know that we have is setting up the next

:00:30. > :00:31.stages and its long-term commitment to move to a low carbon economy,

:00:32. > :00:34.providing a basis for electricity investment into the next decade. The

:00:35. > :00:36.huge investment we have seen so far is evidence that our approach is

:00:37. > :00:38.working, between 2010, and 2014, our policies have secured an, and

:00:39. > :00:41.affordable plans. The government is setting up the next stages and its

:00:42. > :00:43.long-term commitment to move to a low carbon economy, providing a

:00:44. > :00:45.basis for electricity investment into the next decade. The huge

:00:46. > :00:47.investment we have seen so far is evidence that our approach is

:00:48. > :00:51.working, between 2010, and 2014, our policies have secured ?32 billion,

:00:52. > :00:53.of investment in low carbon electricity. Including ?40 billion

:00:54. > :00:56.in renewables. And we have more in the pipeline for the future I cannot

:00:57. > :00:58.accept this amendment, and I asked Honorable members to withdraw Mr

:00:59. > :01:01.Speaker, I would like now to deal with New Clause McColl tabled by the

:01:02. > :01:03.Honorable member for Wigan, and others. This amendment seeks to

:01:04. > :01:07.eligibility criteria, requiring any new eligibility criteria, requiring

:01:08. > :01:12.any year capacity agreements to be made -- Bill accessing 15 year

:01:13. > :01:16.capacity agreements to be made subject amendment is not achieved

:01:17. > :01:20.its intended aim, so I'm surprised to see it reappear here. The EPS

:01:21. > :01:23.sets and annual limit specifically on CO2 emissions performance

:01:24. > :01:25.standard, or EPS. As I have explained previously, the amendment

:01:26. > :01:27.is not achieved its intended aim, so I'm surprised to see it reappear

:01:28. > :01:30.here. The EPS sets an annual limit specifically on from fossil fuel

:01:31. > :01:33.plant, with an fuel generated about 50 megawatts seeking to participate

:01:34. > :01:38.in the capacity market, will already be subject to this limit, so nothing

:01:39. > :01:40.would be gained by introducing this as a further eligibility 50

:01:41. > :01:42.megawatts. Any new fossil fuel generated about 50 megawatts seeking

:01:43. > :01:45.to participate in the capacity market, will already be subject to

:01:46. > :01:49.this limit, so nothing would be gained by introducing this as a

:01:50. > :01:54.further eligibility 15 year agreement, so this would also have

:01:55. > :01:57.no impact on those generators. As I have set out before, the mission

:01:58. > :02:01.impact from smaller generators that sit below the 50 megawatts threshold

:02:02. > :02:07.is often assumed to be larger than it is in reality. Small peaking

:02:08. > :02:11.generation have a relatively small impact on overall CO2 emissions due

:02:12. > :02:13.to be short hours that they run, and I will make my point, and that I

:02:14. > :02:18.will give way to the Honorable gentleman. These generators run less

:02:19. > :02:22.than 100 hours a year, in the case of diesel engines. While larger

:02:23. > :02:28.fossil fuel plants will run for 2000 hours or more. Proposed amendment is

:02:29. > :02:31.not effective for the simple reason that the annual EPS CTO -- CO2

:02:32. > :02:37.emissions, it would be very unlikely to have any impact on small

:02:38. > :02:43.generators, part -- participating in the market. I will give way. Is in

:02:44. > :02:48.the proposal that the Minister herself is putting forward for the

:02:49. > :02:51.future, inclusion of smallest diesel sets into air quality standards

:02:52. > :02:56.subject to exactly the same problem? They bring smaller generators into a

:02:57. > :02:59.scheme which was originally proposed for larger generators, and thereby

:03:00. > :03:03.including them in the system? That is exactly what the amendment is

:03:04. > :03:05.proposing, for the smaller diesel subs coming into an omissions

:03:06. > :03:11.performance standard, that otherwise would apply to larger plants. As I

:03:12. > :03:16.explained, his amendment is not have that effect, but I'm not complacent

:03:17. > :03:20.about concerns associated with local pollutants from small generators.

:03:21. > :03:24.I'm very aware of the concern in particular about diesel. The

:03:25. > :03:28.Department for the environment, food, will consult later this year

:03:29. > :03:31.on options that will include legislation that would set binding

:03:32. > :03:35.and mission limit values on the relevant air pollutants from the

:03:36. > :03:41.smaller engines. With a view to having legislation enforced no later

:03:42. > :03:44.than January 2019, and possibly sooner. These would apply to

:03:45. > :03:48.generators or groups of generators with the rate of thermal input equal

:03:49. > :03:54.to or greater than one megawatt, and less than 50 megawatts. Irrespective

:03:55. > :03:58.of their hours of operation on any given year, so this shows that the

:03:59. > :04:02.government is taking it -- appropriate action to avoid any

:04:03. > :04:04.disproportionate action on air quality from smaller engines, where

:04:05. > :04:10.these could contribute to harmful levels of air pollutants. The

:04:11. > :04:16.exceeding of existing air-quality values. These limits send a clear

:04:17. > :04:21.message about the viability of developing and running diesel

:04:22. > :04:23.generators in the future. I hope Honorable members have found my

:04:24. > :04:30.explanation reassuring, and we will be content to withdraw their

:04:31. > :04:36.amendment. I turn now to New Clause five, tabled by the right Honorable

:04:37. > :04:39.member. This amendment seeks to reinsert the Clause added by the

:04:40. > :04:45.opposition and the other place, once again, rewriting the oil and gas

:04:46. > :04:49.Authority's principal objective of maximizing economic recovery. This

:04:50. > :04:53.topic has been debated at length brought the passage of this bill.

:04:54. > :04:56.The government successfully removed the previous situation of this

:04:57. > :05:00.Clause at committee, with the support of Honorable members from

:05:01. > :05:04.the Scottish national party, importantly, it was agreed across

:05:05. > :05:07.the room, including by the opposition front bench that diluting

:05:08. > :05:12.the focus of the LGA in such a weight is undesirable. In light of

:05:13. > :05:15.this, I must say I'm surprised and rather disappointed that the right

:05:16. > :05:19.Honorable member who tabled this amendment not least, because of the

:05:20. > :05:24.serious implications it has for jobs and growth in Scotland, as I have

:05:25. > :05:28.said many times, any amendment that the tracks in the focus on

:05:29. > :05:34.maximizing economic or is damaging to the North Sea, such a move is

:05:35. > :05:39.unacceptable, particularly at a time of unprecedented challenge. For the

:05:40. > :05:45.oil and gas industry. I'm as disappointed as she claims to be

:05:46. > :05:50.with me. To suggest that the LGA, which is an exceptionally big public

:05:51. > :05:57.body is incapable of doing more than one thing is rather insulting to the

:05:58. > :06:03.body that worked so hard to save us. The right Honorable gentleman,

:06:04. > :06:08.misses the point, he -- the point about its principal objective being

:06:09. > :06:11.to maximise the economic recovery is that they'll will then focus its

:06:12. > :06:15.efforts on the long-term sustainability of the North Sea, and

:06:16. > :06:20.not that the other house put in place, which is something related to

:06:21. > :06:24.short termism, and trying to maximise the profitability and so

:06:25. > :06:28.on, which would simply be countered to the job growth in his

:06:29. > :06:33.constituency and others. Removing the LGA focus seriously risks

:06:34. > :06:37.weakening its ability to provide support to an industry that is so

:06:38. > :06:40.urgently in need of it. The potential knock on wood be

:06:41. > :06:44.significant, and it would risk the premature decommissioning of key

:06:45. > :06:48.North Sea infrastructure, but would also seriously jeopardise vital

:06:49. > :06:52.skills and experience, including those that could prompt mode the

:06:53. > :06:56.longevity of the industry for carbon storage objects. From this

:06:57. > :06:59.perspective, the amendment is self-defeating. Furthermore, the

:07:00. > :07:02.maximizing economic recovery for UK strategy is not being published and

:07:03. > :07:06.is currently before Parliament. The impact of this amendment would undo

:07:07. > :07:11.a significant amount of work that has been undertaken with industry,

:07:12. > :07:13.and would require the LGA to revise its UK strategy, to take into

:07:14. > :07:18.account the expansion in the principal objective. As the

:07:19. > :07:22.Honorable member for Aberdeen South was mentioned on them for a

:07:23. > :07:28.vacation, it really is mission critical that the LGA maintains a

:07:29. > :07:35.laser-like focus on maximizing economy... Setting it up to fail,

:07:36. > :07:38.and it's crucial mission to protect our domestic energy mix, and to

:07:39. > :07:46.support hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not what is best for

:07:47. > :07:48.the UK or its future. A thinker for drawing attention to that. I think

:07:49. > :07:52.it is absolutely fundamental that the LGA does this. It is also

:07:53. > :07:56.fundamental to the industry for the chancellor to have that laser-like

:07:57. > :08:01.focus, and reiterated her to make sure that the industry gets that

:08:02. > :08:04.support it needs on Wednesday. I am grateful to him for that, and he

:08:05. > :08:11.will be aware that the Chancellor has a very... I hope you will be

:08:12. > :08:17.pleased, but I could assure him that his interests and the interests of

:08:18. > :08:20.the UK Continental shelf are being very carefully considered. I do hope

:08:21. > :08:24.that the right honourable gentleman will be content to withdraw his

:08:25. > :08:29.amendment. Mr Speaker, lastly, you'll be pleased to know that I

:08:30. > :08:33.turn to amendment 47, tabled by the Honorable member for Reagan and

:08:34. > :08:36.others. The amendment would oblige the LGA to consider the most

:08:37. > :08:41.advantageous use of North Sea infrastructure. For the overbroad

:08:42. > :08:44.benefit comp right to the decommissioning of such sites. I'm

:08:45. > :08:51.delighted to note that the support across this house for the measures

:08:52. > :08:56.to establish the OGA, the impact of the fall in oil prices makes this

:08:57. > :09:00.even more critical. Why we're taking urgent steps to stimulate

:09:01. > :09:03.investments and expiration, it is equally important to the overall

:09:04. > :09:08.viability of the North Sea that we make the best use of infrastructure,

:09:09. > :09:11.in order to mitigate the risks of premature decommissioning, and this

:09:12. > :09:16.requires a holistic approach. In which operators and infrastructure

:09:17. > :09:20.owners collaborate to ensure the maximum economic recovery of

:09:21. > :09:26.petroleum for the UK Continental shelf. That is precisely provided by

:09:27. > :09:30.the OGA's principal objective, set out in section nine A of the

:09:31. > :09:35.petroleum act of 1998. The strategy to maximise economic recovery is

:09:36. > :09:38.furthering addressing this issue, and includes students to plan,

:09:39. > :09:43.commission, and maintain infrastructure in a way that meets

:09:44. > :09:47.the optimum configuration for maximizing the value of economically

:09:48. > :09:51.recoverable petroleum, taking into account the operational needs of

:09:52. > :09:57.others. So the strategy and the measures in this bill intro that

:09:58. > :09:59.before any infrastructure and relevant UK waters, but the owners

:10:00. > :10:08.of the infrastructure and the LGA must ensure that all viable options

:10:09. > :10:14.for its continued use or export. Mr Speaker, the LGA -- OGA, is working

:10:15. > :10:18.for a framework focused on them proving late like management. The

:10:19. > :10:22.LGA will publish its decommissioning sector this summer. I hope Honorable

:10:23. > :10:23.members have found my explanation reassuring, and will be content to

:10:24. > :10:37.withdraw their amendment. The question is that New Clause

:10:38. > :10:44.during the ride a second time. As many as are of the opinion, say

:10:45. > :11:05."aye". To the contrary, "no". Clear the lobby!

:11:06. > :12:52.Border! The question is that New Clause three B read a second time.

:12:53. > :13:06.As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no".

:13:07. > :18:48.Tenders for the noes, Miss Margot James.

:18:49. > :22:44.Are! Border! -- border! The ayes to the right, 229, the noes to the

:22:45. > :23:00.left, 268. The ayes to the right, 229. The noes

:23:01. > :23:09.to the left, 268. The noes habit, the noes Abbott. Unlock! -- habit.

:23:10. > :23:17.Doctor Whitehead to move New Clause eight formally, thank you. The

:23:18. > :23:20.question is that New Clause eight be read a second time. As many as are

:23:21. > :23:26.of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Adjourn! Clear the

:23:27. > :25:40.lobby! Border! The question is that New

:25:41. > :25:49.Clause eight to be read a second time. As many as are of the opinion,

:25:50. > :25:55.say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Tellers for... I will have a word

:25:56. > :26:08.with him over commodity at some point. Tenders for the ayes, Mr

:26:09. > :26:10.Graham Morris. And Mr Jeff Smith. Tenders for the no, Miss Margot

:26:11. > :35:44.James. Order, order! The ayes to the right

:35:45. > :35:54.227, the noes to the last, 272. -- laughed. The ayes to the left --

:35:55. > :36:04.227, and noes 272. The noes cabinet. Unlock! To move New Clause ten. The

:36:05. > :36:07.question is that New Clause ten B read a second time. As many as are

:36:08. > :36:16.of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". Clearly lobby. --

:36:17. > :38:20.cleared the lobby. The question is that New Clause ten

:38:21. > :38:30.be read a second time. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To

:38:31. > :44:20.the contrary, "no". Tell us for the eyes, and tell us for the noes.

:44:21. > :47:20.Order, order! The ayes to the bag, 229. The noes to the left, 275. The

:47:21. > :47:29.ayes to the right, 229. The noes to the left, 275. The noes cabinet, the

:47:30. > :47:36.noes cabinet. Unlock. With leave, we will take the government amendment

:47:37. > :47:41.40 eight, 49, and 51 together. The Minister to move governments

:47:42. > :47:45.amendments formally, thank you. The question is that government

:47:46. > :47:50.amendments 40 weight, 49, and 51 be made. As many as are of the opinion,

:47:51. > :47:58.say "aye". To the contrary, "no". I think the ayes habit. Order, order!

:47:59. > :48:02.Consideration completed. I will now suspend the House for no more than

:48:03. > :48:07.five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The

:48:08. > :48:12.division bells will be wrong to minutes before the House resumes.

:48:13. > :48:15.Following my certification, the government will table the

:48:16. > :48:20.appropriate content ocean, copies of which will be made available in the

:48:21. > :49:02.vote office and will be distributed by doorkeepers. Order.

:49:03. > :49:13.INTRO MUSIC in good times and bad, every budget based at the same way

:49:14. > :49:16.with a chance to microchips or any exchequer standing here in holding

:49:17. > :49:20.up the budget box. The budget speech contained in the box is how the

:49:21. > :49:24.government outlined its tax bounce for the next year. How is going to

:49:25. > :49:29.base money, but not how it is going to spend it. That comes later. Do

:49:30. > :49:33.these measures, it aims to stimulate the economy or hold it back. The

:49:34. > :49:37.budget affects everybody from individuals to businesses. It's not

:49:38. > :49:47.just about tax on booze and cigarettes. Box in hand, the

:49:48. > :49:49.Chancellor then had turned down the street to outline the government

:49:50. > :49:54.plans to MPs. The classic budget box number or Gladstone box, was retired

:49:55. > :49:59.in 2010 after over 100 years in use. Traditionally, to aid the Chancellor

:50:00. > :50:08.and the northern part, something has been provided to put some fires in

:50:09. > :50:12.the belly. William Gladstone in dude sherry and beatnik, the management

:50:13. > :50:16.this baby had brandy and water. He had a gin and tonic. Can Clark

:50:17. > :50:24.enjoyed a whiskey in the dispatch box. Nigel Lawson said a white wine

:50:25. > :50:27.spritzer. Traditionally, the alcoholic pickle came to an end in

:50:28. > :50:32.1997 with new Labour. Now counsellors do nothing stronger than

:50:33. > :50:38.mineral water. The comments is always packed for a budget

:50:39. > :50:42.statement. They sit in silence. The length of the state and berries. Mr

:50:43. > :50:48.Gladstone, the one of the great parliamentary or holds the record.

:50:49. > :50:53.-- orators. No wonder he needed a drink. The prime minister

:50:54. > :51:02.traditionally sits beside the Chancellor. Looking glum more

:51:03. > :51:06.elated. Budget rules mean, unlike other legislation, certain changes

:51:07. > :51:11.such as taxes on petrol and alcohol take effect from 6pm on budget day.

:51:12. > :51:18.And I commend this budget to the House! MPs debate the budget led by

:51:19. > :51:23.the Leader of the Opposition. The finance Bill brings the government's

:51:24. > :51:26.tax proposals into law. It is briefly debated in the Lords, but

:51:27. > :51:31.peers cannot amend or delay it as they have no power over public

:51:32. > :51:34.taxation bills. The budget legislation is brought into effect

:51:35. > :51:39.in the finance Bill is enacted. This happens in July following a spring

:51:40. > :51:42.budget. And that's it. The Chancellor can put his budget box

:51:43. > :51:45.away for the next her. But we will also be perfect for the next 12

:51:46. > :52:46.months. AFTER MUSIC. Order, order! I can now inform house

:52:47. > :52:54.that I have completed certification of the bill as required by the

:52:55. > :52:59.standing order. I have confirmed the view expressed in my provisional

:53:00. > :53:03.certificate issued on 9th of March. Copies of my final search Dunn

:53:04. > :53:06.research advocate can be made available in the note off it in on

:53:07. > :53:12.the Parliamentary website. Understanding order number 83 M a

:53:13. > :53:17.consent motion is therefore required for the bill to proceed. Copies of

:53:18. > :53:20.the motion are available in the vote office and on the Parliamentary

:53:21. > :53:27.website, and have been made available to members in the chamber.

:53:28. > :53:34.Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion? Thank you.

:53:35. > :53:37.Understanding order number 83 M subsection four the House months

:53:38. > :53:40.forth with resolve itself into a legislative grant committee England

:53:41. > :54:08.and Wales. Order, order! Order, order! There will not be a

:54:09. > :54:12.debate on the consent motion for England and Wales. I remind

:54:13. > :54:17.honourable members that all members may speak in the debate, but if

:54:18. > :54:21.there are divisions only members representing constituencies in

:54:22. > :54:24.England and Wales may boat on the consent motion. I called the

:54:25. > :54:29.Minister to move the consent motion for England and Wales. I beg to move

:54:30. > :54:32.the consent motion and the name of my right honourable friend the

:54:33. > :54:35.Secretary of State. As set out in the written ministerial statement

:54:36. > :54:41.tabled on the 10th of March. Nothing has changed since the bill was

:54:42. > :54:44.introduced. I urge honourable and right honourable members to support

:54:45. > :54:47.the consent motion. The question is the consent motion relating to

:54:48. > :54:58.England and Wales as on the notice paper. As many of that opinion say

:54:59. > :55:22.ayes on the contrary, noes the ayes habit. -- ayes habit. Order, order!

:55:23. > :55:31.Order, order! Third reading. I think to report that the legislative grant

:55:32. > :55:33.committee of England and Wales has considered to be certification

:55:34. > :55:43.Democrats certified Clause of the order bill laws. Third reading? The

:55:44. > :55:53.Queens consent? The prince of Wales's consent? Minister to move

:55:54. > :55:58.third reading, secretary of state. I beg to move that the bill be now

:55:59. > :56:03.read a third time. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is focused

:56:04. > :56:08.on delivering measures that support our long-term plan for secure,

:56:09. > :56:12.clean, affordable energy supplies. This bill puts and plays key

:56:13. > :56:17.manifesto commitments to achieve those objectives. First, bite

:56:18. > :56:22.meeting our commitment to support the development of oil and gas and

:56:23. > :56:25.the North Sea. This bill provides the oil and gas Authority with the

:56:26. > :56:29.direction and power it needs to be an effective regulator and to

:56:30. > :56:35.maximise recovery of resources and the North Sea to the benefit of

:56:36. > :56:39.Britain's energy security. Second, meeting our commitments to end new

:56:40. > :56:43.public subsidies for onshore wind and giving local people the final

:56:44. > :56:48.say on wind farm applications. In doing so, this bill will protect

:56:49. > :56:53.bill payers by helping to control the cost to the public on support

:56:54. > :56:56.for Noble energy. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me take these in turn

:56:57. > :57:00.adjusting the action be taken since the bill's second reading in January

:57:01. > :57:04.before touching on other honourable member measures and the bill. As I

:57:05. > :57:09.set out on second reading, amendments made any other sought to

:57:10. > :57:12.expand considerably to the objectives of the Oil and Gas

:57:13. > :57:16.Authority. Our view is that this would dilute the fact the macro

:57:17. > :57:21.focus of the OGA as a crucial factor for the oil and gas industry. This

:57:22. > :57:29.house has reinstated the OCA's original objective for maximizing

:57:30. > :57:34.economic recovery. OGA's. The OGA must have clarity on their primary

:57:35. > :57:40.objective. Be bill as it now stands provide that. With regards to

:57:41. > :57:43.onshore wind, I set out are accepted a second reading to be introduce

:57:44. > :57:47.clauses that were removed and the other place. This was a clear

:57:48. > :57:52.government commitment, and I am pleased to see these provisions put

:57:53. > :57:57.back. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me be exposed. This bill and a

:57:58. > :58:03.manifesto commitment. Clause 79 helps to implement that commitment

:58:04. > :58:07.to its new public subsidies for onshore wind. Onshore wind has

:58:08. > :58:10.deployed successfully to date, but without control that is the risk of

:58:11. > :58:15.over the appointment beyond the range that we have set for 2020, the

:58:16. > :58:20.range that we have considered affordable. Over the appointment

:58:21. > :58:24.would potentially add extra costs to consumer bills or reduce the amount

:58:25. > :58:29.support available to less mature technologies such as offshore wind

:58:30. > :58:33.that need help to bring their costs down. Just as public subsidies have

:58:34. > :58:37.brought down the cost of onshore wind. To protect investor

:58:38. > :58:41.confidence, we have also inserted Clause 80, which sets out a

:58:42. > :58:46.legislation and grace period for those projects meeting certain

:58:47. > :58:50.conditions as of June the 18th of last year. This allows such projects

:58:51. > :58:54.to continue to seek accreditation under the renewables obligation

:58:55. > :58:58.after the early closure date. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will also

:58:59. > :59:01.introduce a Clause relevant to Northern Ireland. Every means in a

:59:02. > :59:04.position that consumers in Great Britain should not bear the cost of

:59:05. > :59:08.Northern island providing additional support to onshore wind. We have

:59:09. > :59:22.been clear about this pick up the process. The intent of

:59:23. > :59:26.Madam Deputy Speaker this government is committed to the climate change

:59:27. > :59:32.act in our target to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. We will

:59:33. > :59:34.meet our obligations and responsibilities by setting the

:59:35. > :59:41.fifth carbon budget by the end of June this year, covering the period

:59:42. > :59:45.220 2028-2032. As the committee on climate change has that, while we

:59:46. > :59:48.are on course to me be second and third carbon budgets, the fourth

:59:49. > :59:52.carbon budget is going to be tough to achieve, and we will set out our

:59:53. > :59:56.proposals for meeting our targets in our newly emissions reduction plan.

:59:57. > :00:00.Our working assumption is that this will be published at the end of this

:00:01. > :00:04.year. Work on the fifth carbon budget is well under way across

:00:05. > :00:08.government and has been progressing for over a year. I understand the

:00:09. > :00:11.intentions of those website to amend this bill to change the way we count

:00:12. > :00:15.our been omissions for the purposes of the fifth carbon budget, and of

:00:16. > :00:20.course it is right that we keep our accounting practices under review.

:00:21. > :00:24.I'm afraid that to have excepted the amendment to the bill on this point

:00:25. > :00:29.I'm at this far into the fifth carbon budget process would have

:00:30. > :00:33.rest serious delay at a time when the UK should show clear decisive

:00:34. > :00:37.leadership in the aftermath of the Paris crime attains conference.

:00:38. > :00:42.Before I conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker I was too express my thanks

:00:43. > :00:47.to those that supported the proper scrutiny of this bill. Firstly to my

:00:48. > :00:49.team on the front bench, the Minister of State for energy and

:00:50. > :00:53.climate change, who has expertly steered this bill through the house

:00:54. > :00:59.and to Lord Bob for his management of the bill and the other place. I

:01:00. > :01:01.would like to thank my honourable friend for Blackpool North and

:01:02. > :01:07.quickly, South East Cornwall for their excellent contribution and

:01:08. > :01:10.support. We are very grateful. And I express my gratitude to members on

:01:11. > :01:14.the opposition benches for their measured approach to the scrutiny of

:01:15. > :01:18.this bill. Is there Tuesday that there have been moments of

:01:19. > :01:22.disagreement -- is there Tuesday, but we have also agreed on many

:01:23. > :01:26.issues including the need to swiftly complete the work started in the

:01:27. > :01:30.previous Parliament to implement fully the recommendations of the

:01:31. > :01:32.Wood review. I therefore think the honourable members for Wigan,

:01:33. > :01:38.Southampton, test on a north-south, Brent North, Aberdeen South and go

:01:39. > :01:47.Rich Preston and felt so for their considers grooming. -- considers

:01:48. > :01:49.Britney. I am grateful to wear their participation in India outside the

:01:50. > :01:53.chamber would have been very helpful. Ring the passage of this

:01:54. > :01:57.bill my colleagues and I have listened carefully and where

:01:58. > :02:02.appropriate we have made amendments or added details to provisions.

:02:03. > :02:09.However, on the fundamental purpose of the provisions, we had and intend

:02:10. > :02:16.to stand firm on our commitments. Question is to the bill being now

:02:17. > :02:18.read a third time. Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. Before

:02:19. > :02:24.the house we have an energy bill that would be important exception of

:02:25. > :02:28.the North Sea industries has absolutely nothing to say about the

:02:29. > :02:32.major energy challenges that we face. It is a missed opportunity to

:02:33. > :02:37.mend our broken energy market and to make good on the promise that the

:02:38. > :02:41.Prime Minister gave warriors ago and he told this house he would

:02:42. > :02:45.legislate to but every household in Britain onto the cheapest energy

:02:46. > :02:48.tariff. And it's extraordinary that during the passage of this bill, we

:02:49. > :02:53.have learned about this broken promise has caused written's

:02:54. > :02:58.household and actual .7 billion every year and that once again this

:02:59. > :03:04.energy bill led by the government lets the energy companies off the

:03:05. > :03:07.hip -- 1.7 billion. Despite our best efforts, Madam Deputy Speaker it if

:03:08. > :03:11.I link you on the growing risk of power shortages which is astonishing

:03:12. > :03:16.when official figures for national grades show that this winter written

:03:17. > :03:20.to be forced to rely on that that measures and imports from abroad

:03:21. > :03:23.just to keep the lights on. During committee stage, we sought to

:03:24. > :03:28.address this and we sought to address this especially given the