03/11/2015 House of Lords


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 03/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



going live to the House of Lords. Remember you can watch recorded


coverage of all of today's business in the Lords after the daily


politics late at night. Two final thoughts, is it not worth


considering some way of bringing, levying a charge on Arctic tourism,


solar contribution is made to the excessive costs of providing


adequate search and rescue facilities? People who go on to


arrest tours to the Arctic are not normally among the lowest deciles of


incoming population. Whilst it is helpful of the Government to offer


the possible periodic updates to the liaison committee of this House I do


ask the question, what can the liaison committee do when it gets


the updates question that that is of course one small part of the case


for establishing an international committee, which I trust will return


rather shortly on which I hope there will be a positive decision.


I often wonder why many people showed little concern in the face of


the impending catastrophe of global warning. A fundamental dichotomy in


human perceptions which falter. In 1757 there was an influential work


published of social philosophy and satire under the title, Optimism. It


is said to be promoted, prompted by a disastrous earthquake in Lisbon,


estimated to have killed 60,000 people in that city alone. Erase a


question of how a belief in a deity could be maintained in the face of


such disasters or acts of God. There are two main protagonists in the


terrible story. The first is the Conde to run the world with various


companions and is confronted by a series of disasters. Some of the


disasters are acts of God and others are attributed to human behaviour


for second protagonist is a doctor, who is unaffected by the tragedies.


He refuses to allow them to distract him from his everyday concerns and


he asserts without all is for the best and the best of all possible


worlds. Conde represents an Academy people that could be called the


absurdist, they seek disasters everywhere that are compounded by


human folly and ignorance. The doctor, and the other hand, and


verify the category of people who one might describe as the


normalises. We can recognise both classes of people in any assembled


company. However, unless people first-hand, they may go from one


category to another. Most of us embody both tendencies in very deg.


The absence of dramatic first-hand experience of the influence of --


effect of global warning has led to less concerned. Harry Kane Patricia,


the devastation of the island by the typhoon -- Hurricane Patricia. It is


preferred to consider only the average impact of these events. We


have every reason to feel that when we feel the full force of global


warming it will be too late to avert catastrophe. The dichotomy of


perceptions is clearly evident on the report of the Select Committee


on the Arctic, which is a well crafted document of which the clerk


of the committee and the policy analyst Matty Smith must take much


of the credit. On the one hand, the report contains the -- conveys an


impending catastrophe but it also documents the political, social and


economic responses to the ongoing changes in the Arctic environment.


The report declares in its introduction that the committee did


not seek to examine of the global causes, processes and consequences


of global change -- climate change. of global change -- climate change.


Nevertheless the first chapter clearly displays the startling


evidence of climate change that can be seen in the Arctic and that will


have inevitable global consequences. In the period from 1900 to the


credit the Arctic temperature surfaces of the land have risen by


as much as four degrees centigrade, or by no less than three degrees


centigrade if one takes the most favourable base here. The rise in


temperature has been twice the rate of the global average and can be


regarded as a harbinger of a global temperature increase of the same or


of a greater magnitude. The current scientific consensus is that if they


continue, the present trends will result in an utterly destructive


increase in temperature of five Celsius. The commitments to limit


this which are likely to be confirmed by the forthcoming Paris


conference, if they were realised, then a rise in temperature may be


limited to 2.7 degrees by 20 100. -- 2100. The 2 degrees rise, we have


been told repeatedly, that is the maximum we can allow if we are not


experienced severe destruction to our way of life. One very visible


effect of the warming of the Arctic is the reduction in the ice cover.


The report contains a compelling diagram which is the product of


satellite monitoring full stop since 1980 the extent of ice coverage in


the region has almost halved -- monitoring. Since. The picture


becomes dramatically worse when one takes account of the thickness of


the ice. Thin ice is quickly melted in the Arctic summer. It has


decreased by 75% in the last 30 years. Many predict the eyes will be


gone completely by the middle of the century. -- ice. The prospect of our


ice free Arctic Ocean would greatly shorten the distances of sea voyages


that presently passed the Suez canals and Panama Canal -- Suez


Canal and Panama Canal. We must also envisage a dramatic rise in the sea


level. Of course the melting of the ice cannot alone raise the sea level


but there is melting of land-based ice. The loss of ice from Greenland


has increased by a factor of five in the last five years. It described


the causing a rise of two millimetres per annum, which seems


small enough, however as we have heard it all of Greenland's I swear


to melt there would be more than a 7 metre rise in the sea level. -- ice


were to melt. The rise in ten major and a reduction of ice are complete


by vicious processes of positive feedback. It reduces the libido or


fertility of the Arctic region which leads to a greater absorption of


heat. The melting of the Arctic tundra is giving rise to emissions


of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Volume four volume


it has 20 times the warming effect of dioxide. The melting of the


Arctic has been witnessed by members of the Committee who travelled to


Svalbard, the Highlands which like 20 to 50 degrees from the North


Pole. This is the world pot-mac northernmost error of habitation.


The largest settlement -- world's northernmost area. The port in the


northernmost settlement -- largest settlement is in Spitsbergen. The


coal-mining industry which has been there since the beginning of the


20th century is now in long-term decline but a booming tourist


industry is now taking its place. The island is envisaged as a major


logistical hub for the development of commercial and maritime


activities in the polar regions. It is difficult to witness such normal


activities and at the same time to bear in mind the notion of impending


catastrophe. Svalbard provides a singular example of the difficulty


of reconciling the different perceptions of normality and


catastrophe and fully understanding the dangers we face. There is


however one factor present at Svalbard that should remind us of


the dangers. This is the International University centre


devoted to Arctic studies. A stream of information and analysis emanates


from the centre which can leave us in no doubt as to the prospect of


the Arctic. Svalbard and has a numerous and growing scientific


community of which the British have been growing participants. One of


the main recommendations of the Committee is that our scientific


presence in the Arctic should be bolstered in order to maintain the


importance of our participation. This and other recommendations of


import were met with a favourable but lukewarm reception in the


Government response. Given the stringent limits the Government is


imposing on the nation's limited financial budget I am fearful the


recommendation will not be heeded. I would urge it should be the post


priority. If the processes we have witnessed in the Arctic continue the


is a strong likelihood we will be tipped into a runaway process of


global warming that will wipe many of us off the face of the Earth.


This is a means by which anthropogenic global warming might


be eventually overcome. It seems to me that an out -- and colony has a


better instinct of survival than does humankind. I have witnessed it


first hand the impact on the Arctic the rapid process of warming -- ant


colony. I am alarmed by what I have seen and wish to voice this Lauren.


By maintaining and increasing our engagement in Arctic matters to an


extent that may far exceed what the present Government regards as


important, I think we can raise our awareness of the hazards and enhance


our ability to react to them in a timely and resilient manner. I was


confused by the introduction of the noble Viscount who has just sat down


regarding the pros and cons of global warming. I am not certain


which can I actually fall into but I am appeared to recognise that things


have been changing, but will they go on changing. Nobody can predict what


will happen in the future. All the computer models rely on the data put


into them and nature can throw up a problem at any time. What, for


instance, would happen if we were to have a major volcanic eruptions such


as has happened in the past, as in your serenity Valley, or the western


gaps of India? Which would totally transform the weather pattern --


Yosemite Valley. And would probably to all intents and purposes


increased the ice extent enormously. The problem is totally


unpredictable. We can only prepare for what we think is happening but


we do not know that it will continue to happen and I will not see any


more on that subject. My Lords, I was also not a member of the


Committee but I have visited Svalbard, admittedly about ten years


ago, when I did a cruise in a former Swedish government icebreaker


operation as a cruise ship, that was one of the last years were the ice


extent was fairly severe and in fact we were unable to do what was


intended in the cruise and that was circumnavigate the main island of


Spitsbergen. We did, however, go up to 80 degrees north and had the


delightful enjoyment of following polar bears in the ship, at a


respectful distance, and I must say that the Arctic is simply wonderful.


The silence is another thing that struck me. Now, the Lord said that


the Committee, and I do congratulate the Committee on there port, were


unable to visit that far and we did get there, as it happened, on


Midsummer night, and we were strictly warned not to mix with the


natives. In other words, the scientists, having an enormous party


round the big bonfire. They had particular of liquid freshman and as


we walked around the small settlement it took no time at all


for the scientist to see -- scientists to say, come and join us,


and we all had a very good party. My Lords, I would like to talk about


the maritime side of the Arctic which has been mentioned by a number


of nobles. It is absolutely true that the much trumpeted northern sea


route has turned out so far to be a bit of a damp squid. If you look at


the ships transiting the Northeast passage, you will see the vast


majority of them are Russian ships, and a lot of them are taking oil or


minerals from Russian settlements, not exactly going the whole way


around the north of Russia. Those few other ships, apart from specific


icebreakers that do go around, are in the main especially ice


strengthened ships which, as I say, makes them a lot more expensive, but


they belong, in the name, to just too or three companies. One in


particular is a Danish company which has four reasonably large bulk


carriers and two slightly smaller ones -- two or three. These are


specifically built for Arctic conditions. One has in fact


circumnavigated the world round the top by going to the north-west and


the Northeast passage. The Northwest passage, if you look at the ships


transiting, it is merely small yachts. The odd small cruise ship. I


have mentioned, once eastward, taking call from Vancouver to


Finland, and last year a Canadian bulk carrier took Michael


concentrate, 23,000 tonnes, to China. -- nickel. She was able to


complete the trip on her own without any assistance. Most of the ships


going through the Northeast passage have to have icebreaker assistance,


they have to have ice pilots. It is all very well to see the distance is


shorter and indeed it is, quite a lot shorter. But you have those


expenses, and certainly for some types of ships, they like to call


into ports. Container ships are a particular example. A Chinese


container ship went from China to Europe three years ago and the same


ship has just completed its second voyage, which has led China to


announce that there is a new waterway opening up for trade. I


will believe that when I see it. The season is not particularly long, it


lasts from early July to mid-November, about now. Most of the


ships in the early period are specifically icebreakers. Now I very


much doubt if the Chinese, as recorded, and this only happened


last week, we'll actually set up a regular container routes because of


the unpredictability. We have heard talk of the hydrographic charts and


that they are not necessarily up to international standards and the


unpredictability of ice means that you can be sailing along in


Clearwater for two or three days, quite happily, and in the next day


you are completely surrounded by thick ice because the ice is moved


by wind and can shift all the time. So, my Lords, I do not think there


is going to be, certainly for the time being, any major traffic routes


for international traffic round the North. Indeed, the Russians, who


were very overoptimistic when they started opening up this waterway,


have had to eat their words and see now that international traffic will


actually be very small. Less than 1% of what goes through the Suez Canal.


The other reasons that chips go through series is because they


off-load other containers. If you go around the North, you will not load


anything. The international maritime organisation reported that this year


in May, they adopted a new environmental part to their polar


code and from the 1st of January 20 17th, it is going to be mandatory


for all new ships to adopt this and that will be dealing with


environmental matters like discharge of oil, discharge of sewage, water,


etc. And all ships after the 1st of January, 2018, will have to be


bought up to standard when they go through their renewal. My Lords, the


noble Lord mentioned cruise ships and indeed many small cruise ships


have been operating in Antarctic and Arctic waters for some time. The


larger ships going down to Antarctica are beginning to move


into northern waters, and I am talking about ships holding 3000,


4000 passengers. Greenland is particularly worried about this.


They have stipulated that when a ship of that size goes up, it must


be in conflict with another ship of the same size, so there are two


ships. That is not necessarily a good thing because I was talking to


the former captain of the QE2 earlier today and he said it is


dangerous enough for one ship. Two can double the danger, if you see


what I mean. There are quite a number of things still to be sorted


out, and incidentally, looking on the web today, I see that the ice


sheet at Greenland has been growing this year. The fastest rate for the


last four years. So again, the situation is still very


unpredictable. My Lords, the government's response has been


measured. Recognising the supremacy of the Arctic Council, but I think


they are absolutely right to continue to be as engaged as is


possible, certainly in terms of which expertise. Whether it is oil


spill response and all those sorts of things. The key to everything as


it has been said is cooperation. Not only the Arctic states, but


internationally. Russia has been mentioned at length. I think Russia


is always a bit of an unknown quantity. They are certainly


building icebreakers and rescue ships. They are also setting up


reporting stations. One can never tell what Russia is going to do and


if I was a commercial shipping man, which I am not, I would think very


carefully about sending my ships regularly around the north of


Russia. My Lords, we have heard earn interesting debate and I look


forward to the response. My Lords, when it gets towards the end of a


debate like this with so much expertise in the room, in fact


expertise that has listened to everything that I have, there is not


much new to say. However, I do have one small advantage over the rest of


the committee. I was the member of it we were sent to the Arctic Circle


Assembly in Reykjavik. This was a meeting of all those based and


interested in the Arctic on a big sell. Everything from commercial


interest to scientific. If I concentrate most of my remarks on


what I actually saw there, I might be able to bring something new to


our discussions. The primary thing, and James Gray MP who led the


delegation, but is no longer at the bar of the house unfortunately, led


the group. It had been stated before that the British had been absent. It


was not appreciated that a nation close to it, had the scientific


base, knew what it was talking about in terms of research, was not


representative. A big British delegation went and that was


appreciated by the rest of those there. It was thought to be a good


thing. Something that resonated far beyond most reports, especially when


they are in the process of being discussed. We go up there and we are


presented and it is seen by all these major European powers and just


about everybody else. Remember, Lord Greenway just spoke about shipping,


every other major shipping nation on the planet. Singapore, China,


Japan, you name it, they were there. It is a good thing we took part in


that conference. The fact we were interested and sent a delegation


forward. It also led to one of these moments that can only happen by


accident. It was said, and because of the time of year everyone was


wearing poppies, it was said that we should all web pop-up poppies and


when we were on the stage, we all have our poppies and make a speech.


A 23-year-old German research student came up to me and said, why


are you wearing flowers on your lapel? Is it something to do with


gay rights? That was an interesting conversation, which would add to the


debate here, but it just shows at bit of interaction and it means you


can take some understanding to the rest of the world. But as we went


through, and most of the things in this debate was spoken about in


small clusters, I think Lord Hunt spoke about melting ice caps and


methane, films I saw about jets of flame coming spontaneously out of


the ground, sometimes caused by light catching on water, it will


happen spontaneously. You can do it in the Arctic where the permafrost


is melting. Anyone denies that the world is getting warmer should have


had a good walk around there. It is, but we don't know at what rate.


IS, we have heard a lot of debates, but there is no way of knowing


exactly when you will get a through route. This was something put to me.


Because you have got rid of most of the eyes doesn't mean to say it is


save for shipping. An iceberg resize of a small car can take out a big


ship. Titanic, forget it. If it is carrying oil, God help all of us.


All of these considerations coming through. Discussions about insurers,


what should go with it to exploit it, and back to melting permafrost.


We think it is a good idea for the extraction of minerals, but not for


a long time because you don't get firm ground you get swamped and


scrub forest. Probably more difficult to operate in than


permafrost. We just don't know what these changes will be which is


probably why we should be paying far more attention to the scientific


observer base. And not just pure science, but applied science.


Engineering, everything else. We will not know what we can do on what


the chances. My Lords, also at the conference there was a huge in the


room. The elephant in the room that was not there. Well, the bear in the


room that was not there. Russia was not present because of what had


happened to him Ukraine. Well, not totally there. There were some


regional Russian representatives. There was a particularly colourful


gentleman who said he represented all the rain day herders across


Russia. He said there was a rain day heard in Scotland, which I was


ignorant of, but apparently there is one. How can you discuss the


shipping lanes when the person who provides safety and monitoring is


not there? Unless we establish lines of communication, which everyone I


think agrees on, article lines of communication, we are never going to


achieve even some useful activity up here. We will never be able to trust


our own interests. Now, to try and draw some conclusion and overview on


this, the changes in the Arctic that we discovered that our Boeing faces


are leading to opportunities. The fact is we simply don't know what


they are going to be yet. As everything changes, as everything


down there changes, the attitudes towards people, the social


pressures, everything is going to change and unless we can interact


with that at a more rounded level, we are going to make mistakes. My


Lords, the committee, and it was reinforced to me when I was in


wretch of it, the committee heard about how some things like


Greenpeace is surrounded by expletives by the Canadians and


Greenland. They really don't like them. These are people who say, you


cannot kill things, it is naughty. They said we make a living from


harvesting seals. In fact harvesting polar bears was suggested to me, and


I found the hard to take. How we integrate with these people, if we


don't talk to Russia, we won't find out what most of these people think.


We cannot pass economic growth on to parts of the community. Unless we


invest in the diplomatic and scientific community and study that


is required, and let us face it, it is on a global level, we are going


to miss out, and I would hope that the government in the future takes


on this work and realises that this is merely a starting point, one that


we must invest time and energy into. Probably not that much money, but


time and energy to get the best out of this because if we don't, we will


be missing out on the changing situation which will tell us about


Troubles to come and opportunities. My Lords, I would like to join


others in thanking the committee for the report. Grass are becoming de


Villiers for -- did we go for reports. In this case they played a


special part because without seeing some of the photographs we would not


have carried the narrative so well. It was very helpful to have them. I


would also like to thank the chair of the committee for his excellent


introduction which managed to draw the climate issues and the science


together. They are at the heart of the report. I am one of the three


people speaking on the debate today he was not able to visit, who was


not a member of the committee. We have missed out. The trip seems to


have weighed heavily on those who were able to do it and they came


back with new insights about it. But even if I was not there, I think


what has been said enough today is that we all need to think much


harder about this area, it's size, its remoteness, the fact that kind


of change is real and happening there. The fact that there are so


many people who live in such a barren and open space. A population


of about 4 million people. They need to be looked after. There are


strange governance arrangements. Those who live there are still not


directly involved in how the area is governed. The need for more science


because we don't know enough about what is happening there and more


corporation in that study is a theme that comes out strongly. The fact


that the group that largely controls things are now being joined by more


and more countries interested in this area and not because they have


geographical connections but because they see the resources that are


available. Other parts of Europe are getting involved and our interest in


that is not just because we are the closest neighbour to the Arctic


Circle, and that is important, but because we have historically engaged


with this area over a long period of time and we think it is important to


want to continue to do so. What comes out of the report from


me, reading it relatively cold, and sorry about the pun, the first part


was we need to try to insulate the Arctic from tensions are rising in


other parts of the world, whether that's a good or bad thing, it


raises the question on whether that is feasible. The report is


interested in not just the geopolitical tensions, which are


important and will impact if action is not taken, but also the physical


and resource questions, which I want to come back too, which might


perhaps require some form of isolation or protection of the area


as they haul in terms of fishing and drilling access to resources. The


point is that most of the immediate pressures on the Arctic originated


elsewhere and continue to have a huge impact. We talk about carbon


dioxide warming methane also. The economic development that are


causing resource pressures that might in turn affected badly and we


just heard about seal culling and other impacts that affect indigenous


people. We have lots of things going on and it is not clear how the


present Government's structures and interests in this will be calibrated


in order to deal with it. The beer in the room, Russia, that has been


mentioned. Several people made important contributions to this


effect. The real politic of this is as important as the long-term gains


in terms of cooperation between nation stationery actions and the


real presence of people wanting to do different things in this area


suggests that we as a country and using whatever power and influence


we have in other areas need to work directly with people who we would


perhaps want to differ with an certain areas if we want to protect


the Arctic. That is very important that in that respect I think the


contribution by the noble Baroness Miller on the possibility of


creating a nuclear free zone is worth a response to the minister


when he comes to make comments. It is not just nuclear positions, we


have militarisation going on for stopping mentioned the fact that


most people seem to think that Russia has at least regenerated its


capacity a few decades ago and others are not far behind. What will


happen? That is the real and present threat in the cupboard will need to


take this on and will the Minister make some comments on that? I


mentioned already the fact that we are talking about a significant


number of people who live in this area and have the guinea resources


necessary to provide the living and work with whatever other agencies


are up there. We note in the response that the Government agrees


with the committee that the right way to do this is to the Arctic


Council. The question is then how does that gets developed? Who is on


its? What are the relative powers and responsibility is in particular


and how do we take pole -- take forward the interests of the


indigenous people? The opening march called for a strengthened role for


the indigenous people if we will make sure this is a sustainable


long-term arrangement and there are real practical and operational


difficulties to do that. The minister might like to respond


further on that matter. The most startling thing I noticed was this


figure that has been mentioned by couple of people, 30 person of the


world's undiscovered report on Mogra garble gas and 30% of undiscovered


recoverable oil supplies are in the Arctic. -- recoverable gas. It is


opportunity cost by other effects elsewhere that allow for that first


post to get our act together if we think how best to approach that


issue. It will be largely led by the private sector, even though those


who wish to be involved will make representations, if they will. The


march of progress and that amount of resources available together with


the changing climate making these gas and oil supplies more easy to


reach will cause problems in the near term if it is not immediately.


How will this happen? The Government response is the best way to do this


is by working through existing arrangements and instruments and so


far as it goes that is a good starting point. Take the first of


the oil and gas issues, the problems if these are developed, as mentioned


before, is the need to make sure that the proper remediating


activities are put in place and we are alerted to the fact that this


will cause incredible damage if these things are not probably looks


after -- properly. There's quite a bit of policy on this area through


the UN, the guiding principles and the action on mining and extractive


industries are also there. I wonder industries are also there. I wonder


if the noble minister would share with us believe that the


Government's response to this was strong enough in the -- given the


need to make sure that there should be important principles to be relied


on? On the question of fishing, the Government's response was called


inadequate and out of date. Given the rise the Government is making on


the UN Convention on the law the sea to which one of the major partners,


the USA, is not a member, is always a bit of a problem. As he says, this


may not be the best neck and is because if there is already


something in place side by four countries, we should look carefully


at. The noble minister must respond to progress on that area. Lots of


this will be about diplomacy and the willingness of the oven to limit


other governments to invest and make sure the desirable objectives set


out are achieved. As explained, there is now sealed minister for the


polar regions but the Government does not seem to believe there is a


need for an appointment of a single UK investor and a number of Lords


has stated that would make no difference. Whether or not an


individual, whether planning potential is part of the


ambassadorial service, the issue is surely about whether not the


resources will be there to make sure the decisions taken in this area and


the impact we wish to have can be made effective. Lord Addington made


much of the fact that when we did send a delegation, that was well


received and the wishes we should continue to do so. Governments


should not will the ends of policy without willingly means. The


nobleman as Japan confirmed that their commitment to have


representation, even though it may be described rather differently in


the report will be resourced on time. -- the nobleman has confirmed.


Given the interest we should not be seen that we will do it all me


resources permit. The final phrase before we get to the summary of


conclusions, the UK is the Arctic's nearest neighbour and the Arctic is


the UK's neighbourhood. It is a clever piece of an arrangement of


words but I think it means for words but I think it means for


others that the Government has got to invest in this leadership if it


is going to reap the benefits for the UK and French national comment


tests. It is to important to be left others. That common interests. In


his opening feat speech the Lord described the report as a wake-up


call and I think he probably meant a wake-up call to the Government, I


look forward to the Minister's response to that come was a member


of the committee and has some prior knowledge of what to say in how to


do it. I hope this will also be a wake-up call more generally. We


often keep our heads down in this house and look only at domestic


issues. You read this report and see a wider world and great aspirations


and huge interests which we should have more involvement in. I was


grateful to be given a chance to speak in this debate and it I let --


learn more about this wonderful world.


This has been an interesting debate on important subject. I would like


to thank all the warlords who contributed and given their wide


experience and knowledge. It is cost come in the select committee debates


to thank the chair. -- all of the Lords. All too briefly a member of


this committee before I was into and in the permafrost of the Government


Whip's office. I also thank all other noble Lords and staff involved


for their outstanding efforts in putting together a balanced,


thoughtful and well evidenced report. Lastly, thank you to my


noble friend Robin Tugendhat -- Lord Tugendhat who proposed the idea of


the select committee and focusing attention on this important area of


the changing Arctic. My Lords, as the Government's response makes


clear, the Government believes its approach to the Arctic is laid out


in the Arctic policy framework was and remains the right one. However,


we also agree that more can be done to wish that the UK continues to


take a leading role in the Arctic issues that affect us and we are


grateful to the committee for their constructive suggestions on how to


do this. Response set out a number of steps which, taken together,


represent a significant revolution of the UK's policy. It is certainly


worth noting and celebrating the fact that of the 67 conclusions and


recommendations in the committee's report, there are only two civic


areas, the apartment of unofficial Arctic Ambassador, which I will come


to later, and redesigning the assisting Arctic policy framework as


has not been persuaded of the has not been persuaded of the


strength of the committee's recommendations. The -- the UK's


Arctic policy is based on leadership, respect and cooperation.


The Government will show that leadership which Lord Terrace and


wanted to come first by hosting an international policy Forum at Wilton


Park. It will address a major policy issue affecting the Arctic and we


will organise it in Corporation with our Arctic partners to make sure it


governments rather than duplicate the work of the Arctic Council and


we will fool the event on how best to ensure that we and our fellow


non-Arctic states can engage in practical policy terms in working


with the Arctic Council's states to deliver their long-term vision for a


safe, peaceful, successful and inclusive Arctic. We are working


hard on this and we hope to be in a position to confirm the date of this


conference in the near future. The committee's report quite rightly


pointed out the gaps in our understanding of the Arctic Ocean. I


am delighted that following the Government's response the natural


environment research Council decided to find a multi-year ?60 million to


the deep -- strategic research programme called the changing Arctic


Ocean, implications for rebels you and biogeochemistry looking at the


important change in the Arctic Ocean. This was also highlighted


earlier. This research will help address some of the biggest


knowledge gaps in our understanding of the Arctic. It is a worthy


demonstration of the continued UK commitment this unique region, the


programme builds on the ?15 million Arctic research programme which ran


from 2010 to 2015. At which has already been using valuable data and


conclusions which assist our understanding of this rapidly


changing region. We are also committing to a number of steps that


will build on the coordination that will build on the coordination


adorably exists across Government and the research community. The


Commonwealth office building the discussions across Whitehall to


develop and agree plans for engaging with the Arctic Council. The plans


will align with a set of Arctic Council chairmanship priorities and


enable us to focus and maintain our engagement on those subjects that


matter most to us. The UK's Arctic office, funded by the natural


environment research Council and hosted by the British Antarctic


survey, will assist ordination to insure more impact of involvement in


the Arctic across research disciplines. And the Government,


through the science and innovation network, will explore is -- options


for agreeing a memorandum of understanding in Arctic polar


research would key partner countries. These will help build on


the support and support the already extensive framework for cooperation


at or exist between UK scientists and their international


counterparts. -- that already exists. The Government's commitment


has been visibly demonstrated by the announcement earlier this year on


their decision to procure a new joint million pound polar research


vessel. This vessel will be built in the UK and will provide a


state-of-the-art platform for the latest polar


My Lords, can I turn to, if I can start with the main point that we


disagreed with the committee on. The appointment of an Arctic ambassador


that have been mentioned, we accept that we need to have a better


coordination of efforts, but we are not convinced of the Abbey benefits


that an Arctic ambassador would bring. We have a Minister for the


polar region to represent the UK. We have senior civil servants that the


firm the same functions as other Arctic ambassadors, in all but name.


I almost thought that the noble Lord was putting in a job application,


but he said he was not. There will be some costs, but actually, we also


have 200 scientists who work in collaboration with others in the


Arctic and they are themselves fantastic ambassadors for the UK.


Our response commits us to a more strategic commitment and a greater


role for the head of the UK Arctic office across scientific


disciplines. We feel our methods have been rather more affected, but


I would save to the noble Lord that we have not closed our minds, and we


take note of the points regarding the ambassador, and I also welcome


the positive comments about the polar regions department in the


common Foreign Commonwealth Office. The cost I mentioned, but


the additional costs for an ambassador, I don't take our -- I


den think is the main issue. The job the ambassador would do is not


actually at the moment fully convincing for us. The noble Lords


and lazy asked about the practical points about the appropriate


representation to all political level meetings of the Arctic


Council. We have been represented by the polar regions department at


political level meetings. By that I mean senior Arctic ministerial


meetings since the start of the Arctic Council in 1996. The exact


level of representation from the UK, official ministerial, is determined


by the nature of the under discussion. We keep all the meetings


under review and will always ensure that the UK is represented at the


appropriate level. The UK's Arctic office will fund the UK's expert


participation with the Arctic Council working groups and task


forces in line with the UK scientific and strategic priorities


and other sleep subject to resources. The noble Lord Lord


Addington talks about the UK presence at the Arctic Circle


Assembly in 2015, and he mentioned the fact that we have maintained a


profile which was set by the 2014 delegation that he attended. This


year's delegation was led by the foreign and, whilst office's chief


scientific officer. Interestingly, Russia had a significant presence at


the Arctic Circle in 2015. The deputy minister of transport and the


Governor of Archangel province amongst them. These forums are


useful for cooperation at many different levels. Lord Hunt and Lord


Ochs broke asked if we should have better coordination of UK effort in


the Arctic Council. We agreed that we could be better coordinated and


paragraph 75 of the government's response is pertinent here. The


SCA's polar regions department together with a head of the UK


Arctic office under the direction of the British Antarctic survey will


assist in this coordination. Turning to the subject mentioned by many


noble Lords of Russia. One of the major Arctic states and a key player


given the problems that are occurring with cooperation with


Russia, given the sanctions against them around the world. They are a


signatory to the declaration of 2008 which commits the Arctic states to


using international systems and minimising the potential for


conflict. So far in any disputes they have had, for example, the


dispute with Norway, they have used international rules -based


organisations to achieve that. This was reiterated in 2015 at the end of


the Canadian chairmanship, which Russia agreed. But we are not naive


about Roger's military posture and related issues in the Arctic. The


establishment, or the reopening of small-scale military search and


rescue facilities is something that has been proceeding for some time.


It is taking place within Russian sovereign territory and we don't


think it creates a real cause for concern, but I must stress that we


value cooperation in the Arctic and we think that it is a special place


in the world, as the noble Lords and others have mentioned. This so far


applies to Russia and is a model of what could happen in the rest of the


world. I can point, for example, to scientific cooperation with Russia,


which is still ongoing. In fact, a small team from the Russian Arctic


and Antarctic research team visited the UK in April 2015. This leave the


Russian scientific case is extremely important. Russia is crucial to


understanding Arctic Systems, especially understanding the melting


of the permafrost and the release of methane gas. We will be looking at


ways to collaborate more effectively. We are keen to ensure


follow through and to work more closely with Russia and the head of


the UK's Arctic office will be addressing these issues along with


numerous others. Lady Neville Jones made an interesting point about the


consideration of Arctic issues in policy-making. The publication of


the UK Arctic policy framework had demonstrated the government's


consideration of Arctic matters across a range of UK policy


interest. This is going to be reviewed by the end of the financial


year. The Foreign Office will continue to chair the cross


government Arctic network to ensure the continued focus on Arctic


matters across relevant policy areas. Noble Lord Stevenson asked


about principles for mining and extractive industries. Actually, the


governments of those extractive industries live primarily with the


Arctic states which is where they take place at the moment and will


continue to a extent. The UK encourages the highest safety


standards and as was mentioned, the polar code, the first part of it,


has been signed as part of the International Maritime


organisation's efforts. The noble Lords taught about fishing in the


high seas and the Arctic. The UK is supportive of the creation of marine


protected areas where the science supports this. We are working with


other partners to assess an appropriate marine protection


measure. We are aware of the agreement between the five Arctic


Mitchell states on a moratorium of fishing. We are sympathetic of their


intention to gain further support from the EU and other fishing


nations. Talking about search and rescue in the Arctic, which the


noble Lord Hunt mentioned, we do have world-renowned expertise and


significant knowledge and experience of such an risky as a general


subject, but we don't have specific expertise in the Arctic search and


rescue, which is held by the countries surrounding the Arctic.


But we are very much alive to Coast Guard search and rescue. The


Maritime search and rescue facilities are part of a review.


Lord Hannay and Lord Greenway spoke about Arctic tourism and possibly


help with search and rescue. Any charge on tourism in the Arctic is


for the sovereign states, but operators and passengers do pay


landing fees when they arrive, for example in ten Barack Obama and


Greenland. It could be argued that passengers are already supporting


such systems, but it would also usually be linked with military


forces as well. -- for example, Svalbard. It is also hoped that


there will be an operation during the summer, but I can't be precise


about that. Lady Miller introduced an interesting new point which was


not in the report about the nuclear free Arctic and she mentioned the


growing support for this in many countries. We do recognise the


aspiration for a nuclear free Arctic, but of course these matters


are an issue for the sovereign Arctic states, but it is encouraging


that the Arctic states, sadly without Russia, meet at defence


level in the security forces round table. This includes the UK,


Germany, Neverland and -- Netherlands and France. The noble


Lords asked about indigenous peoples, and in particular their


specific knowledge that they can contribute to the science base. We


fully respect their rights and the focus of our efforts is to ensure


indigenous peoples's knowledge is taken into account when developing


Arctic science and we are pleased that the UK is able to work


successfully with the Arctic Institute and the science innovation


network to incorporate the views of the indigenous peoples. Will keep


their thoughts firmly at the front of our Arctic policy. My Lords, if I


have not answered all the questions, I am running out of time... We have


not mentioned Scotland in the whole of this debate. There was a very


important laboratory. You should not have this conference in Wilton Park,


you should have in Scotland. It is part of the UK that is closest to


the Arctic. People will criticise London-based thinking if we don't


have the conference up in the North. I'd take that point, but I don't


think we are having scientists -- but I don't think if we are having


scientists sitting down and having discussions, it doesn't matter where


they are. My Lords, I believe we have had a constructive and


informative discussion about this relation -- about the relation of


this unique region to the UK. The Arctic will read different in 20


years' time. The UK will play its part and the steps outlined in the


government response will ensure we remain one of the most active and


influential non-sovereign states, but the policy towards the Arctic


will be kept under review. It has two B to keep up with the rapid


changes that we are seeing. The government will report back to the


house through a letter to the chairman of the ladies on -- a


letter to be chairman of the BEA zon committee. -- liaison.


Representatives will be closely engaged. The steps outlined in the


government response will ensure we remain one of the most active and


influential non-Arctic states. I thank the Minister for his reply.


I did not declare an interest as a board member of the marine


management organisation. Can I thank all noble Lords that have taken part


in this debate, not least those that have been on the committee, noble


Baroness Miller, noble Lord Greenway, I didn't think anyone


would manage to get the Western gets into the debate. Even though they


exploded 56 million years ago, hopefully isn't within our lifetime


that will happen again. I particularly agree with Lord Hannay


in terms of the tourist tax when we arrived in small part -- arrived in


style by we thought we were there at the heading of expedition into the


unknown and the dangers and we were confronted by about 100 German


tourists that would make the average age of the house of lords probably


quite young. It shows how the tourist industry is changing and how


we should maybe tax them even more for their search and rescue. I would


thank particularly Baroness Neville Jones having taken the questions


from the noble Lord West earlier on, quite undeserved but beautifully


answered. Thank you. He did ask, I want to come back to Russia, which


he raised. I personally invited the Ambassador of Russia to give


evidence to was -- to us but unfortunately they were not able to


design. We did ask Mr Cheney Graaf, the special wrap sensitive to the


president of the Russian Federation for international cooperation in the


Arctic and Antarctic but unfortunately neither of those


happened. I do regret, as many of my colleagues do, that we are not going


to appoint Ambassador for the Arctic. I am pleased that the


minister has said the door is not closed. I saw the noble Lord Howell


opposite me a while ago who produced an excellent report. He is there. I


apologise. A EuroPro I've -- a year ago I reported -- produced a report


on soft power and this seems a cheap way of including that. Can I give


thanks to Italy for the cooperation of the foreign Commonwealth office


through Jane Rumble, their head of the polar regions desk. Lord


Tugendhat for suggesting that the house address this subject, not


least, our special adviser, coastguards, professor at Royal


Holloway College, Susanna Street, excellent clerk and Matt Smith, also


are excellent policy analyst. My Lords as to the Government I would


say the members of my committee, we will keep our eye on this issue. It


is one where Britain needs a wake up not from a deep sleep, but from a


snooze. We move forward and I think the Government's response is very


encouraging and we will make sure that we keep a strong interest


ourselves. I beg to move. The question that the motion be agreed?


Message from the Commons. They have passed the national insurance


contributions rate ceilings Bill to which they desire the agreement of


your Lordships. My Lords, national insurance contributions ceilings


Bill. I beg to move that this bill been ready first time. Those are not


-- or not content? The Earl of Selbourne. My Lords, the purchase


decision of this country is embarking on a period of profound


change of the coming decades and this change will be judging by


technological developments such as the increasing penetration of


alternation and intelligent systems, the deployment of advanced


fast acting controls the stunts, do -- systems, dispersed generation and


a dispersed energy system going cruising complexity enormously but


we will be increasing the reliance on a study for transport, eating,


air conditioning and much else. This change will also be driven by our


national commitment to decarbonise electricity systems. Yet our record


frontispiece in supply and demand and ensuring the desirable to


capacity margin is in place has in recent years been unimpressive. This


is at a time when these far reaching changes are really astonishing to


make a name that makes tracking to make an impact. It is against this


background and with some speculation in the media that the subject might


be the country might be subject to national blackouts. We decided to


undertake an enquiry into the reserves of the unadjusted system. I


referred me dressed list in appendix one of the report as a


non-refundable institution of engineering and technology and valve


the world Society and a shareholder in companies. I would like to thank


our adviser Professor Jim Watson and Chris Clark for their invaluable


contribute into producing a report. The Government has spoken of the


need to reset policy and has initiated a number of energy policy


changes can maybe decide and -- designed to catch cost the taxpayer


but the Government is yet set a long-term vision for energy policy.


Until the comments long-term energy policies have been formulated there


is a gauge of the momentum on new investment in the energy sector


being lost. The record impressive. Over ?42 billion has been invested


in renewables since 2010. With over ?8 billion being invested in UK


based renewable energy in 2014. Every Government must be prepared to


formulate and articulate it clearly understood energy policy which


results in a lot more balance between the three interconnected and


competing demands of security of supply, sustainability and


affordability. It is widely known as the energy dilemma. Security of


supply has become an issue for the next few winters, this demonstrates


that previous administrations have failed to get it right. Had not


demand been registered by the economic crisis of 2008, that is


industrial demand, largely, the capacity margins would have been


even tighter or nonexistent. Obviously a commitment to nuclear


power at ?92 50 per megawatt hour and so the more expensive renewable


technologies such as offshore wind, currently at around ?118 per


megawatt hour has to be reconciled at least in the medium term with a


requirement for affordability. We concluded that successive


governments might have anticipated the shrinking margin earlier and


taken steps to address it. As a result of inaction, the narrow


capacity margin that emerges poses a threat. A Coalition Government


addressed this failure of previous long-term planning claim to


Jerusalem at short notice -- by introducing at short notice and at


considerable cost anywhere that conflict of the decarbonisation


agenda with the pasty market, also known as the capacity mechanism.


From 2018 on an income stream will be available for capacity divided


national providers for keeping capacity available when system is


stretched and interim measures known as balancing services have been


introduced to plug any shortfalls in the period to 2018. The pasty market


provides no incentive for the building of new generating plant --


capacity market. Or the extension of interconnected. Instead come towards


incumbents does make it rewards incumbents. -- instead it rewards


incumbents. We were awarded if the capacity market overproduced the


consequences would be higher prices to consumers, the undermining of


renewable energy by transferring sports to conventional generators


and the weakening of the business case for other options including


fridge and connectors which will be increasingly important as the share


of intermittent urgency from new -- from renewables rises. We were


surprised at the amount of information on the true costs of


villages -- electricity shortfalls. The personal conclusion of


interconnection with foreign suppliers and industrial back-up


generation needs to be rigorously assessed in order to make the


appropriate decisions on the procurement of capacity. We


recommended the Government reviews the contribution of interconnection


and industrial back-up generation and what that could do to capacity


margins. Since that report the National Grid has published helpful


information on interconnection in its 2015 D capacity report. The


electricity. In the meantime, new technologies will be the key to


achieving a resilient electricity system and as with every aspect of


the economy, will depend on investment and research and


development to be competitive in the long-term. We must ensure that we


are attracting the innovative companies that are most likely to


advance these technologies, investors value continuity of


policies and want to be assured that whatever national energy policies


are put in place, these policies will stay in place for at least the


medium term. Investors will also be attracted to this country by the


quality of our publicly funded research. There is a case for public


funds also contribute to development and the of new technologies but such


support should only be given if in the medium term it reduces the cost


of these new technologies. A technology with long-term alliance


of subsidies is clearly not sustainable. The long-term reliance.


Improving buildings dressed in favourably with other European


countries. Yet this can make the biggest in Britain today for ability


voters to stop breathing energy efficiency is often the cheapest way


to bring down emissions. The committee on climate change has


noted that industrial energy efficiency lacks effective policy


the Government has committed the Green deal while the energy company


obligation is due to end in March 2017. Both measures aim to improve


energy efficiency in the built environment. The key message from


the report is that we need to improve our long-term planning of


the electricity system and this will require clarity of the roles of the


many bridges and is in the electricity market and requires


openness about the present unforeseeable state of technology.


It is imperative to look at the electricity system is -- as a


entirety so that conclusions are not missed. The institution of


engineering technology made the case to us for the seat to smack


electricity system architect that would have responsible for embedding


peoples whole system's thinking across the entirety of the


electricity system. We agreed that they were asking the right questions


and that is imperative that the electricity system is looked at as a


entirety in order to allow effective engineering integration across the


electricity system changes occur. The major players involved in


maintaining with the head of the Government, National Grid, Ofgem,


electricity generators and the distribution network operators, the


Aichi in supplementary evidence said that while there was wide industry


consensus on the need to introduce effective systems, there was


continued debate on the role of Government and industry


self-regulation in delivering this. The network companies, for example,


would be concerned over the possibility of close Government


engagement in aspects of the business that requires specialist


technical knowledge and experience. Given its policy objectives, the


Government has had little choice but to play a greater role in managing


the electricity system. We therefore endorse the Government's adoption of


a marriage market and stressed it is explicitly for the Secretary of


State to provide leadership and clarity on responsibilities. The


Department of edge are climate change have asked the energy systems


catapult to investigate the can set -- the concept further and provide


evidence of what functions would need to be performed in the future


power system as a result of transformative change. And by when.


This is a helpful response was to the sooner this exercise can be


undertaken, the better. Can the Minister tell the house when he


expects the report and also what might be its role thereafter in the


fact that in this respect is that fact that in this respect is that


many believe we should head was a system of small-scale decentralised


power generation with an integrated grid based on flexibility.


New nuclear power plant have the potential to provide greater


flexibility. The process of electricity users adjusting their


electricity that they use in response to incentives and we Herod


that well there is potential, that well there is potential,


current policies don't set it on an equal footing for generations and


potential. We recommend the potential. We recommend the


for the public sector to implement for the public sector to implement


others. Technologies such as others. Technologies such as


electricity storage, interconnection, carbon capture


storage and demand side management will be the key to a resilient


electricity system. I said it is incumbent on heat administration to


formulate a clearly understood electricity polity which result in a


balance between security of supply, sustainability and affordability.


Investors in big projects after 2020 or indeed any investor need to


understand what policies will be in place and need to have confidence


that such policies will not be overturned by short-term


considerations. We need to seek consensus on UK energy policy based


around this and we need to achieve this consensus soon. My Lords, I bid


to move. The question is, should this motion be agreed to. I think


that's to my noble friend -- I congratulate. I congratulate them on


this excellent report and chairing this inquiry with his characteristic


I declare my interests as a small I declare my interests as a small


shareholding in the National Grid. My first point is that our first


report was if anything a little too sanguine and the closure of our


plants since has left us more exposed. It makes the capacity


margin even tighter this winter. As an Oxford professor called on


inquiry, it is an extraordinary state of affairs for a major


industrialised economy to find itself even debating whether there


is a possibility that margins may not be sufficient in electricity to


garden she supply. My second point is that the lights going out is a


red herring. The National Grid has red herring. The National Grid has


many weapons as its disposal to keep the lights on. That is a misleading


point. The risk of system failure which is always present can be kept


within bounds but by bringing consumer funds into the sector. My


third point is that rising costs are the correct index of policy success


or failure and here I'm afraid the news is bad. Even leaving aside the


emergency costs of bringing on diesel generators when the wind does


not blow, we paying heavily to have a resilient electricity system


because of what I would consider deliberate policy mistakes. The


Office for Budget Responsibility has recently published data showing that


the cost projected for the capacity mechanism mentioned will be ?1.3


billion in 2020. That is about 10% of the total control framework costs


in that year and it is not for new capacity but for existing capacity


and remembered most of that is going to fossil fuel plants which we


should not be subsidising at all, so why are we subsidising? Because we


have destroyed all incentive to build new efficient dispatch of all


generators by using the law to force unproductive, expensive renewables


on the consumer. That's why nobody is building new combined cycle gas


turbine plant unless they get subsidised. Those subsidies don't


come from taxation, they are added to bills. If you subsidise high


fixed costs, intermittent electricity generation, you will end


up destroying the market and incentives to invest in the capacity


to keep the lights on when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not


shining. It is wholly predictable and holy and anticipated. Can my


noble friend in replying assure us that the study currently being


carried out into the whole system impact of electricity generation


technologies will take this issue into account, how much wind has


prevented new gas being built and at what cost? We have spent ?40 million


so far subsidising renewable electricity. The cost is rising


rapidly and will soon hit ?10 billion a year and stay that way for


decades. We are getting a less reliable and intercity system, an


increase in cost and no discernible cuts in CO2 emissions because of any


for back-up and a failure for dastardly 's call -- for gas to


replace coal. Interconnector is our good thing but in many ways


irrelevant. The current ones from France and the Netherlands are


running one way into the UK at near full capacity most of the time


anyway so they are now use for Excel intercity in times of emergency.


They are not much use in managing variability of large renewable


fields because as John Constable of the renewable energy foundation


pointed out, wind speeds are well correlated across Europe. A calm day


he is usually a company in Germany. -- calm day. I looked up home at


electricity was coming from this country and Germany this afternoon.


1.4% in this country, less than 1% in Germany. These four points make


it clear that instead of building windmills in the North Sea, whose


electricity will cost three times the wholesale price, we should have


been using cheap gas to phase out coal and we should have been putting


more money into bringing down the price of nuclear power. But the


professor called the Milliband policy was based on the assumption


that fossil prices would go up. Instead they went down. In the


spreadsheet released last year by the Department for energy and


climate change, the cost of renewable subsidies for small and


medium-sized businesses would add 77% to the electricity bills by


2020. Even in high fossil fuel price scenarios, it is still plus 45%.


Even if fossil fuel prices go sky high, the policies don't offer


significant protection. Every part of the world is increasing gas


consumption at the moment except for one, Europe. All the others, they


are all increasing the use of gas often to displace coal as a response


to the following praise of gas actually shield gas revolution.


Europe is doing the opposite. The competition and market authorities


is reporting that the renewables target is more of a constraint than


the current budget, that there are cheaper ways of meeting our carbon


targets. My Lords, I fear we have the worst of both worlds, a system


that has high finance costs of the private sector but when all


decision-making is nationalised. A system that has all the costs of


renewable energy for trivial remissions productions. A system


that depends on subsidy for the cheapest, most liable power, a


system whose high cost is driving employers abroad, the system with


such low margins that cost will spike in the months ahead. So my


Lords, I think there is a lot of work. I am not a member of the


committee but I am pleased to take part on the subject. The Viscount's


logic in terms of wind power and renewables not reducing carbon, he


says that is because there has to be an implement a back-up but that


logic does not work. You do not yet have that back-up but if it is not


operating, it is not producing carbon, so I don't understand the


logic. Under the existing machine, without renewables, the utilisation


of generating capacity is about 50% on average and it is estimated by


the National Grid that intermittency and renewables only becomes a real


problem when there are about 20% of total generation Soya not sure all


of that really adds up but I do agree with the Viscount that we


should be taking out coal. I am glad he agrees with these benches on that


and we should be getting on and substituting gas in the short-term


as. Absolutely. He is absolutely right. But I just want to


concentrate on a couple of things, what I think is an excellent report


and has a number of excellent issues. What I like particularly as


the space that it gives to the demands, the energy efficiency, a


job security, it brings down Bill costs even if not necessarily the


unit price and it decarbonises the economy. It has been a frustration


of all Governments voter turnout benefit, how to do it without


causing all sorts of very large and unaffordable public expenditure to


make that leap. Unfortunately, the greener deal was not basic Cecil --


very successful. Some seem to have disappeared altogether rather than


being improved, which is what was needed, but hopefully there is some


way we can move forward in that area. The other part of the demand


as well as demand reduction, which is key and which the UK economy has


been quite good at actually over recent years, I thinking freezing


energy efficiency by some 2% or 3% per annum, is demand side management


and again this report tackles that subject which has been very


unfashionable, often forgotten about and is only really starting to be


considered. The report mentioned specifically in that contest


capacity. It is particularly important because what has


effectively happened is that the aggregation of demand side


management, which should be competing with the generation under


the capacity claimant who is really being discriminated against in a way


that it is done. What I remember from the coalition Government


years, there were all sorts of legal and difficult issues to get the two


to compete properly. I don't know but it certainly seems to me it


should be a priority of Government to make sure demand side aggregation


management plays an equal part in the capacity mechanism. The noble


Errol is right in saying the capacity has gotten fossil fuels,


which is unfortunate and existing but demand side management


aggregation would absolutely make sure that we don't solve it by


taking out peaks. The other area I want to mention is interconnector


is. This is an important part and an area that has been relatively asleep


over the last few years. The deck got involved in the last couple of


years and we now have connectors with Ireland, the Midlands and


France and we have opportunities for geothermal coming in from Iceland, I


think that is a big ask but I know that we have a memorandum of


understanding and talking to the Icelandic Government. I would like


to hear from the minister were interconnector policy is now going.


It seems to me something that we can have as an export potential as well


and it is something that we should very much welcome. Lastly, the only


other point I really want to make on this excellent report is that of


storage. As renewables go Andy intermittency does become a problem,


energy storage will be part of that solution. There seems to be a


frustratingly slow evolution of efficiency of energy storage and


capacity in terms of what and that side of energy storage, Tesla


Corporation seems to be making good progress in the commercial feels but


I would be interested to hear from the Minister what investment in


terms of research and development Government is stimulating at the


present moment in something is clearly a worldwide demand,


especially in the UK. I commend this report fully and I look forward to


the minister's reply. I thank our chairman for his skill at guiding


us. For some of us nonscientists, it is complicated. Among the gifts, we


like to think we possess as a people, is a special cluster on


which we played herself. Should you dig thinking, Horizon scanning and


forward planning. The subject of the day I regret to say does not reflect


this pleasing self image. When it comes to the divine spark of


electricity, we all too often believe it'll be all right on the


night. We are all right on the night nation. Our optimism is sometimes


hindered by our belief that just over the horizon lies a scientific


breakthrough that will lead to a bright, well lit futures that takes


care of itself for generations while avoiding harming the planet.


In January 1958, the science and energy journalists were invited to


be briefed on Project Zita, the atomic energy authority's nuclear


fusion experiment. The were infused and news on the -- news and fired at


the national newspapers and straddled the group. The Prime


Minister was not a common wealth that was on a common wealth for and


when he reached New Zealand Prime Minister asked McMillan how is


work. It testing question for a classical scholar. As the High


Commissioner reported, the mixture McMillan said well, you just take


sea water and turn it into power. He sea water and turn it into power. He


paused for effect before acting, we are pretty good with sea water. We


are still waiting for the promise of fusion to be fulfilled. Some experts


think it might just be a new decade away, others reckon another 40


years. What the rest of us can do is live in hope the shining hour can


come this afternoon or this evening I would like to concentrate first


upon the need for a consensual long-term strategy for the need for


a consensual long-term strategy for that is to supply -- for electricity


is apply as outlined. This will be said to the work of the new national


infrastructure commission forward I have high books generally. Secondly


I would like to dissipate briefly the array of threats we met be


facing as an advanced society, ever more dependent on an uninterrupted


supply of electricity. Certain thresholds country cannot afford to


reach, let alone cross. Electricity supplies one of them. As the report


notes, last winter the National Grid protrude extra capacity to raise the


capacity margins from 4.1% to 6.1% to guard against potential sorted


result like the city is no shortages of electricity per that they


stressed it was later concerned that this capacity what that was pretty


boys at short notice at reasonable cost in a way that conflicts with


the decarbonisation agenda for the novel example for an advanced


economy, hugely dependent on electricity, the sale so close to


the wind. The committee noted, as Lord Selbourne has emphasised, that


but for the economic slowdown that followed the financial collapse --


crash of 2008, capacity margins would have been much tighter. It is


a mystery to me why this question has lacked the bite it deserves in


the Cabinet and across Cabinet committee rooms over several


governments. In political terms, there are few surer, more swifter


zappers of public confidence in a Government than serious


interruptions to electricity supply. The 1970s winter of discontent


remember all too vividly. Security of power supply is a first order


element in the defence of the realm. Given are justified anxieties


about the nature and scope of future cyber attacks, it will rise higher


still up the hierarchy in the risk register. Already we are facing


between 150 and 200 serious cyber attacks on Government business every


month. Those wishing as a serious harm in the future, serious and


widespread and swift harm, will go for the electricity grid first.


Error ever greater reliance and on the coming internet of things will


no doubt bring great and community economic, improve personal


consumption and comfort, but the risks will rise as well. I am a


natural consent list, but not indiscriminate, I hope. I am


convinced that a sure and save electricity supply is an area where


consensus is justifiable and desirable. I all means, let's have


the arguments about the ingredients of our energy mix and inspected


rules of the seat and private suppliers but the evidence presented


during the inquiry demonstrated a new universal belief that


electricity supply is and must remain a marriage market in the UK.


Muddling through however smart is not enough. The problem today


requires and injuring national effort ranging from sustained


political attention to large-scale investment, energetic or in Steve on


the possibilities of electricity storage and interconnectivity with


our neighbours and as many cyber are scientists and technologists can


provide. Short of a devastating solo event, which we did consider for


reasons of completeness, I am sure, about which we could do little,


remedies are very much in our old hands. Let us seize them. And avoid


our becoming an outage Society for the free do go into the dock in


future, our people will be unforgiving and they will be right


to be so. Can I apologise. I think I referred to the noble Earl when I


meant the noble Viscount, Viscount Ridley, when I addressed the house


and I apologise for getting my title is wrong. My Lords, along with many


others, I warmly welcome this report on its principal recommendations. It


seems to me a clear and timely as the issues it highlights for the UK


in the medium are very significant. I particularly welcome recognition


that the electricity market is now a managed market. I underlined the


statement in paragraphs -- 37 advancing security of supply,


sustainability affordability must be a forced order issue for the


Secretary of State. The first order. I focused my own remarks in two


specific areas. The first highlight the importance of the need of


industry and manufacturing when looking at our future energy needs.


It seems to me that this area is not addressed in sufficient depth in


this otherwise excellent report. The future for costs of energy


consumption are largely focused on the demands of domestic consumers


for the report foxes on the rise and use of electric cars, heat pumps,


the demand for more air-conditioning, and rightly so.


But there is little, if anything, about the fusion -- searching the


future energy needs in the manufacturing sector, which is so


critical to a read as the economy, particularly in the northern


England. -- IIe rebalance. You will be all too familiar with the crisis


facing the British Steel industry. I made a visit in October to attack


our speciality steels in Stockbridge near Sheffield. I saw first-hand the


prices of rolling the immense bars of steel made from recycled scrap


metal into 60 or 80 metre length bias for processing for the


aerospace energy and car industries. The future supply and price of


energy is vital to the future of the steel industry and of engineering in


this country. In 1970 the industrial sector was responsible for 40% of


the total final UK energy consumption. By 1990 this had fallen


to 24% and by 2014 to 17%. But manufacturing remains a vital part


of our economy, persuasively that makes competitively priced


electricity is essential. Conservation national conversations


during my visit folks to read future energy pricing and supply. The


Scottish steel industry currently plays Salva Kiir pays much more


great energy than its competitors in Germany and the rest of Europe. The


playing field is not level. There's currently pays much more. Quoted in


the Financial Times on the 27th of October, the cad said his company


currently faces electricity bills of 68 euros per megawatt hour to run


his steel plant in Cardiff. The similar operation in Germany would


cost about 24 euros per megawatt hour. The Government has promised a


full package of measures for energy intensive industry but only once it


receives clearance from the European Union on state aid rules. I do not


believe we can wait any longer to bring this vital help to our steel


industry. We have already seen the closure or reduction of plants in


Redcar and Scunthorpe, with the damage to communities and our


industrial base as a consequence. I would urge the Government to act


swiftly and bring forward this support in the Chancellor's Autumn


Statement. The present and future pricing the electricity and a


managed market is very different for domestic consumers and industry. Our


industry is competing month by month for contracts in a global market. It


is vital that manufacturing continues to grow again as part of


our economy and our energy pricing must take account of the needs of


industry in the leadership offered by the Secretary of State across the


sector. A second area of focus is on the need for environmental reasons


to decarbonise the electricity generation whilst keeping the lights


on at an affordable price. The energy try level. The Government has


made, I hope about to make, clear promises to the international


community in the new global goals and the forthcoming climate change


talks in Paris to reduce our carbon emissions significantly. A vital for


the future of our planet and the poorest people on the earth. The


committee for climate change has rightly recommended an ambitious


target, a carbon intensity of power generation should be wooded from 500


grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour to 50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour by


2030. -- reduced. This is an enormous transformation in our


energy market over the next 13 years. A very short time. I am


warmly supportive of a Government strong manifesto commitments to


roots and the impact of climate change and reducing the greenhouse


gas emissions. There is much in this report that -- that supports that


agenda and underlined the importance of honest, straightforward


medication about the energy dilemma. It highlights the benefits


of better long-range planning and information about the costs of


energy shortfall. It recommends a rapid roll-out of smart meters and


better information for Parliament and consumers. I would particularly


highlight, as others have done, the key recommendation in paragraph two


for four on page 87 of the report. We recommend that the Government


publishes a systematic review of the evidence available on the predicted


costs of integration to 2013 and beyond, taking into account a wide


range of scenarios. This seems to be a plea for a much more detailed and


transparent long-term energy budget. I would encourage the managers --


the Minister to respond to this recommendation in particular in his


response to this debate. Managing the feature of -- the future of our


energy supply is vital for our quality of life, industry and our


economy and the future ecology of our world. I warmly welcome this


report. Because you remind us as we should


not need reminding that this industry is entirely about serving


individual people. We and the mac and unread since the bunch so the


effects of decisions we can influence can be very profound for


people across the country. My wish this evening is to talk about


something that we did not get into in this particular debate. We heard


that we were able to get away with that we were able to get away with


the low production margins of electricity because the system was


very diverse, very complex and in fact, if there was a breakdown, it


was only going to affect a small part of it. And that meant that the


resilience was there because the small part that broke down was not


the same as if, let's say, Hinkley point, the new power station, where


the breakdown, because that would knock out a very large chunk of


generating capacity of the screen in one go. My lords, one thing that we


did not talk about, because it would not have been particularly helpful,


is the amount of heat that the entirety of the electricity


generating industry creates. It is a remarkable thing, that not least of


the vital factors in running a major generating firm, is how you call the


mac cool it down. We supply energy all over the country to industry,


commerce and private homes. A large portion of that electricity will be


used to produce heat. Somehow we have to escape from the historic


trap that were written -- that we are in and because of the planning


system and particularly the old coal-fired generating stations were


pretty dirty places because they caused a great deal of atmospheric


pollution and could affect local communities, so quite rightly, the


generating part was far away from We now can escape from that and I


think we need to look at the whole planning system so that we can bring


a generating capacity to the very fringe of the communities they


serve. I hope somebody is not going to be too surprised at this, but we


used to have a wonderful generating station in Battersea. Part of the


solution was the heat. It affected Battersea and Chelsea. We could


reduce the overall electricity demand quite considerably if we


simply begin to put power generation in the areas of industrial sites and


so there is a policy implication here. I have no concern about the


health implications of the Hinkley Point generator: Some people might


have, but my view is that we actually have a large and very vital


part of our Navy is totally nuclear powered. We have men who live


without any ill effect in a totally enclosed environment next to a


nuclear reactor and so I do not think we have a health issue. If in


fact we stuck to bring places like Hinkley Point to the fringe of


London or to Battersea Power Station, too late, we would diminish


the pressure for increased electricity generation if this were


to happen. It is something we were not looking at because we were


looking at the way we're doing things now. I hope the noble Lord


will acknowledge that there are policy aspects of this issue that do


need radical reconsideration because I hope that by the time my grandson


's are my age, we will have a much more effective system and it would


be looking and saying, why did my grandparents and his generation who


knew there was a problem do something about it? I have interests


in the electricity industry but can I congratulate the noble earl. We


service colleagues for many years and I was delighted when he assumes


the chair and he has already proven himself in the production of the


report itself. I don't think we anticipated BB be -- we would be


debating this matter at this time of the deer because there is usually a


meteorological forecasting the coldest winter in living memory and


concluding we were all doomed to months of freezing darkness. I


wouldn't want to adopt that kind of view for the prospect for the next


few months. I think cautious optimism has called for four 2015


and 2016. The National Grid has forecast a loss of 1.5% which will


be met by some two percent of additional balancing services. I


could explain it all in simple terms but I won't trouble the House this


evening by going into great detail on it. Suffice to say a major


element on this will be the demand side management, which when we were


taking the airport, we were told we could be confident that 2015, 2016,


the lights would go out. We have a reasonable track record in this area


but the question remains, what of subsequent winters? Margins are


getting narrower and we should have dealt with the anticipated problem


earlier. It is easy to see that. I have been participating in debates


here on the other place for nearly 40 years and I have always heard


people say we must have a long-term strategy and the long-term


strategy, I mean, I came to Westminster in the 1970s when like


the welfare state, the coal industry was something we took pride in and


within about five years, the coal industry was to be destroyed and we


were embracing, in 1989, we embraced gas because we could start burning


the gas in the North Sea to keep our house is warm. The was a major


change in European policy and we embraced a gas fire stations and


then we got nuclear. Then we discovered it might be a bit


dangerous because we didn't know when gas was always going to come


from. The enthusiasm for gas this afternoon suggests he has forgotten


where a lot of the gas we depend on comes from and whether or not we


would want to be overdependent on some of those supplies. Nuclear was


out, gas was going to be the answer, then people began to wake up


to the fact that they were going to be shutting down nuclear power


stations which in those days accounted for about 25% of our


power. Even if we kept just the few coal fire power stations and then


the gas that European diktats were going to require us to start closing


them down as well. I'm very cautious when people tell us that what we


need is a long-term strategy because usually most long-term strategies


lost about seven or eight years maximum but at the same time I would


make the point that if we are investing in a nuclear power, we are


investing in energy which is very expensive at the beginning and which


has a very long life and it is therefore possible for you to pay it


back over time but it is nevertheless a major expense and we


know at the moment that it's one which is very difficult to attract


investors to. The point we have been the king at is that -- looking at is


that we have been the king at the closure of power stations and


introduction incapacity to quickly replace them and at the same time


having a dependence on renewables, dependencies on plans which are too


small and can be interrupted, and it is therefore the case that where we


can look forward with some confidence to Hinkley but it is not


quite in the fusion category yet but it is taking longer than we had


anticipated. It wasn't that many years ago and we thought we made


have seen the Christmas turkeys of 2017, 2018 being roasted with


nuclear generated electricity. I think if we're talking in terms of


2027, we might be more realistic. The French record of building


nuclear power stations is none too encouraging although one would hope


that having had to test runs in Finland and France that we might be


able to make a better job of Hinkley then we have done hitherto. The


electricity that will come from Hinkley will not be cheap because we


are in the unfortunate position of having the most expensive kit, the


one that takes longest and is most difficult to build deconstructed in


the UK. Some say we might see new players coming from other sources as


quickly as from Hinkley, but that's another issue. I think when we see


the issue of self-imposed demand management, this is seen by National


Grid as important and they will be sure that for the foreseeable future


there will be no enforced blackouts but this will add to be achieved by


merging electricity markets which are in the process of being reformed


and the committee expressed concern about quality of information on


which many judgments are being made, particularly the


appropriateness of the -- the reliability. We know the Government


is required by law to monitor this every five years. I think we would


be well advised to produce annual reports and not just have in the


last nine months before the end of the five years a dash to get the


information in place. The thing is that as has already been said, it is


not all indigenous generated power because we have got into a


connection -- interconnection and the information we received an


back-up generation and interconnection was somewhat less


than satisfactory and they would be interested to here from the minister


whether or not that information has been updated. Certainly, I think we


would want reassurance that the scaremongering which often provides


the headlines and pools the space between the adverts or on social


media which feeds the paranoia of the basic conspiracy theorists that


we need to have better information to dampen these anxieties at


source. It is fair to say that we were impressed by the awareness of


the appropriate authorities to the dangers of cyber attacks on the


system and terrorist threats. There was a reassuring absence of


complacency in these individuals. They seemed to certainly anticipate


what the bad guys would be trying to do and in that sense, we have some


degree of consolation but nevertheless, there is a requirement


for eternal vigilance in these areas as in so many others but I think


that we underestimate the dangers of cyber and other attacks on our


system. We also... I think we have to be cautious of better integrated


grids, all kind of possible technicalities, storage, batteries,


smart meters, electrical vehicles, the electricity of the transport


system. All these things will come at a cost. Many are still immature


technologies and cannot really be depended upon with any degree of


certainty. We had to strike a somewhat cautious note but I'd like


to think that the caution that the Government has responded to many of


our points with is a bit frustrating for select committees when the


report is produced, we have what we think is the most up-to-date


information and we get cautious responses. I draw some consolation


from my experience in select committees which goes back quite a


while and I are reminded of George Bernard Shaw who said of his father


that he was convinced he was one of the most ignorant men he had ever


met and yet by the time he was 21 he was surprised how much his father


had learned. Very often we find that in a very short time, before the


dust had settled on select committee recommendations that the civil


servants, the Government machine and even the ministers change their June


and I think it would be unfortunate if this were not to happen now


because this excellent report will only be ignorable for so long and


any later than that, it will be the peril of a economy.


he says he is concerned about where the gas will come from. Actually, we


are more dependent on imported coal and on imported gas. Over 85% of our


call is currently coming from abroad, 40% from Russia. I'm not


sure if I'm supposed to respond to that question. The point I'm making


is that you are a number of uncertain sources of gas and I think


that we would all agree that the nature of our dependence on coal is


essentially temporary in character and I think that the long-term


requirements of a section of our fossil fuels will be gas and it will


still be coming from areas which will be unpredictable politically


and socially, to say the least. This was a rigorous inquiry, cheered with


consummate skill by the Earl of Selborne and supported with detailed


expertise by Professor Jim Watson, a highly for press -- professional


causation by the committee staff led by Chris Clark. I joined others in


congratulating them all. I declare my interest as a fellow of the world


Society of the world Academy of engineering and the National


academies of engineering of the US, China and are still here, where I


have also discussed energy. I'm only going to discuss the committee's


recommendation that the Government should ensure that incentives are in


place so that all New Generation is built in such a way as to maximise


its flexibility whilst ensuring the costs insurers are minimised. The


emphasis on flexibility, but it is really about costs. I will briefly


discussed recommendation that the Government should disseminate


welcome friends of evidence from the potential costs of low-carbon


generation and improve during occasion with the public. --


communication. There has been significant progress over the past


two years in telling people what is happening despite what Lord O'Neill


has just said. We have been in a worse situation. We now have the


full set of strike prices, including that for nuclear power and it is


becoming possible to evaluate the various scenarios open to the


country. This is a welcome change from the time when it seemed that no


one knew what was possible or even what was happening. For example, I


recall a Government in late 2009 in assisting -- insisting we would have


eight gigawatts of offshore in the back -- wind capacity in the North


Sea by 2011. That was clearly impossible and revealed a total lack


of understanding of the challenges of that technology. I experienced


the new openness in a letter from the noble Lord born in answer to a


supplementary question I asked earlier this year. I thank the noble


Lord and Minister for his letter and apologise for being so late in doing


so. I had asked whether the capacity is your preferred to various


renewables with the gross capacities or the power actually delivered to


the great. He pointed out in his letter that they were the latter and


that the factors used for sure wind and solar water 24 to 32% and 9-11%


respectively. A welcome recognition of reality. Solar PV yields one


tenth of what it says on the label. It is clear that we are getting to


grips with the complex and difficult energy dilemma. 5 years after we


were told we would have eight gigawatts of offshore wind in the


North Sea we are at least approaching four gigawatts and state


is being just that tells us estimate the real costs of offshore wind,


although it will be a long time before we can assess the maintenance


costs of these huge machines in the hostile environment of the North


Sea. There is also some action, rather than endless talking, on new


nuclear. Even if it regrettably, we will not build it ourselves, but put


it in the hands of the front and the Chinese. Overall, we now have enough


data to assess quantitatively different combinations of power


generation type. Some of these have been laid out in the electricity


market reform delivery plan. What becomes clear, however, is that


renewable energy generation is extremely expensive. The strike


price for offshore wind, for example, has been set at more than


three times the cost of electricity today, that is 155 kilowatt compares


to 55 and is -- compared to ?50 per kilowatt hour of fossil fuel. The


reference price. It is also more than 50% higher than the ?92 per


kilowatt hour predicted for nuclear interim T203. -- in 2023. Offshore


winds provides about one third of the power shown in the delivery


plan, it will require the taxpayer to pay eight subsidy amount at two


thirds of the present class B D. That is twice the reference price


for about one third of the power generated. -- of the present


electricity. The high deployment of nuclear option would seem to provide


the lows cost from meeting our carbon targets, especially as


nuclear, delete -- as nuclear can be used to back-up the intermittent


renewables as well as British and little cotton, but this cost would


be much higher than the cost of electricity today. The high


deployment option might diverge as attractive in the future, but there


is too little evidence available at this time to evaluate. Hope is that


large cost reductions will be realised as the renewable methods


ask ale top but this is anything but certain. It is also argued that


energy bills are already coming down and this trend can be continued.


That the reductions we have seen recently have nothing to do with


progress with low-carbon generation. They have resulted from other


factors, and I will mention some. First, significant reductions in the


cost of fossil fuels. Data shows that between the second quarter of


2013 and 2015, energy suppliers page 20% less for gap -- for natural gas,


20% less per call and 40% less for oil. The noble Viscount Benj and


some of this already. -- Viscount mentioned. There is also products


policy. This is the adoption of European wide standards and energy


labels that have been increasing efficiency of household appliances,


it surely excellent initiative was that there is also the age of


percent energy saving that results from the use of LEDs rather than


incandescent bulbs and the increasing use of improved


insulation, even if we are not as good at that as the rest of Europe


and the ability better to monitor usage through the use of smart


meters. Realising these games is very good news. However, they are


likely to be overwhelmed and the vast increases in renewable


generation costs and the taxpayer will have to bear the burden imposed


upon them. The strike prices are higher than the reference price. It


is essential we continually monitor progress across the spectrum of


low-carbon energy generation and adjusting mixed to minimise costs.


Of course also while meeting our carbon targets. At present, the


geezers suggests that this will mean maximising the use of nuclear power


despite its higher cost. I impress upon the Minister the need for the


Government to press on with nuclear and I include small-scale modular


reactors, just as the Earl of Selborne mentioned. Before


finishing, I would like with others to emphasise the need to increase


support for R and energy generation and as stated in chapter


eight of the report, ensure that the objectives of the nuclear industrial


strategy recommended by now wrap are met. -- recommended are met. I would


like to look forward and join Lord Hennessy in saying a few words about


fusion power. There has been and remains a lot of scepticism about


fusion. But there has been recent progress in plasma fusion on three


fronts. First, and the International thermonuclear experimental Reactor


project in the South of France where a doughnut shaped reactor the sound


-- the size of the artistry of us being built with the aim of


producing the megawatt of output sometime in the late 1920s. There


have been delays in management problems, but in September and


important milestone was achieved call on the billion-dollar contract


was placed to deliver the 200 kilometres of superconducting wires


that would produce the magnetic field used to compress and finally


plasma and reach the temperature of ten times that of the Sun needed to


produce fusion. Second, here at column and at Princeton in the USA


to new things are being that the exploit a new John Terry of a fusion


chamber. These are known as spherical Tucker Max where the


reactor chamber is not a doughnut, but spherical. More like a chord


with a single conductor down the middle. The Georgia has been shown


to be three times more effective in harnessing the magnetic field. --


the geometry does that there are those like to make smaller reactors


feasible. Listening to his fascinating account of fusion, I am


brought back to 34 years ago, when I was Secretary of State and all of my


scientific advisers assured me that fusion would be economic within 25


years at most. Is it not dangerous to engage in wishful thinking? I


thank the noble Lord Lawson for that intervention. It is dangerous to be


overly optimistic, and people have accused some of the people working


on the new types of reactors of overoptimism. But the promise of


fusion, as Lord Hennessy said earlier in this debate, are so great


that I am not suggesting that we replace huge quantities of


investment elsewhere on work on fusion, I'm just suggesting that we


continue working on it because of the very great potential that it


has. I think it would be criminal to continue to pursue, but it surely as


we are making advances today. I am not suggesting at this stage that it


will be tomorrow's answer, it has always been tomorrow's technology


but sometime tomorrow's technologies come on the when we least expect it.


I will end on that optimistic note. If we could harness fusion power, we


would have a lot of our problems resolved. My Lords, I was not a


member of this excellent committee and I declare an interest as adviser


to Mitsubishi Electric. Like others, I totally agree that this is


extremely valuable as a report and I would go further to say that it


really costs a beam of light much-needed an area where we are


not, in the past, we have not been told the fall -- the full facts or


been explained what is rehabbing or what it will cost us. It is an


excellent report. Really happening. Messages tells is quite an appalling


one. That the reliability of power supplies should be even an issue in


one of the world's leading industrial nations, the nation that


founded the Industrial Revolution based on steam and power. That is


really quite amazing and deplorable. And it makes one ponder just what


had gone wrong, what has happened. This report helps enormously and we


are beginning to answer that question. We are right about that in


the short term and thanks largely to the immense skills of the National


Grid, which is a brilliant company and various devices that I will come


to deal with on both the supply side and demand side. In the next two or


three years we will have adequate power even at the most difficult


times unless something catastrophic happens. It is going to cost us


something and will be expensive and I will come to that as well. That is


an extra three years. Then the ages of the capacity margins in the


future. Whether that is the full capacity margin or not, however you


define it. It says the additional capacity brought forward by the


market is 49 gigawatts. That is true, but it doesn't tell the


story. The story is that in terms of new capacity, it brought forward the


options so far of miserably little. 2.7 gigawatts, which consists only


one single combined cycle gas turbine. Quite a big one and a lot


of small capacity. Otherwise, 2.7 gigawatts. That is against the


larger 49 figure. Subtitles will resume later.


Download Subtitles