03/11/2015 House of Lords

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