---

Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

We have had to wait eight years for the Government to develop such an energy strategy—perhaps that was what the phone call was about—and we are still waiting. This Bill reiterates the need for the Secretary of State to produce a strategy, and requires that the Secretary of State make an annual report to the House about the progress of the micro-generation strategy produced. Like the Prime Minister’s report that the Bill advocates, the Secretary of State’s report will serve to make the Government more accountable to Parliament for both their successes and their failures. This Bill goes further than section 82 of the Energy Act 2004, as it makes statutory provisions for the Secretary of State to set targets for the take-up of micro-generation in Great Britain. The stability for the industry that such a target would offer could reduce prices by as much as 50 per cent.—those statistics come from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith. Microgeneration has huge advantages. The Sustainable Development Commission argues:"““Microgeneration technologies, in particular micro-renewables, have the potential to make a significant and prolonged contribution to efforts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide . . . it is hard to envisage a scenario whereby on-site generation of both electricity and heat will not play a major part in future energy supply.””" The locality and individual input of micro-generation demonstrates further advantages for its use. The fact that it sources energy locally means that on-site electricity generation substantially reduces the transmission losses that can account for 7 per cent. of total output. That information comes from the Sustainable Development Commission and answers some of the questions from Members who spoke of the loss through the National Grid. Microgeneration plainly has economic and environmental advantages. It empowers individuals to make a visible impact on climate change. Research has confirmed that when individuals are using micro-generation, their awareness of the environment and energy use increases. In October 2005, the Sustainable Consumption Roundtable reported:"““It seems that microgeneration provides a tangible hook to engage householders emotionally with the issue of energy use . . . Householders describe the sheer pleasure of creation and of self-sufficiency: ‘It’s like growing your own vegetables.’””" It went on:"““The installation of microgeneration had a profound effect on many individuals across the samples, in homes and schools. Instead of being invisible and unengaging, they could now see the creative process of energy being made and powering their buildings. The emotional benefits from the energy, such as warmth, comfort, light, entertainment, cooking and cleanliness, were now strongly associated with the energy source and made people feel good about their own technology.””" Evidence demonstrates that the more the Government promote micro-generation, the more uptake there will be. Clause 7 will enable consumers to sell the surplus energy that they produce back to the grid. That economic incentive should prompt more people to install micro-generation. I believe that there are already plans to use hydropower energy production on the River Thames to meet about a third of the energy demands of Windsor castle, and there are individual projects such as those on the River Stour in Dorset. There is, however, a massive lack of Government support for those measures. In response to provisions in the Energy Act 2004, the Sustainable Development Commission commented:"““Since 2003, we have seen two primary initiatives aimed at encouraging the installation of microgeneration technology—Clear Skies2, and the Major PV Demonstration Programme—but the extent of these programmes has been limited, with total funding over four years of around £42.5m. This has helped to create a domestic solar PV installation industry (and the UK’s first manufacturing plant in Wales), and has dramatically increased the growth of other microrenewables. But it has not led to the creation of mass-market status, and in most cases microgeneration companies are small, and operate in a niche market.””" I hope that the Minister will talk more about the Clear Skies 2 programme. He shook his head following an intervention about the time lag and the continuity of the programmes. If he has some good things to say I shall be grateful, because he needs to explain why the micro-generation industry is not happy and has been complaining. Our economy is the second largest in Europe, yet the United Kingdom accounts for only 2 per cent. of Europe’s installed thermal capacity. Germany managed to account for 47 per cent., more than 20 times as much. At the end of 2004, our installed capacity of photovoltaic energy production represented a mere 8.2 MWe out of an EU total of 410.5 MWe. Seven EU countries are installing more photovoltaic technology than we are, and even a country as small as Luxembourg can boast almost six times more photovoltaic capacity than us. The Minister has himself spoken of the need for micro-generation. In July, at the renewable power annual conference, he said:"““Our vision for the future is of an energy system that includes much more diverse, local energy generation. Small-scale renewable generation has an important part to play in helping the individual to make a contribution to our renewables targets and our wider energy policy goals.””" He went on to say that the Government"““must create the right competitive environment for these technologies to fulfil their potential.””" The Government are making over £800 million a year through the climate change levy. They should be able to fund some micro-generation projects, especially given that the costs of water turbines, for example, can be as low as £3,000. Earlier this month, during talks about climate change in London, the Prime Minister remarked:"““The solutions will come in the end, in part at least, through the private sector in developing technology and science.””" The Government have set themselves a target of reducing Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. In 1997 we were on target to achieve that; now that looks far less likely. The Government have been slow to respond to the changes, and it is the practical effects of many aspects of the Bill that will equip them to make a more positive response to climate change. Given the amount of Government rhetoric about climate change and sustainable energy production, why should not the Government support a Bill that would oblige them to do what they claim they want to do, but have not done yet?