---

Energy Bill

I oppose this amendment, but not because I disagree with the pursuit of carbon capture and storage technologies. If we are going to have a competition in which we have both technologies, we are talking about having two competitions with two winners. Arguments for both pre-combustion technology and post-combustion technology will be that no matter how good the ““post”” is, the ““pre”” will be just as valid. Governments have to make choices if they are constrained by resources. Some people would argue that this is harkening back to the old backing-winners approach to technology and all the problems that we have had over the years in that area. However, there is a case for the Government to be of some assistance, but the way in which this has been portrayed is that if you do not back both technologies, the pre-combustion technology will never happen in Britain. There are more ways to attract capital, to seek tax relief, to get allowances and to get the kind of support that that technology requires. As I understand it, in a market economy, an element of risk is involved. It would appear that there is greater potential for post-combustion technology in so far as very few other countries are concentrating on it. The two countries—America, and I think Norway—that are looking at carbon capture have gone for ““pre”” and we are going for ““post””. There is nothing to stop British companies joining Norwegian or American allies and getting involved. It is a gross overstatement on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to suggest that somehow it is being outlawed. Ultimately, if you do not win, you have had to spend the money anyway and you will lose anyway. The winning is a bonus. It is not a pre-condition of starting the game that you are going to win: there will be only one winner. Several companies, universities and utilities may well want to get involved in this. This is a phoney debate. If you want to have ““pre”” and ““post””, say that and tell us that there will be two winners. If you do not want that and you say, ““Let us just go with 'pre' because one or two people have been trying that out””, we should get rid of ““post””. To be honest, I do not think that this kind of ambivalence, this mugwump approach, is intellectually very robust. If we want to support carbon capture globally, we have to make choices. Governments have to shoulder that responsibility when they are resource-limited. This will not be cheap or easy and it might end up like fusion, but it is a great idea that will be realisable in anything from 20 to 35 years—that being a rolling timescale. I am not cynical. It can be done, but we have to have priorities. We have taken a priority that does not always suit the commercial ambitions of some of the people who are already in the field. Let us face it, if it was that good an idea and the Government had not introduced a competition, these people would have been investing anyway.