---

Energy Bill

My Lords, we have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about the inadequacy of government policy in this area. In Committee, the Minister said that: "““The Government’s commitment to all carbon capture technologies is clear””.—[Official Report, 12/6/08; col. GC 298.]" Yet he signally failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of that commitment. The Government’s competition was notable for its exclusion of promising technology, the delay that one has come to expect from the Government—not just in this area—and the eventual disappointment of many companies, which optimistically believed that the level of promised government support would be meaningful. I would have more sympathy for the Government’s concern for the cost in supporting technological development in this area if they were not so keen to promise the world in statements to the press and to stakeholders. They claim to understand the importance of carbon capture and storage technology, but then talk of various bodies having CCS ““as a possible theme””. As the private sector continually has to pay for the Government’s half-baked commitments that lead nowhere, it is becoming apparent that government policy towards CCS technology is not saving money, merely wasting it. I feel that I am repeating myself. The Conservative Party policy is clear on this. We have learned how counterproductive it is when Governments try to pick the winner, and we would support both pre- and post-production technology.