Expect the lights to burn late in the Lords

Given that the Energy Bill addresses key issues surrounding energy policy including security of supply, climate change and the effects of pricing, it is bound to excite as much debate when it goes to the Lords as it did in the Commons.

At second reading in the Commons those measures in the Bill related to civil nuclear energy were a recurring theme. Speakers in favour of getting the nuclear programme restarted largely based their arguments on energy security and the need for a reliable, carbon-free energy source.

Opponents argued the traditional case that nuclear is unsafe but expounded a newer argument that nuclear could not deliver a significant amount of energy before 2020, by which time the fight against global warming could be lost if all our efforts are not put into developing renewable energy sources.

The traditional committee stage was preceded by evidence-taking sessions. Evidence was offered by witnesses arguing that the Bill was insufficient to encourage smart meters’, ‘feed in tariffs’ and to encourage ‘carbon capture’, while trade representatives broadly supported the balance struck by the government.

In the committee proper a significant amount of time was given over to discussing whether measures in the Bill to encourage an expansion of gas storage facilities were adequate.

Until recently, the government argued, most of our gas supply was produced within the UK and so extensive storage facilities were not needed. Now we are net importers and we need increased storage capacity in case supplies from overseas are disrupted and the restoration of our supply is beyond our immediate control.

Another issue thoroughly debated was around the long-term storage of nuclear waste and the funding of a long-term repository. The Bill may not, opponents tried to argue, adequately ensure the costs of waste disposal are carried by the nuclear industry in the future. The contrary view that the industry was being asked to shoulder an unfair burden was argued equally forcefully.

Likewise, there was an extensive debate over whether the Bill did enough to promote the development of renewable energy, especially since the EU was likely to require that significantly more of our short-term energy supply comes from renewable sources than had been expected when the Bill was drafted. The government argued that it would be returning to the House in due course with new proposals to further accelerate renewable take-up and that it would be premature to go further than the Bill currently proposed.

Measures to encourage the development of carbon capture were also thoroughly debated and considerable attention was given to the government’s handling of contracts for a pilot project.

Given that one witness had argued during oral evidence that greenhouse gas reduction on a scale, and in a time frame, sufficient to prevent further climate change could only be achieved if a practical means of carbon capture was developed and deployed this may be an area that the Lords will wish to return to.

Other areas that were discussed, but which the Lords might wish to reopen, include smart-metering and the use of ‘feed in tariffs’. There was support from all sides for smart metering but, arguably, this part of the debate was held in something of a vacuum since at the time of the committee the government was yet to publish its proposals for smart meter specifications and feed-in tarrifs were the most controversial of the subjects discussed at Report Stage.

The committee stage dealt with all clauses of the Bill comfortably in the time allowed. However, given that energy policy excites such strong opinions of such pivotal importance to so many agendas I would be surprised if the Lords do not, nevertheless, re-examine it in great detail.

Dr Stephen Ladyman is MP for South Thanet.