MICHAEL SETTLE
Scotland must be handed back control over a scheme backing new onshore wind
farms after it was betrayed by Westminster, the SNP has said.
The UK Government wants to scrap subsidies for new onshore turbines under
the renewables obligation (RO) by April – a year earlier than planned – in
an attempt to save millions of pounds.
But Callum McCaig, the SNP’s energy and climate change spokesman, told MPs
the Scottish Government only agreed to return its decision-making power
over the project under the explicit understanding no changes would take place.
He argued this power should be re-devolved given the changes being pushed
through by the Conservatives via the Energy Bill.
Peers have previously voted to remove the early closure of the RO from the
Bill although it has been reinserted in the Commons, with the Government
insisting it is a 2015 general election manifesto commitment from the Tories.
Speaking during the Bill’s report stage, Mr McCaig moved an amendment
returning the power to close the RO to Scottish ministers.
He said: “That power was re-reserved so to speak under the explicit
understanding that there would be no changes – there would be no closure,
there would be no material impact to Scotland from agreeing to that proposal.
“The proposal had intended, at the time, to allow for the closure later on
next year as had been previously agreed for the renewables obligation.”
Mr McCaig added: “I think there’s an element of trust and betrayal of trust
that has come into this agreement.
“That is something that has woven its way through the entirety of the
Government’s handling of onshore wind and the closure of the renewables
obligation.”
Conservative Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) said many of his colleagues
would like to see the SNP commit to paying for the RO requirement should
the power be returned, noting: “There’s only half of that in this
particular amendment.”
Mr McCaig, intervening, said: “Would you accept we will be paying the
extortionate price for your party’s nuclear power if you get your way?”
Mr Heaton-Harris replied: “If we’re talking about paying for things, I
wonder how the SNP would have paid for their proposals had they gone
independent on an oil price that is residing around 30 to 40 (US) dollars a
barrel.”
Labour called for the closure of renewable obligation subsidies for onshore
wind to be delayed for a year to March 2017.
Alan Whitehead warned that stating that it will close on March 31 this year
could leave the Government open to legal challenge if the Bill is bogged
down in parliamentary ping pong between the Commons and Lords and does not
become law before that date.
The shadow energy minister said: “We stand in danger of being in the
position, not as far as investor confidence or investor certainty or
investor consideration of what they should do, but actually what we do in
terms of exposing this House to the potential of legal action relating to
the fact that although a renewable obligation will have been closed
administratively by this Government, it will not have been closed
legislatively by this Government.”
Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom insisted the closure should apply across
Great Britain and would have had no effect on business.
“The Government believes that the early closure and grace period provision
that we’ve presented within the Bill strike the right balance between
protecting investor confidence and ensuring our ability to control costs
under the levy control framework,” she said.
“Far from Government policy actually putting investors off investing in
renewable energies in the UK, in fact it seems that significant investment
is still coming forward.”
She added: “It is imperative that the early closure applies consistently
across Great Britain in order to protect consumers from the risk of
over-deployment beyond what has been agreed as affordable.”
She said in 2015/2016 around £520 million or around 60% of RO support will
go towards funding Scottish onshore wind farms, despite only 10% of
taxpayers living in Scotland.
Conservative MP John Redwood said Europe is becoming an area that produces
little energy at a high cost, which is driving business to Asia and
America, where there is more plentiful and affordable energy available.
He said: “I wish the Government to get on with removing subsidies to
onshore wind in the way that we said we would do. We gave plenty of notice
of this and the sooner we do it the sooner we get a bit closer to having a
less-damaged energy market.”
Labour’s bid to delay the closure of renewable obligation subsidies for
onshore wind was defeated, with MPs voting 270 to 183 to stick to the
original date.
Mr McCaig later withdrew his amendment on returning RO powers to Scotland.
The SNP front bencher also called for the Government to bring forward a
“proper, well-thought-out and well-consulted” strategy for carbon capture
and storage technology (CCS).
A £1 billion CCS fund – a competition which aimed to find ways to limit
pollution from power stations – was scrapped last year.
Mr McCaig said: “We have seen the Government be all over the shop when it
comes to carbon capture and storage.
“One minute they’re for it, one minute they’re against it, one minute it’s
not working and then the next it’s promising for the future.”
He criticised the impact of the “severe mixed-messages” on investor
confidence.
Mr McCaig added: “If there’s going to be investment from industry, which I
certainly hope, and I get the general impression on both sides of this
House there are honourable members who wish to see this become a reality in
the United Kingdom, then we need an unequivocal statement from the
Government and we need an unequivocal strategy which is what I’m calling
for today.”
Ms Leadsom said she was frustrated by opposition parties trying to push the
Government to agree to “expensive and inflexible targets”.
“We are committed to ensuring the UK continues to do its part to tackle
climate change in line with the Climate Change Act and our international
and EU obligations,” she said.
“However, we want to do this as cost-effectively as possible to keep costs
down for family and businesses whilst delivering on legally-binding
commitments.”
She added: “I find it strange that opposition parties are often arguing
that we’re not doing enough to tackle fuel poverty and yet they’re urging
us to sign consumers up to distorting and expensive power sector targets.”
2 Comments