Energy Bill

That was one of my misgivings about the compromise that we reached on new clause 15—I always say to people that I am permanently undone by my excess of reasonableness. It would have been better had we stuck to new clause 6, but in order to get something through that commits us to a statutory framework, I can live with the notion—and so can groups outside this place—that we can work within what we have in new clause 15 and come back, as we will have to do, to address how we retrofit what already exists. I wish to run through the arguments that have been floated against the proposal. The biggest scare story has been that any standards framework will deter new investment. It was helpful to hear Deutsche Bank trashing that this morning. It made the point that when energy companies talk about new investment they will invariably come to the banks to raise the finance and it is the banks that are saying that they want TLC—transparency, longevity and certainty. That is the framework that they see as helpful in setting an emissions performance standard. The issue about investment being driven elsewhere has been raised. Probably the best example from our shores that I can cite is the decision made by the company formed by BP and Rio Tinto—this relates to the projects of their hydrogen energy company. The original proposal was to build a power station in Peterhead, Scotland, but that was withdrawn and the decision was taken to build the power station in California, where a requirement for an emissions performance standard is already in place. The company was saying to us that if the combination of finance and regulation is put in place, that delivers the certainty that allows investors to invest. It seems nonsensical to claim that to have standards would deter investment rather than the contrary, which is that it would give the certainty to investment that investors are looking for.