I thank the Minister for her powerful explanation of the case for developing shale gas. She also mentioned the fact that this legislation and, indeed, the whole consultation extended to geothermal energy. It is about that that I would like to say a few words in support of the amendment which I have tabled to the Government’s first new clause.
I totally support the case for extending the right to underground access. It is essential, and equally essential for both shale gas and geothermal energy. One of the advantages of the recess was that the Government’s response to the consultation was published when we had a bit of time to look at it. I have read it from cover to cover. I have to say that it was not a particularly interesting exercise. I admire very much the detailed attention which was given to the public’s replies to the consultation, and I was not in the least bit surprised that the exercise was used by large numbers of people not to address the main questions the consultation was about. It evoked a torrent of opposition from organisations and people who have declared themselves totally opposed to any form of shale gas development. One thing that rather amused me was the criticism made by some of the people who put in a response about the inclusion of geothermal energy in the same consultation, as if somehow the Government were spoiling their protest by adding something which they probably supported. Conditions about underground access and the need for a simpler process, which I totally support, apply equally well to both. That is made perfectly clear in the impact statement about geothermal activities, which says:
“Operators wishing to extract geothermal energy have to negotiate with landowners for underground access. This is a time consuming, uncertain and potentially costly process. If a landowner refuses access, that project cannot continue”,
or would go ahead only after a lengthy and expensive process.
One thing I gained from the report, the Government’s response and the consultation is just how much more needs to be done by the industry and the Government to make the case for the development of shale gas. The Government have made it perfectly clear—indeed, my noble friend repeated it this afternoon—that over the next 20 or 30 years gas is bound to play a significant role in our energy supplies and how much better that we should have indigenous sources rather than being increasingly subject to the vagaries of a flexible and perhaps unpredictable international market.
I have discussed this with the trade association that represents onshore gas developments. It entirely recognises the problem, but I was left a bit unclear about what it is planning to do about it. It is something that has to be done, and the Government certainly have to take a lead on that.
Geothermal energy is important in this context. When I started reading the paper, I was aware that I did not know nearly as much about geothermal energy as I should. I know that my noble friend Lord Teverson is very knowledgeable about it—he has geothermal in his part of the country, Cornwall—but I was not, so I asked a number of people to explain to me what the potential is, how it should be developed and what they were doing about it. I found that immensely interesting.
I do not propose to use this speech to deliver a lecture to noble Lords, but I will make three short points. Geothermal energy promises to be part of the future energy mix of the United Kingdom. It offers a supply of secure, low-carbon energy without the variability of wind and wave. It is derived from heat radiating from the centre of the earth and must not be confused with ground-source heat from solar warming. That is quite important: one is talking about sources of heat that may be a kilometre, a kilometre and a half or even two kilometres deep.
4 pm
Secondly, a number of commercially successful systems already operate in the United Kingdom, including that in Southampton, which is now very well known. The British Geological Survey has located geothermal basins all over the United Kingdom. The opportunities are therefore immense. I am told that less than 1% of the world’s potential supply of geothermal energy is currently being exploited, which leaves an enormous opportunity for a steady, low-carbon source of energy to be used for the benefit of people. China is in fact the largest producer of geothermal heat and the US is the largest producer of geothermal power.
The third point is that geothermal energy comes in a wide variety of temperatures. Much of it is not hot enough to generate electricity and could be boosted only at an unreasonable expense, which in most places is not regarded as worth while. However, it is a source of heat and it can be and is used for providing heat for a variety of sources—not just domestic heat, but industrial heat and so on. That is particularly true of the substantial sedimentary basins at depths of one and a half to even four kilometres, as in Cheshire, eastern England and the Wessex basins. Heat is every bit as important as the generation of electricity—indeed, from this source probably more so.
This brings me to my amendment to the Government’s new clause. Subsection (5) of that clause refers to Scotland. I have no doubt that my noble friend the Duke of Montrose will enlighten us on this, but all the preceding subsections of that clause refer simply to exploiting deep geothermal energy, without circumscribing the purpose for which it is to be used. Subsection (5) confines it in Scotland to where the “sole, or main, use” of a site is “the generation of electricity”. I cannot understand why. Can they not use geothermal for heat purposes in Scotland? This subsection must have been put in for some purpose, but for the life of me I have not been able to discover what it is—nor, I must say, have those advising me. This impact may be the result of some technicality of devolution, but in Scotland, under this clause, or using the facilities provided under this clause, geothermal can be used only for the production of electricity. I would be very interested to know what lies behind the need for this subsection. I commend this amendment to the Committee.